---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, September 14, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 178

                            Headlines

360 DIGITECH: Klein Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
861 REST: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Castaneda et al. Claim
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Jan. 7, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: ClaimsFiler Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Vincent Wong Reminds of October 4 Deadline

ACUSHNET COMPANY: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER: Bid for Class Status Tossed in Toney Suit
AIRBNB INC: Faces MD&C Initiated Putative Class Suit
ALLERGAN: Settles Suit Related to Price-Fixing Scandal for $130M
ALLSTATE FIRE: Class-Action Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Unlawfully Collected Biometrics, Suit Says
ANNOVIS BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 18 Deadline
APPLE INC: May Face Class Action Over M1 MacBook Screen Cracks
ARDELYX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline

BACKSTREETS GRILL: Wolff et al. Sue Over Illegal Tip Pooling
BANKSIA HILL: Suit Seeks Justice for Harmed Youth Detainees
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Lawsuit Accuses Police of Racial Profiling
BOOZ ALLEN: Class Cert. Hearing on Hunter Suit Reset for Oct. 22
BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Class Action Underway

BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Gender Bias Suit Granted Preliminary OK
C PEPPER: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Flinn Suit Partly OK'd
CARLOTZ INC: Continues to Defend Turk Putative Class Suit
CARLOTZ INC: Erdman Putative Class Suit Underway in New York
CARLOTZ INC: Widuck Putative Class Suit Ongoing

CARNIVAL PLC: Fails to Block Passengers to Join COVID Outbreak Suit
CARNIVAL PLC: Judge Rules US And UK Passengers Can Join COVID Suit
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 26 Deadline

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Discloses Securities Class Action
CHATHAM-KENT, ON: Strosberg Sasso Prepares Class Action Lawsuit
CLASSMATES.COM: Uses Indiana Info Without Consent, Suit Alleges
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Reaches $95M Settlement in Shareholders Suit
COMCAST CABLE: Blum Sues Over False Promises and Misrepresentations

CURATIVE INC: Belnavis Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Culbertson Suit Approved
DOORDASH INC: Marko Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
DREAM STREET: Sexton Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
DYNAMIC EVENT: Antigua Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

EFINANCIAL LLC: Borden Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Millam Sues Over Mislabeled AA MAX Batteries
FIRST HORIZON: Faces Williams Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLINT, MI: Class Certification Bid in Water Cases Partly Granted
FMC CORP: Overwatch Class Action Mulled, May Pay Compensation

GENERAL MOTORS: Hid Defective Truck Airbags From Drivers, Suit Says
GEORGIA: Dismissal of Black Voters' Constitutional Claims Affirmed
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Biometric Privacy Class Action in Illinois
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Voice Assistant Privacy Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: Welker Sues Over Disability Discrimination, Termination

GRANITE ROCK: Denial of Bid to Certify Class in Altiery Affirmed
HAWAI'I: 5-Member Panel to Oversee Prison COVID-19 Response Plan
HAWAI'I: Inmates Reach Class Settlement in COVID-19 Lawsuit
HEAVENLY VALLEY: Hamilton Suit Removed to E.D. California
HERBERT D. BUTTERCUP: Alonzo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

HONEYWELL INT'L: Stipulated Protective Order in Ogaz Suit Approved
HUSKY OIL: Zimmerman Reed Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
HYRECAR INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
HYRECAR INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
HYRECAR INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline

INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS: Gomez Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics Usage
INMEDIATA HEALTH: Stasi Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to D.P.R.
INTERNAL CREDIT: Sandberg et al. Sue Over Illegal Dunning Letter
INTRUSION INC: Bid to Consolidated Celeste & Neely Suit Pending
ITALIAN GOLD: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klein Putative Class Suit in Illinois
JAGUAR HEALTH: Plant Settlement Gets Final Nod
JELLY BELLY: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Lucero Suit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Evansville Suit Claims
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Haddix Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
LENOVO US: Advertises Products at False Discount Prices, Suit Says
LIFEMD INC: Cho Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
LIFEMD INC: Continues to Defend Sosa ADA Class Action
LIFEMD INC: Owens Putative Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Junked

LIVE VENTURES: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 12 Deadline
LOAN DEPOT: Bottini & Bottini Reminds of November 6 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 8 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Reminds of Nov. 8 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: George Troicky Appointed as Lead Plaintiff

MATTEL INC: Bid to Continue Class Status Hearing to Oct. 4 Nixed
MORTON SALT: Faces Brown Suit Over Mislabeled Himalayan Salt
MOUNTAIN VIEW: Begins Enforcing Ban on Most RV Street Parking
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccination Policy
NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD: Class Action Over Paper Mill Odor Ongoing

NMC HEALTH: November 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NORTH AMERICAN: Hoffman Suit Remanded to New Jersey Super. Court
NORTHWESTERN RETIREMENT: Cert. Petition Filed in Retirement Suit
NVR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Cossaboom Amended Complaint
ORBCOMM INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit

OSL RETAIL: Faces Purvis Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Team Leads
PACIFIC BEACH: Whitehair Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
PARKER HANNIFIN: Malauulu Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline

PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing Underway in Canada
PONTO LLC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PORTUS 821: Fischler Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Website Access
POSTMATES INC: Bobrow Sues Over Misleading Delivery Service
PRINCESS CRUISE: Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak to Continue

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
QUALITY PACKAGING: Callender Stayed Pending Tims & Cothron Rulings
SADDLEBACK LEATHER: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAFE BOX: Gilmore Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Settlement in Contamination Suit Proposed

SAMUEL STANLEY: Norris Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
SAUER BRANDS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SEASIDE INN: Building Inaccessible to Disabled, Fultz Suit Claims
SELECTQUOTE INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 15 Deadline
SESEN BIO: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 18 Deadline

SESEN BIO: Pomerantz Law Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SESEN BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SHORELINE TREATMENT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Unpaid Wages
SILVER SUPERSTORE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Court Rules Class Action Lawsuit Against Firm

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
SPROUT FOODS: Key Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Info
STEPHEN HERETICK: Dockery Loses Amended Bid for Class Certification
STERLING BANCORP: Sept. 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing

STONEMOR INC: Fried Putative Class Action Still Stayed
SYMANTEC CORP: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Approval of $70MM Settlement
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
T-MOBILE US: Customers File Data Breach Class Actions in Calif.
T-MOBILE USA: Christie Files Suit in D. New Jersey

TIVITY HEALTH: Mag. Judge to Look Into Approval of Lackawanna Deal
TRULIEVE INC: Settles FCRA Lawsuit After Class Certification
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 30 Deadline
U.S. ANESTHESIA PARTNERS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Suit Says
VISTA AUTO: Fails to Properly Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Awarded Costs in Takata Airbag Class Action
WATERBURY BUILDING: Faces Lawsuit After Deadly Mass Shelter Fiasco
WESTAMERICA BANK: Appeal From Costs Order in Reddish Suit Tossed
WESTRIDGE MARKETING: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
XL FLEET: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suh & Kumar Suits

YALLA GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 12 Deadline
YALLA GROUP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 12 Deadline
YALLA GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 12 Deadline
YIELDSTREET INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y.
ZIPRECRUITER INC: Former Employee's Putative Class Suit Underway


                            *********

360 DIGITECH: Klein Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Sept. 6 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ:QFIN)
Class Period: April 29, 2021 - July 7, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period 360
DigiTech, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting
personal information in violation of relevant People's Republic of
China laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was
exposed to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or
enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in QFIN:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19385&from=1

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI)
Class Period: August 4, 2016 - July 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021

Activision Blizzard, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Activision Blizzard discriminated against women and minority
employees; (2) Activision Blizzard fostered a pervasive "frat boy"
workplace culture that continues to thrive; (3) numerous complaints
about unlawful harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation were made to human resources
personnel and executives which went unaddressed; (4) the pervasive
culture of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation would result
in serious impairments to Activision Blizzard's operations; (5) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company was at greater risk of
regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement, including that which
would have a material adverse effect; (6) Activision Blizzard
failed to inform shareholders that the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing had been investigating Activision
Blizzard for harassment and discrimination; and (7) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Activision Blizzard's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ATVI:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=19385&from=1

Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE:ANVS)
Class Period: May 21, 2021 - July 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021

The complaint alleges that throughout 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ANVS:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19385&from=1

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

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

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

861 REST: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Castaneda et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANCISCO CASTANEDA and THELMA ROSSIO NOLASCO,
individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. 861 REST, INC. d/b/a PARK CAFE, CHRISTOS AVERKIOU,
and SOFOKELIS DERTOUZOS, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-07269 (S.D.N.Y., August 30, 2021) rises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Castaneda was employed by the Defendants as a busboy and
delivery man approximately from April 2016 until March 2020.
Plaintiff Nolasco has also worked for the Defendants as a cashier
and hostess approximately from August 2015 until March 2020.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees worked more than 40 hours each
workweek, the Defendants willfully failed to pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Defendants allegedly failed to pay them an allowance for uniform
maintenance. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide them
with a wage statement and with a notice and acknowledgement at the
time of hiring, and also failed to post or keep posted notices
explaining the minimum wage rights of employees under the FLSA and
NYLL, says the suit.

861 Rest, Inc. operates as a full-service restaurant. Christos
Averkiou and Sofokelis Dertouzos are owners, shareholders,
officers, and managers of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Tel: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com

ACER THERAPEUTICS: Jan. 7, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 6 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of Acer Therapeutics Inc.
common stock (NASDAQ:ACER):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY
TRADED COMMON STOCK OF ACER THERAPEUTICS INC. ("ACER") FROM
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 24, 2019, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
telephonic hearing will be held on January 7, 2022, at 12:00 p.m.
before the Honorable Gregory H. Woods, United States District Judge
of the Southern District of New York, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$8,350,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the Settlement Amount ($2,783,333.33) plus a
proportionate share of interest accrued on the Settlement Amount,
Lead Counsel's reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred of not
more than $200,000, and Award to Lead Plaintiff of not more than
$10,000, should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated July 21, 2021 (the "Stipulation").
To participate in or listen to the Settlement Hearing, dial:
1-888-633-0347 and enter access code 39444610#.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Acer common
stock between September 25, 2017 and June 24, 2019, both dates
inclusive ("Settlement Class Period") and suffered compensable
damages thereby, your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in Acer common stock. You may
obtain copies of the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Securities Class Action ("Notice") and the Proof of
Claim and Release Form by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: Acer Therapeutics Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the
Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at
www.strategicclaims.net/Acer/. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
electronically or postmarked no later than December 8, 2021 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and desire to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than December
17, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.
All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection by a Settlement Class Member to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation, Lead Counsel's requests for an award to Lead Counsel
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Award to Lead
Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice and received no later than December 17, 2021, by each of the
following:

Clerk of the Court
United States Southern District Court
District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

LEAD COUNSEL:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Brian Alexander
275 Madison Avenue
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Jamie Levitt
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Brian Alexander
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
balexander@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: August 11, 2021                        

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: ClaimsFiler Reminds of October 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI)
Class Period: 8/4/2016 - 7/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 4, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-atvi-2/

Zymergen Inc. (ZY)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the
April 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 4, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-zy/

Annovis Bio, Inc. (ANVS)
Class Period: 5/21/2021 - 7/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-anvs/

Sesen Bio, Inc. (SESN)
Class Period: 12/21/2020 - 8/17/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-sesn/

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                           About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Vincent Wong Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Sept. 6 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=19392&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021

Class Period: August 4, 2016 - July 27, 2021

Allegations against ATVI include that: (1) Activision Blizzard
discriminated against women and minority employees; (2) Activision
Blizzard fostered a pervasive "frat boy" workplace culture that
continues to thrive; (3) numerous complaints about unlawful
harassment,

discrimination, and retaliation were made to human resources
personnel and executives which went unaddressed; (4) the pervasive
culture of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation would result
in serious impairments to Activision Blizzard's operations; (5) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company was at greater risk of
regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement, including that which
would have a material adverse effect; (6) Activision Blizzard
failed to inform shareholders that the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing had been investigating Activision
Blizzard for harassment and discrimination; and (7) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Activision Blizzard's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Iterum Therapeutics Plc (NASDAQ:ITRM)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/iterum-therapeutics-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=19392&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021

Class Period: November 30, 2020 - July 23, 2021

Allegations against ITRM include that: (i) the sulopenem New Drug
Application ("NDA") lacked sufficient data to support approval for
the treatment of adult women with urinary tract infections caused
by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly
suspected to be nonsusceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the Food and Drug Administration would approve
the sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii) Defendants downplayed
the severity of issues and deficiencies associated with the
sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE:ANVS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19392&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021

Class Period: May 21, 2021 - July 28, 2021

Allegations against ANVS include 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.

Image:
https://www.accesswire.com/users/newswire/images/662860/Wong_CTA-LOGO.png

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

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

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002

Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

ACUSHNET COMPANY: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BLANCA GARCIA and MATILDE CABRERA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ACUSHNET COMPANY;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00029094-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on September 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01581-BEN-LL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked,
failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize
or permit rest periods, failure to timely pay earned wages during
employment, failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay all earned wages and final
paychecks due at time of separation of employment, and unfair
business practices.

Acushnet Company is an American company focused on the golf market,
headquartered in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Paula M. Weber, Esq.
         Alekzandir Morton, Esq.
         PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 983-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
         E-mail: paula.weber@pillsburylaw.com
                 alekzandir.morton@pillsburylaw.com

ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER: Bid for Class Status Tossed in Toney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE TONEY v. ADVANTAGE
CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP, INC. and STRATICS NETWORKS, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-00182-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy W. Berger
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's objection is overruled.

   2. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and
      confirmed.

   3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied.

   4. The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

   5. All other pending motions are denied as moot.

   6. The clerk is directed to close this case.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Xg7pmm at no extra charge.[CC]

AIRBNB INC: Faces MD&C Initiated Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Airbnb, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a putative
class action suit initiated by Dutch Foundation for Mass Damages
and Consumers ("MD&C").

In 2019, the Dutch special-purpose claims vehicle Twee Heren B.V.
filed a claim against Airbnb Ireland UC alleging that Airbnb
improperly collected guest fees for certain real estate
transactions.

On July 16, 2021, the Advocate General at the Dutch High Court
issued a non-binding opinion regarding preliminary questions
referred by the Rotterdam District Court in this matter.

The opinion of the Advocate General recommends that the Dutch High
Court rule against Airbnb on certain issues relevant to the Twee
Heren case.

Airbnb continues to dispute these claims and plans also to file a
response in opposition to various points made in the opinion of the
Advocate General.

On July 12, 2021, MD&C filed a purported class action against
Airbnb asserting claims similar to the claim in the Twee Herein
matter on behalf of all guests who paid fees to Airbnb.

The Advocate General's opinion, while issued in connection with the
case filed by Twee Heren, addresses certain issues that also arise
in the purported class action filed by MD&C.

Airbnb, Inc. is a community based on connection and belonging—a
community that was born in 2007 when two hosts welcomed three
guests to their San Francisco home, and has since grown to 4
million hosts who have welcomed over 900 million guest arrivals to
approximately 100,000 cities in almost every country and region
across the globe. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


ALLERGAN: Settles Suit Related to Price-Fixing Scandal for $130M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis O'Toole at chicagoclearing.com reports the following
information:

Case Name: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation

Class Period: 10/29/2013 -- 11/02/2016

Settlement Fund: $130,000,000  

Claim Filing Deadline: 12/27/2021

Allergan, the Irish pharmaceutical company formerly known as
Actavis, has settled a securities suit over alleged collusion and
otherwise misleading investors that its profits were, "legitimately
(and legally) increasing." Settlement notice are hitting investors
mailboxes and inboxes.

According to the class action complaint, filed November 4, 2016,
"Allergan plc and Actavis plc were engaging and/or had engaged in
conduct that would result in an antitrust investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice. . . . The DOJ investigation and the
underlying conduct could cause U.S. prosecutors to file criminal
charges against Allergan plc and Actavis plc by the end of 2016 for
suspected price collusion; and. . . . as a result, Allergan plc's
and Actavis plc's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times."

Allergan has settled for $130 million, claim forms are due December
27, and Chicago Clearing is ready to file for you right now.

Do you qualify for this litigation?

There are three sub-classes to this litigation:

(1) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Allergan plc (before June 15, 2015, known as Actavis plc) common
and/or preferred stock between October 29, 2013 and November 2,
2016, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby;

(2) all persons and entities who held Forest Laboratories common
stock as of May 2, 2014, and were entitled to vote on the Forest
Merger, and acquired shares of Allergan common stock in the Forest
Merger and were damaged thereby; and

(3) all persons and entities who held Allergan, Inc. common stock
as of January 22, 2015, and were entitled to vote on the Actavis
Merger, and acquired shares of Allergan common stock in the Actavis
Merger and were damaged thereby.

How Can Chicago Clearing Help?

Let's see: three subclasses, three companies, three common stocks
and two preferred stocks, some symbol and CUSIP changes, a couple
of mergers. . . . Do you want to dig into your trade data or each
of your clients' data all the way back to 2013 and parse through
all of that? I mean, was Obama still president in 2013? Did we have
smart phones even, or did they arrive later?

Retrieving old trade data is a pain, mergers and CUSIP changes are
confusing, and filing claims in securities class action is a
time-consuming distraction from the real work of investing and
managing client accounts. Chicago Clearing can handle everything
for you and your clients, from filing claims to replying to
deficiencies and contesting rejections to allocating funds to your
account or to your clients directly. We will then present each of
your claims on a simple, smart, and secure website so you can track
the progress in real time. We can even tell you who was president
during the start of the class period!

What is this case about?

On August 6, 2015, Allergan announced that they had received a
subpoena from the Departmant of Justice on June 30, 2015 regarding
its possible participation in a price-fixing scheme with other
generic drug manufacturers, such as Mylan N.V., Teva
Pharmaceuticals, Impax Laboratories, and Taro Pharmaceuticals,
among many others. Bloomberg noted that with the subpoena, Allergan
became "the biggest company yet to draw scrutiny in the
government's widening antitrust probe of the industry."

After this announcement, shares of Allergan plc fell 5% $ to close
at $319.47 per share on August 6, 2015. A steady decline continued
well into 2016, when finally on November 3, 2016 of that year
Bloomberg reported that the DOJs ongoing collusion investigation of
a dozen companies, including Allergan plc, might result criminal
charges by the end of 2016. On this news, Allergan stock dropped
another 4% to close at $188.82.

The DOJ's criminal investigations of the pharmaceutical industry
are ongoing, and in fact on January 6 of this year the government
intervened in this very litigation, in a motion to the court
stating that, "This civil litigation shares common questions of law
and fact with the Antitrust Division's investigation into the
generic pharmaceutical industry and pending criminal Proceedings."
We are tracking those proceedings as well as related civil
antitrust proceedings.

Call Us Today

With the experts at Chicago Clearing on your side, you don't have
to worry about the intricacies of this case-or of any other. We
will file accurately, comprehensively, and on time, every time. We
add value to your portfolio and your service offering by recovering
every dollar you are owed. Call us today at 312-204-6970, and we'll
get started. [GN]

ALLSTATE FIRE: Class-Action Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano at insurancebusinessmag.com reports that Allstate has
reached an agreement with a law firm to dismiss the latter's
proposed class-action lawsuit against the insurer - a lawsuit that
accused Allstate of using unqualified expert witnesses in insurance
litigation.

Richmond, TX-based The Estes Law Firm originally proposed the class
action in January 2021. Proposed on behalf of thousands of law
firms in Texas, the lawsuit claimed that Estes wasted time and
resources over the past four years responding to the testimony of
three allegedly "unqualified" expert witnesses retained by Allstate
Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.

Estes also accused Allstate and its experts of attempting to
"harass, delay and bully plaintiffs" by disregarding the
controverting affidavit requirements of Chapter 18 under Texas'
Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

The proposed class-action lawsuit named the expert witnesses Marc
Chapman, Rhonda Guitreau and Jana Schieber as defendants. Estes
alleged that Chapman runs a consulting firm and has served as a
"reimbursement manager" at a hospital but is not a doctor. The law
firm also alleged that Schieber was previously a working nurse in
the 1990s, but continued to provide expert testimony about the
billing rates for orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic doctors,
chiropractors, radiologists and other medical professionals.

But, a joint stipulation was filed by The Estes Law Firm and
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance, which informed US District
Judge Andrew S. Hanen that they had agreed to dismiss the claims
with prejudice.

Kent Adams, a lawyer from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicer
LLP representing two of the defendants, told Law360 that the
proposed lawsuit may have been dropped following a Texas Supreme
Court ruling in May, in another case Allstate is involved in. The
court had ruled that under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
Section 18.001, an expert can file a counter-affidavit based on
credentials and education without being a specialized medical
professional themselves.

Law360 also reported that the motion filed by Estes and Allstate
does not mention whether the two have entered a settlement.[GN]

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court in Illinois recently denied an insurance
provider's motion to dismiss a TCPA class action complaint, finding
that the alleged use of a predictive dialer was sufficient at the
pleading stage.

In Garner v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 20 C 4693, 2021 WL
3857786 (N.D. Ill. 2021), plaintiffs alleged that Allstate violated
the TCPA by making numerous unauthorized calls to their cellphone
using an ATDS. Plaintiffs also alleged that the calls were made
despite the fact that they had registered their phone numbers with
the National DNC Registry.

Allstate moved to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs "failed to
plead facts sufficient to allow the Court to draw a reasonable
inference that Allstate made the alleged calls using an ATDS."
Additionally, Allstate argued that plaintiffs' descriptions of its
alleged dialing system do not meet the definition of an ATDS. In
particular, Allstate argued that even though plaintiffs dutifully
recited the statutory definition of an ATDS, plaintiffs' allegation
that such a dialing system is "also known as a predictive dialer"
defeats the sufficiency of this description because the TCPA does
not necessarily encompass predictive dialers. In addition, Allstate
maintained that plaintiffs failed to allege any of the signs
typically associated with an ATDS, such as a robotic sounding
voice, a lack of human response, or a distinctive "click and pause"
sound upon answering the call.

An ATDS is defined by the TCPA as "equipment which has the capacity
(a) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a
random or sequential number generator; and (b) to dial such
numbers." 47 U.S.C. Sec 227(a)(1). As we have previously discussed,
the Supreme Court's recent decision in Facebook clarified that
unless the dialing equipment uses a random or sequential number
generator, businesses will not be required to obtain prior written
consent from the consumer before contacting them. Under the Supreme
Court's recent interpretation, equipment that merely dials from a
list, and does not incorporate the use of a random or sequential
telephone number generator is not bound by the TCPA's requirements
to obtain prior express consent before making calls or sending text
messages using an ATDS.

Despite this precedent, the court began its analysis by noting the
split of authority within its district regarding what it takes to
allege use of an ATDS. On the one hand, a few courts have found
that the complaint need only allege that the defendant used an ATDS
as defined by the TCPA, without offering any supporting facts. On
the other hand, most courts within the district have held that
merely reciting the statutory definition of an ATDS is not enough
to survive a motion to dismiss. These latter courts require a
plaintiff to allege enough facts to "allow a plausible inference
that the defendant in fact used an ATDS."

The court adopted the majority view, finding that plaintiffs'
complaint had included enough supporting facts. Specifically, the
court found persuasive the fact that plaintiffs had alleged they
each received numerous unsolicited calls from Allstate or its
agents within the span of just six months, even though their phone
numbers were on the National DNC Registry. These eleven calls came
from nine different phone numbers, and each call bore the area code
of a geographic region relatively near to each plaintiff's place of
residence. The court also noted that "the calls were generic in
nature and served to market Allstate's insurance policies to
Plaintiffs, who had no prior business relationship with Allstate."
At bottom the court reasoned that plaintiffs' allegations were
sufficient because existing precedent did not "purport to provide a
comprehensive list of boxes a plaintiff must check."

The court also rejected Allstate's contention that plaintiffs'
allegations that a predictive dialer was used to place the calls at
issue was not dispositive of whether an ATDS was used. According to
the court:

Predictive dialers include a wide variety of devices, some of which
do not qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA because they lack the
capacity to randomly or sequentially generate numbers to dial.
Importantly, however, the difference between a predictive dialer
and an ATDS is not readily apparent to a recipient of an automated
call. Rather, such a determination requires information about the
technical details of the device that the defendant used to make the
calls information that the plaintiff lacks prior to discovery.

In sum, although many viewed Facebook as a decisive victory for
companies that use automated equipment to make calls or send text
messages, the district court's decision here indicates that
Facebook may not always be sufficient to protect defendants at the
pleading stage. Until further precedent is developed at the
appellate level regarding the nature and extent of the facts that
must be pled to survive a motion to dismiss, each judge retains a
level of discretion as to how high the bar will be for pleading the
use of an ATDS. For this reason, companies that use any type of
automated dialing system should consult with competent legal
counsel when facing threatened or actual TCPA claims. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Unlawfully Collected Biometrics, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims Amazon
has violated an Illinois privacy law by collecting scans of
consumers' facial features through its virtual "try-on" programs.

Per the lawsuit, Illinois residents who use Amazon's virtual try-on
feature to view how certain products would look on their faces were
never informed that their biometric information, i.e., scans of
their facial geometry, would be collected and stored by defendants
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC. Moreover, Amazon
never obtained the consumers' express written consent to collect
their sensitive biometric information nor informed them of how and
when the data would be destroyed, the suit alleges.

According to the case, these are all requirements of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a state law designed to
protect Illinois residents from the unauthorized use of their
biometrics. The suit stresses that because biometrics (i.e.,
fingerprints, iris and retina scans, and hand and face geometry)
are unique identifiers, the unauthorized use and exposure of such
places the individual at a heightened risk of identity theft.

By failing to adhere to the BIPA's strict requirements, Amazon has
violated the privacy of "thousands if not millions of unwitting
Illinois residents" who've used the retailer's try-on programs, the
lawsuit alleges.

The case explains that Amazon's virtual try-on programs, which are
available on the Amazon.com website and the company's apps, use
augmented reality technology to allow consumers to view how
products such as makeup would look on their faces in person. To use
the feature, the user must upload a picture of their face or use
their camera to take a new photo or live video of their face, the
suit relays. Amazon then scans the image and uses "facial geometry
or landmarks from the photo or live video" to place the virtual
product on the face in the photo or video, according to the
complaint. Through this process, Amazon calculates a "unique
digital map" of the person's face, i.e, a face template, that is
then stored in the defendants' database, the case says.

"This is all an automated process that occurs without the user's
involvement or consent whenever a photograph is taken or uploaded
or a live video is used in connection with the Virtual Try-On
Programs," the lawsuit alleges.

According to the suit, because users are unable to disable the
collection of their facial templates when using the virtual try-on
programs, use of the feature is conditioned on the collection of
biometrics. The case claims Amazon has collected the biometrics of
all users who appear in photos or videos uploaded through the
program, including minors who are "incapable of providing informed
consent."

Per the case, Amazon's collection of consumers' biometrics has
violated the BIPA given the retailer failed to:

-- Inform the individuals in writing of the specific purpose and
length of time for which their biometric information would be
collected and stored;
-- Secure a written release from the individuals to collect, store
and use their information; and
-- Publish a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines
for the permanent destruction of the data.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, while residing in
Illinois, had their biometric identifiers or information
"collected, captured, received or otherwise obtained" by Amazon in
connection with the use of its virtual try-on features. [GN]


ANNOVIS BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Annovis Bio, Inc. securities between May 21, 2021 and July 28,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 18, 2021
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Annovis Bio class
action lawsuit. The Annovis Bio class action lawsuit (Zhou v.
Annovis Bio, Inc., No. 21-cv-03668) charges Annovis Bio and certain
of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Annovis Bio class action lawsuit was commenced on
August 17, 2021 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is
assigned to Judge Chad F. Kenney.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Annovis Bio class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Annovis Bio class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than October 18, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Annovis Bio is a clinical stage pharmaceutical
company and its lead compound is ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally
administrated drug which purportedly inhibited the synthesis of
neurotoxic proteins that are the main cause of neurodegeneration.

The Annovis Bio class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Annovis Bio's ANVS401 did not show
statistically significant results across two patient populations as
to factors such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and
(ii) as a result, defendants' positive statements about Annovis
Bio's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 28, 2021, Annovis Bio reported interim clinical data from
its Phase 2a trial. Among other things, Annovis Bio reported that
Alzheimer's disease patients 25 days after treatment failed to show
statistically significant improvement compared to the placebo.
Annovis Bio also reported that, although patients showed cognitive
improvements in certain areas, the results were not statistically
significant. On this news, Annovis Bio's share price fell
approximately 60%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Annovis Bio
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Annovis Bio 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 Annovis Bio class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Annovis Bio class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Annovis
Bio action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.


                   About Robbins Geller

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]

APPLE INC: May Face Class Action Over M1 MacBook Screen Cracks
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit is being planned on behalf of M1 MacBook
owners who say that screen cracks were occurring during normal use,
with both the M1 MacBook Air and M1 MacBook Pro affected.

Apple has mostly claimed that the cracks are the result of
accidental damage, including in the case of the 9to5Mac reader who
first contacted us . . . .

Background

There are threads on both Apple Support Communities and Reddit,
with users either reporting that screen cracks occurred when they
opened or closed the lid, or that they were simply present next
time they came to use the machine.

In some cases, Apple has repaired or replaced the machines free of
charge, while most other users have been charged.

Class-action lawsuit
In most cases, Apple has denied liability, stating that small
pieces of debris are to blame.

Apple's customer service has not been receptive to these
grievances. Users complain that Apple representatives insist the
culprit is a small item or particle that gets lodged between the
keyboard and screen upon its closing, even when that explanation
runs completely counter to users' experiences.

Lawyers Migliaccio & Rathod LLP say that affected owners disagree.

Migliaccio & Rathod LLP is currently investigating Apple over
widespread reports that the retina display in their recent line of
M1 MacBook laptops is vulnerable to screen cracks during normal
usage.

Many users allege that they have opened their devices from the
closed position without applying any undue pressure, only to find
dramatic cracks in the retina display, often accompanied by black
bars running across the screen. Others report that the crack
followed a simple adjustment of the screen's viewing angle. In none
of these cases would a reasonable consumer expect such activity to
damage their device, let alone cause a screen crack that impairs
its functionality [. . . . ]

Many suspect that the display is simply not sturdy enough to
withstand the normal pressures of opening, closing, or adjusting
its position, an issue for which Apple has provided zero
forewarning. Whatever the case, users are left with little choice
but to spend upwards of $600.00 to have their display repaired,
with no guarantee that the screen crack defect won't reoccur at a
later date.

The law firm is seeking contact details for M1 MacBook owners who
have experienced the issue. Migliaccio & Rathod says only that it
is "investigating potential legal claims against Apple," but
identifying and assessing the number of people affected is the
first stage a lawyer will take in planning and filing a
class-action lawsuit.

The contact email address also contains a small clue:
info@classlawdc.com. If you're an affected user in the US, you can
email, or call the firm at (202) 470-3520.[GN]

ARDELYX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ardelyx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX)
between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 28, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Ardelyx securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ardelyx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2134.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 28,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made materially false and misleading
statements regarding Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, a
supposedly first-in-class medicine for the control of serum
phosphorus in adult patients with chronic kidney disease ("CKD") on
dialysis and the likelihood that it would be approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges that defendants possessed, were in control over, and, as a
result, knew (or had reason to know) that the data submitted to
support the New Drug Application 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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Ardelyx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2134.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

BACKSTREETS GRILL: Wolff et al. Sue Over Illegal Tip Pooling
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA WOLFF and AARON DEVILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BACKSTREETS GRILL SC, LLC
d/b/a BACKSTREET GRILL; and CASEY PEISSEL, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02800-MGL (D.S.C., August 30, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants
seeking actual damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys'
fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as server from
approximately June 2019 until approximately December 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated servers less than the statutory minimum
wage by taking the "Tip Credit." The Defendant required them to
remit a portion of their tips at the end of each shift into
mandatory Tip Pool to share it to non-tipped employees.

Backstreets Grill SC, LLC d/b/a Backstreet Grill operates a
restaurant owned by Casey Peissel. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Tel: (843) 579-7373
          Fax: (843) 614-6417
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


BANKSIA HILL: Suit Seeks Justice for Harmed Youth Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Despite having the second highest youth incarceration rate in the
country, Western Australia only has one child correctional
facility, which is the Banksia Hill Juvenile Detention Centre
located in the south Perth suburb of Canning Vale.

So, some of the state's most vulnerable youths have to be flown in
to the capital - far from their families and supports - to be held
there. And often these children are detained on remand as they
await court dates, only to then be sent home without receiving a
prison sentence or a conviction.

WA Department of Justice figures outline that for the September
quarter last year, 83 youths were being held in Banksia Hill, with
57 - or 68 percent - being First Nations children. And 60 percent
of the locked-up kids were on remand, meaning they either hadn't
been convicted or sentenced.

Banksia Hill is notorious internationally for its ill treatment of
youths, especially due to its use of solitary confinement. And the
WA Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services (OICS) notes that
it's had to give the centre extra attention over the last decade
due to its "elevated risk level".

Indeed, the traumatic treatment Banksia Hill detainees are
subjected to sets them up for a life of disadvantage, and this is
why a large number of former inmates are launching the Banksia Hill
Class Action, which is seeking compensation and an end to the
injustice.

Lining up for action
"The forgotten children of Banksia are our most impoverished
children - our most traumatised. The majority didn't have a chance
at a good life from the beginning," said Gerry Georgatos,
coordinator of the National Suicide Prevention and Trauma Recovery
Project (NSPTRP).

"One hundred percent of them have experienced major traumas -
unaddressed traumas," he continued. "A significant proportion must
be recognised as having no safety nets. In fact, many have no
parents. Many come in from transience and homelessness. And many
return to such loneliness."

Georgatos is one of the chief organisers of the Banksia Hill Class
Action. He and NSPTRP director Megan Krakouer recently travelled to
Geraldton and Bunbury to locate former Banksia Hill detainees,
who'd be interested in getting on board with the civil case.

So far, 300 former detainees have signed on. And according to
Georgatos, these numbers should swell to 500 in the coming weeks,
and by year's end, the number of plaintiffs will rise to about
1,000 former detainees, which will make it one of the largest class
actions of its kind.

"By no stretch of any imagination is Banksia a safety net. It's a
hovel of incarceration," the justice advocate told Sydney Criminal
Lawyers. "The Banksia experience diminishes children - youth - to
the worst of themselves, fast-tracking disaster - and some pay with
their lives.

                   Torturing The Disadvantaged

Back in January 2018, Amnesty International launched a campaign
calling for the immediate closure of the Banksia Hill's Intensive
Support Unit (ISU), as it asserted a number of youth detainees had
been held in solitary confinement for at least two weeks.

Rule 32 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that solitary
confinement "might constitute torture or inhuman treatment" and it
"should be prohibited as a punishment for juveniles".

Further charges laid against the treatment of youths in the ISU,
included being deprived of contact with their families and
education, the excessive use of force, a disproportionate use of
restraints and denial of adequate medical treatment.

A follow up OICS report found that in the cases of two youths that
were specifically raised by Amnesty, they were "probably. . . held
in conditions that amounted to 'solitary confinement' under
international law as they did not have at least two hours out of
cell per day".

The most recent OICS inspection of Banksia Hill revealed that in
September last year, the facility was experiencing a period of
stability after years of disruption. However, by the time its
report was released in June this year, signs were emerging that
conditions at the centre were deteriorating.

                       Much-Needed Reform

"Western Australia and the Northern Territory are the nation's
backwaters - racist and classist - and these jurisdictions are
polluted with draconian justice laws," Georgatos said, adding that
the government spends more on criminalising kids than the holistic
alternatives would cost.

The social justice advocate further pointed to the need for law
reform in WA around bail laws for children, which would permit
those who've been charged with an offence to remain with their
families whilst awaiting their time in court, rather than being
sent to Banksia Hill on remand.

The 2018 OICS report in response to Amnesty, found that the laws
governing the confinement of children contained within the Young
Offenders Act 1994 (WA) and its accompanying regulations, are
"obsolete, outdated, and inconsistent" with international
standards.

And as Western Australia sets the age of criminal responsibility at
10 years old - as does the rest of the nation - children as young
as this who've been charged with a crime continue to be ripped from
their families and flown across the state to be locked up at
Banksia Hill regardless of guilt.

All of these unjust laws and practices disproportionately affect
First Nations youth. As noted above, around 68 percent of 10 to 17
year olds locked up in WA are Aboriginal kids, despite them only
accounting for 6 percent of the overall state populace of that age
bracket.

                        Forging Change

The state of WA ought to be on notice that the Banksia Hill Class
Action is pending, as leading it is Levitt Robinson Solicitors
senior partner Stewart Levitt, who's the lawyer that ran the Palm
Island Class Action, which saw Queensland pay $30 million in
compensation and deliver a formal apology.

But the action being taken against WA's only youth gaol isn't just
about compensating those who've been subjected to mistreatment
within its secured walls, as it's also about bringing real reforms
so that children in the future are no longer subject to such
scarring treatment at the hands of the state.

According to Georgatos, because of the looming class action and the
media attention it's already gathering, Banksia Hill Juvenile
Detention Centre is currently implementing small reforms, so a
success in the courts could be seismic.

"If we win in the courts, precedents will be set for changes and
reforms not just in Western Australia, but which can be tapped into
by every state and territory," Georgatos concluded.

"Imagine, backwater Western Australia all of a sudden hails forward
as the nation's social justice reformer."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]

BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Lawsuit Accuses Police of Racial Profiling
-------------------------------------------------------------
californianewstimes.com reports that Civil Rights Attorney Ben
Crump has filed a racial profiling proceeding against the city of
Beverly Hills. Crump represents a black couple in Philadelphia who
was arrested last year for resisting arrest on a scooter on the
sidewalk.

"It caused trauma," said Karil White, who spent the night in prison
after his arrest. "There were no signs that it was illegal to ride
a scooter on the sidewalk of Rodeo Drive."

White and his girlfriend Jasmine Williams were the first days on
vacation from Pennsylvania when they were arrested on September 7,
2020.

"I've never been to jail in my life," Williams said at a press
conference in front of Beverly Hills City Hall. "So it was
horrifying that I was there, away from me on vacation and robbing
me of my freedom in seconds."

White and Williams were not alone. According to the proceedings,
the police station Operation Safe Street and the Rodeo Drive Task
Force arrested more than 100 people between March 1, 2020 and July
1, 2021.

"106 people were arrested, 105 of whom were Africans.

"American, one Latina," said Crump, "this is the culture of Beverly
Hills police to use police to target blacks."

The Beverly Hills police station did not mention the number of
minorities arrested in the executive office, but in a written
statement police chief Dominique Rivetti banned White and Williams
from riding scooters on the sidewalk. He said he was warned that he
had been.

"At that time, no enforcement action was taken. Mr White and Mr
Williams were detained when they committed the same violation later
that day and provided false information to police officers," the
chief wrote.

However, this is not the first time Beverly Hills has been subject
to a discriminatory proceeding.

"The city of Beverly Hills had a culture that had been tolerated
for too long," said Brad Gauge, a lawyer who is also working on the
proceedings.

He says he represents more than 12 employees in the city of Beverly
Hills who have sued police for various forms of discrimination,
including Captain Mark Rozen. Rosen, a Jew and over 40, won a $ 2.3
million settlement against the city after claiming discrimination.

Gauge says the current proceedings have eventually forced a change
in Beverly Hills.

"The top three people who ran this department have now said they
have resigned or will resign," he said, including Sandra Spanoli,
police chief who resigned in April, Captain Scott Dowling, who
resigned earlier this year, and Mentioned the assistant chief. Mark
Corpwood has just announced that he will resign in October.

In a statement later submitted to ABC7, Deputy Captain Max Sbin of
the Beverly Hills Police Department said Corpwood's resignation
"has nothing to do with the city's pending proceedings."

"In addition, he has not been named or mentioned in the
proceedings," Soobin said. "Corpwood's resignation was planned for
months for him to take up a new position in the private sector."

According to Rivetti's statement, police station practice is to
"contact and ask questions if an individual may be involved in a
criminal offense or other violation of the law."

Police chief said his department last year for "robbery,
shoplifting, pedestrian and vehicle code violations, street
gambling, public intoxication, marijuana smoking, etc." that
spurred daily complaints from Rodeo Drive companies. He said he had
responded to a significant increase in summer service calls.

Rivetti said it was the catalyst for the Rodeo Drive team.

"In just five weeks, we recovered 13 firearms from an individual
Rodeo Drive, which is unprecedented in Beverly Hills history," the
chief wrote. "I want to reassure the Beverly Hills community and
the world that this department continues to work to enforce the law
with respect and dignity for all while keeping our community safe.
increase." [GN]

BOOZ ALLEN: Class Cert. Hearing on Hunter Suit Reset for Oct. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH J. HUNTER, et al.,
v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INCORPORATED, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00411-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L.
Marbley entered an order resetting the date for class certification
hearing.

Counsel for the parties are to appear before this Court for the
Class Certification Hearing on Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:30
a.m. in Court Room 1, Room 331 of the U. S. Courthouse located at
85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio, Judge Marbley says.

Upon arrival, counsel will enter their appearance with the Court
Reporter and the Courtroom Deputy Clerk before the start of the
opening session of the hearing or any other proceeding before the
Court The Class Certification Hearing, in this case, may not be
continued by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an
order of the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a
continuance should be made promptly after the reason for seeking
the continuance becomes known.

Counsel should prepare for this hearing with the knowledge that
this Court has already studied the memoranda related to class
certification. Counsel should be prepared to answer questions
raised by the Court.

Booz Allen is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American
management and information technology consulting firm,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jZNCAl at no extra charge.[CC]

BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a verified class action suit initiated
by Douglas Carlson.

On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported
stockholder of Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.), filed a
verified class action complaint against Brooklyn and its then
current members of the board of directors, for allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duties and violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law.  

In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an
annual stockholder meeting.  Plaintiff also moved for summary
judgment at the same time that he filed his complaint.  

In order to moot the claim addressed in the complaint, Brooklyn
agreed to hold its annual meeting on June 29, 2021, which date was
subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2021.  

On or about May 6, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation,
which was "so ordered" by the court, extending defendants' time to
respond to the complaint and to file their answering brief in
opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before
July 16, 2021 and providing that plaintiff's reply brief in support
of his motion for summary judgment is due on or before August 20,
2021.

On or about July 12, 2021, the parties entered in a further amended
scheduling order providing that defendants shall respond to the
complaint and file their answering brief in opposition to
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before September 16,
2021 and plaintiff shall file its reply brief in support of his
motion for summary judgment on or before October 20, 2021.

Brooklyn said, "At this stage in the litigation, the Company is not
able to predict the probability of a favorable or unfavorable
outcome."

Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-tech company.
The Company focuses on exploring the role that the human immune
system can have in treating patients with cancer and immunologic
diseases, both as a single agent and in combination with other
therapies. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York.


BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Gender Bias Suit Granted Preliminary OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the class action
suit related to alleged men discrimination, has been granted
preliminary approval by the court.

On May 29, 2018, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint against
Bumble Trading Inc. alleging that Bumble's "women message first"
feature discriminates against men and is therefore unlawful under
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Cal. Bus & Prof. Code
Section 17200.

The parties held a mediation on June 23, 2020 and signed a
settlement agreement on November 20, 2020, which has received
preliminary approval by the court.

The Company recorded an accrual for the loss contingency in
relation to this litigation.

Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an
online dating application that enables users to meet new people for
dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas.


C PEPPER: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Flinn Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC and LANTER
DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-02215-JAR-KGG (D.
Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas grants in part and denies in part Defendant
James Pepper's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Plaintiff Flinn brings the putative class action against Defendants
C Pepper, Lanter, and James Pepper, alleging the Defendants
misclassified their truck driver employees as independent
contractors, in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 and state wage
laws.

Defendant Lanter provides overnight unattended delivery service of
time-sensitive parts for major auto, agriculture, and heavy-duty
truck original equipment manufacturers and industrial supply and
equipment distributors. C Pepper is a U.S. Department of
Transportation-registered motor carrier that provides trucking and
transfer services. Lanter created a business model in which it
props up and controls what it calls "dedicated carrier partners,"
including C Pepper. Lanter exercised direction and control over
almost every aspect of C Pepper's business operations, including
but not limited to, the structure of its business model, its
accounting and payroll functions, and arranging and guaranteeing
its truck leases.

James Pepper used to be a direct employee of Lanter. However,
Lanter came up with a scheme to prop him up as a strawman through a
limited liability company that he owned (C Pepper), but whose
business, payroll, accounting, and financial operations Lanter
effectively directed and controlled, to employ truck drivers for
Lanter's business. Acting in the interest of C Pepper, in
association and conspiracy with Lanter, and under Lanter's
direction and control, James Pepper allowed and helped facilitate
the unlawful conduct alleged by Plaintiff. James Pepper knowingly
permitted C Pepper to wrongfully withhold wages and fail to pay all
wages due, in violation of state wage payment laws.

Flinn alleges generally that Defendants C Pepper, and James Pepper
fraudulently misclassified drivers as independent contractors,
willfully issued fraudulent paystubs to Flinn and other delivery
drivers, and willfully filed and issued fraudulent tax documents
showing that Flinn and other delivery drivers were independent
contractors, rather than employees. He alleges two counts for
relief: (1) fraudulent filing of information returns, in violation
of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 against C Pepper and James Pepper; and
(2) violation of state wage laws against all the Defendants.

Discussion

James Pepper moves for judgment on the pleadings on the tax fraud
claim on the basis that Flinn fails to plead fraud with
particularity, and on the wage claim because Flinn fails to allege
facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and hold him liable
for C Pepper's conduct. Flinn responds that James Pepper waived any
challenge under the heightened pleading standard in Rule 9(b)
because he failed to preserve that defense in his March 18, 2021
Answer. Moreover, Flinn asserts that his claims allege direct
liability against James Pepper, so there is no need to allege facts
in support of piercing the corporate veil.

A. Count I: Fraudulent Filing of Information Returns in Violation
of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434

Flinn alleges in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint that C
Pepper and James Pepper violated 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 by issuing
1099 forms to Flinn and the class members that overreported the
amount of their compensation, with knowledge that Flinn and the
class members were employees, rather than independent contractors.

The statute provides: "If any person willfully files a fraudulent
information return with respect to payments purported to be made to
any other person, such other person may bring a civil action for
damages against the person so filing such return." The elements of
this cause of action are: "(1) the Defendant issued an information
return; (2) the information return was fraudulent; and (3) the
defendant willfully issued the fraudulent information return."

James Pepper argues that the Second Amended Complaint's allegations
as to his conduct fail for the same lack of particularity this
Court previously found as to Lanter. He argues that there is no
specific allegation that he personally issued the fraudulent
information on behalf of C Pepper. Flinn responds that the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are sufficient because
they explicitly state that James Pepper issued the allegedly
fraudulent 1099s. Additionally, Flinn argues that James Pepper
waived any defense based on Rule 9(b) by failing to move for
dismissal before filing his Answer, which did not preserve a Rule
9(b) defense.

Judge Robinson holds that as the Court previously observed, under
Section 7434 culpable agents may be liable under common-law
principles of corporate officer liability so that Section 7434
"imposes liability on any person who willfully causes a fraudulent
information return to be filed." Corporate officer liability thus
may apply for torts committed in a representative capacity.

Given that the Second Amended Complaint alleges that James Pepper
is an owner and officer of C Pepper, that James Pepper facilitated
the unlawful conduct alleged, and that both C Pepper and James
Pepper issued the 1099s, the Judge finds that this pleading
sufficiently alleges facts to support the elements of Flinn's
Section 7434 claim under Rule 9(b).23 Because she finds that
Flinn's allegations meet the particularity standard under Rule
9(b), the Judge need not consider whether James Pepper waived a
Rule 9(b) defense in his Answer.

2. Count II: State Law Wage Claim

James Pepper argues in his motion that the Second Amended Complaint
makes only collective allegations against the Defendants and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of the wage claim in Count II.
Flinn responds that he sufficiently alleged James Pepper's role in
the state wage violations.

Flinn does not identify the relevant state law for his wage claim
in the Second Amended Complaint. But in his response to James
Pepper's motion to dismiss, he cites the Kansas Wage Payment Act
("KWPA") since it would apply to Flinn. KWPA claims often are
asserted against both an organizational defendant and its
president." But for liability to attach to an officer or other
individual, the statute requires that the person have "charge of
the affairs of the employer" and "knowingly permit the employer to
engage in" a violation of the KWPA.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that "James Pepper knowingly
permitted C Pepper to wrongfully withhold wages and fail to pay all
wages due in violation of state wage payment laws." However, Judge
Robinson finds that there are no facts alleged that James Pepper
was in charge of the affairs of Lanter or C Pepper. The mere fact
that he is an officer and member of C Pepper does not suffice. The
Second Amended Complaint alleges neither that James Pepper is the
sole officer or member of C Pepper, nor that he made the types of
decisions for C Pepper that would allow a reasonable inference that
he is in charge of that LLC's affairs. In fact, the Second Amended
Complaint states that James Pepper used to be a direct employee of
Lanter, and that Lanter used him as a strawman to create C Pepper
for business, payroll, accounting, and financial operations that
would be controlled by Lanter.

These allegations fall short of raising an inference that James
Pepper was in charge of the affairs of either C Pepper or Lanter.
Accordingly, Flinn has failed to plead facts sufficient to hold
James Pepper liable under the KWPA.

Disposition

In light of the foregoing, Judge Robinson granted in part and
denied in part Defendant James Pepper's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. The motion is granted as to Count II and denied as to
Count I.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5hdpbxrs from Leagle.com.


CARLOTZ INC: Continues to Defend Turk Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CarLotz, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend 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: Erdman Putative Class Suit Underway in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
CarLotz, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend 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: Widuck Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
CarLotz, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend 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.


CARNIVAL PLC: Fails to Block Passengers to Join COVID Outbreak Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Ryan at lawyersweekly.com.au reports that the cruise operator
behind the Ruby Princess has failed in its attempt to exclude
international passengers from joining the class action against it.

Carnival PLC has been denied its Federal Court application to block
overseas passengers from joining the Ruby Princess class action,
after it failed to successfully argue that they should be excluded
as they signed up to different terms and conditions when buying
tickets.

The class action, which was filed by Shine Lawyers on behalf of
2,700 passengers, relatives, and estates of the deceased last July,
centers around the more than 700 cases of COVID-19 and 28 deaths
linked to one of Carnival's cruise ships, Ruby Princess.

The company is being sued of negligence for three alleged breaches
of its duty of care to passengers, including: allowing the voyage
to proceed at all despite the known risk of a COVID-19 outbreak;
failing to protect passengers from contracting COVID-19 while
onboard; and, failing to warn passengers of the risk of contracting
COVID-19 while onboard.

"I'm pleased to confirm that Carnival's application to exclude
international passengers from the Ruby Princess class action has
failed," said Vicky Antzoulatos, class actions practice leader at
Shine Lawyers.

"The Federal Court of Australia has ruled international passengers
are not prevented from bringing a claim against the company in
Australia. Justice Stewart found that allowing them to do so would
in no way be oppressive, vexatious or an abuse of process.

"This is a significant judgment in Australia and internationally.
In particular, it is the first Australian judgment dealing with a
class action waiver clause with the Court finding the clause is an
unfair contract term under the Australian Consumer Law.

"More than anything, it means we can continue to prosecute the
class action for all passengers. Our clients are still traumatised
by the loss of loved ones, and many are struggling with ongoing
health issues because of this ill-fated voyage."[GN]

CARNIVAL PLC: Judge Rules US And UK Passengers Can Join COVID Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Chu at cruisepassenger.com.au reports that international
passengers involved in the Australian class action over the
coronavirus outbreak on board the Ruby Princess have won their
right to be included in the lawsuit, a judge has ruled.

Susan Karpik commenced representative proceedings against Carnival
plc, the time charterer of the vessel, and Princess Cruise Lines
Ltd, the owner and operator of the Ruby Princess.

The ruling will allow passengers from the United States and the
United Kingdom to be included in the class action.

In Federal Court, Justice Angus Stewart rejected a preliminary
application to stop a "sub-group" of overseas passengers from being
part of the action.

Of the 2,651 passengers onboard, the respondents allege that 696
contracted their cruise on US terms and conditions and 159
contracted on UK terms and conditions. The balance are said to have
contracted on Australian terms and conditions.

The differing conditions include a class action waiver clause in
the US terms.

Ms Karpik alleges the respondents were in breach of their duties of
care and allowed the voyage to proceed. She also alleged that they
failed to take adequate measures to protect passengers from the
risk of COVID-19 and als said they allegedly engaged in misleading
or deceptive conduct and breached their consumer guarantees under
the Australian Consumer Law.

But Justice Stewart ruled it wasn't necessary or appropriate at
this early stage of the proceedings to determine the law applicable
to the US and UK sub groups' negligence claims.

He noted a stay on the US passengers would result in the fracturing
of the litigation with essentially identical claims being brought
in the Federal Court and any stayed claims being brought in the
US.

"Such a result is wasteful of parties' and judicial resources and
runs the risk of producing conflicting outcomes in different
courts, which would bring the administration of justice into
disrepute."

The Federal Court was "not a clearly inappropriate forum" for the
determination of the claims of the overseas passengers, the judge
said.

Those claims had a substantial connection with NSW as many of the
breaches of duty of care that are alleged concern conduct or
omissions in Sydney.

A number of passengers contracted COVID-19 onboard the Ruby
Princess after she departed from Sydney in on March 8, 2020 and
returned from visiting a number of ports in New Zealand on March
19, 2020. Several passengers died after disembarking.

The case will return to court on September 17. [GN]

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Sept. 14, 2020 - Aug. 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 26, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SAVA
Contact An Attorney Now:
SAVA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (SAVA) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that the quality and integrity of
the scientific data supporting the company's claims of efficacy for
its Alzheimer's drug (simufilam) were overstated and biased.

Specifically, Defendants falsely (1) claimed that results from an
interim analysis of simufilam demonstrated that patients' cognition
and behavior scores both improved following six months of simufilam
treatment, and (2) touted an FDA meeting they stated supported
green-lighting a Phase 3 trial beginning in the second half of
2021.

The truth began to emerge on Aug. 24, 2021, when reports surfaced
that a citizen petition was submitted to the FDA asking the FDA to
halt all ongoing studies with simufilam while the agency verifies
data the company has submitted so far. The petition raises serious
concerns about the quality and integrity of the laboratory-based
studies surrounding this drug candidate. The petition further
identified "errors and anomalies" in the data "of a sufficient
frequency and magnitude to strongly suggest scientific
misconduct."

On Aug. 25, 2021, Cassava tried to blame another company
(Quanterix) and said Quanterix generated the data from Alzheimer's
patients that was presented at the recent Alzheimer's Association
International Conference ("AAIC").

These events sent the price of Cassava common stock plummeting
$46.98, or down almost 40%, by Aug. 26, 2021.

Then, on Aug. 27, 2021, Quanterix revealed that Cassava provided it
with the data for testing, neither Quanterix nor its employees
interpreted the results, and neither provided data charts Cassava
presented at the AAIC.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Cassava manipulated
clinical data for simufilam," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

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

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

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Oct. 26 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 Western District of Texas against
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA) ("Cassava") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Cassava securities between
September 14, 2020 and August 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Cassava
securities during the Class Period may, no later than October 26,
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/cassava-sciences-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=cassava

Cassava is a clinical stage biotechnology company. Its lead
therapeutic product candidate is called simufilam (formerly
PTI-125) developed as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease ("AD").
Simufilam purportedly targets an altered form of a protein called
filamin A ("FLNA") in the Alzheimer's brain and reverts it to its
native, healthy conformation, thereby countering the downstream
toxic effects of altered FLNA.

The Class Period commences on September 14, 2020, when Cassava
announced the final results from its Phase 2b clinical study of
simufilam in a press release that stated, in relevant part, that
"simufilam significantly improved an entire panel of validated
biomarkers of disease in patients with Alzheimer's disease."

The truth regarding simufilam began to emerge after the close of
trading on August 24, 2021, when it was disclosed that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had received a so-called
Citizen Petition commencing an administrative action to "halt two
ongoing trials of the drug Simufilam . . . 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."

Then, on August 25, 2021, before the market opened, Cassava issued
a response to the Citizen Petition, claiming that the allegations
regarding scientific integrity are false and misleading. Among
other things, Cassava claimed that the clinical data, which the
Citizen Petition stated had been reanalyzed to show simufilam was
effective, had been generated by Quanterix Corp. ("Quanterix"), an
independent company, suggesting that the reanalysis was valid.
Following this news, Cassava's share price fell $36.97, or 32%, to
close at $80.86 per share on August 25, 2021.

Finally, on August 27, 2021, before the market opened, Quanterix
issued a statement denying Cassava's claims, stating that it "did
not interpret the test results or prepare the data" touted by
Cassava. That same day, Cassava responded to Quanterix's statement,
stating that "Quanterix'[s] sole responsibility with regard to this
clinical study was to perform sample testing, specifically, to
measure levels of p-tau in plasma samples collected from study
subjects." Following this news, Cassava's share price fell $12.51,
or 17.6%, to close at $58.34 per share on August 27, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) data
underlying the foundational research for Cassava's product
candidates had been manipulated; (2) experiments using post-mortem
human brain tissue frozen for nearly 10 years was contrary to a
basic understanding of neurobiology; (3) biomarker analysis for
patients treated with simufilam had been manipulated to conclude
that simufilam was effective; (4) Quanterix, an independent
company, had not interpreted the test results or prepared the data
charts for the biomarker analysis for patients treated with
simufilam; (5) as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable
likelihood that Cassava would face regulatory scrutiny in
connection with the development of simufilam; and (6) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about
Cassava's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Cassava investors may, no later than October 26, 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]

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of those who acquired Cassava
Sciences, Inc. ("Cassava" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SAVA)
securities from September 14, 2020 through August 27, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 26,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Cassava is a clinical stage biotechnology company. Its lead
therapeutic product candidate is called simufilam (formerly
PTI-125) developed as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease ("AD").
Simufilam purportedly targets an altered form of a protein called
filamin A ("FLNA") in the Alzheimer's brain and reverts it to its
native, healthy conformation, thereby countering the downstream
toxic effects of altered FLNA.

On August 24, 2021, after the market closed, reports emerged about
a citizen petition submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") concerning the accuracy and integrity of
clinical data for simufilam. The petition requested that the FDA
halt Cassava's clinical trials pending a thorough audit of the
publications and data relied upon by the Company. Among other
things, the petition stated that the "[d]etailed analysis of the
western blots [relied on by Cassava to support the connection
between simufilam and Alzheimer's] shows a series of anomalies that
are suggestive of systematic data manipulation and
misrepresentation." It also stated that the methodology for studies
"about [s]imufilam's effects in experiments conducted on postmortem
human brain tissue . . . defies logic, and the data presented again
have hallmarks of manipulation." The petition further stated that,
after initial analyses of Phase 2b trials found that simufilam was
ineffective in improving the primary biomarkers endpoint, "Cassava
had these samples analyzed again and this time reported that
simufilam rapidly and robustly improved a wide array of biomarkers"
and the reanalysis "shows signs of data anomalies or
manipulation."

On August 25, 2021, before the market opened, Cassava issued a
response to the petition, claiming that the allegations regarding
scientific integrity are false and misleading. Among other things,
the Company claimed that the clinical data, which the citizen
petition stated had been reanalyzed to show simufilam was
effective, had been generated by Quanterix Corp. ("Quanterix"), an
independent company, suggesting that the reanalysis was valid. On
this news, the Company's share price declined by $36.97 per share,
or approximately 31.4%, from $117.83 per share to close at $80.86
per share on August 25, 2021.

On August 27, 2021, before the market opened, Quanterix issued a
statement denying the Company's claims, stating that it "did not
interpret the test results or prepare the data" touted by Cassava.

The same day, Cassava responded to Quanterix's statement, stating
that "Quanterix'[s] sole responsibility with regard to this
clinical study was to perform sample testing, specifically, to
measure levels of p-tau in plasma samples collected from study
subjects." On this news, the Company's share price declined by
$12.51 per share, or approximately 17.7%, from $70.85 per share to
close at $58.34 per share on August 27, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges 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 data underlying the foundational
research for Cassava's product candidates had been manipulated; (2)
that experiments using post-mortem human brain tissue frozen for
nearly 10 years was contrary to a basic understanding of
neurobiology; (3) that biomarker analysis for patients treated with
simufilam had been manipulated to conclude that simufilam was
effective; (4) that Quanterix, an independent company, had not
interpreted the test results or prepared the data charts for the
biomarker analysis for patients treated with simufilam; (5) that,
as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood
that Cassava would face regulatory scrutiny in connection with the
development of simufilam; and (6) that, 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Cassava Sciences, Inc. ("Cassava" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SAVA).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On July 29, 2021, Cassava issued a press release entitled "Cassava
Sciences Announces Positive Cognition Data With Simufilam in
Alzheimer's Disease." Although the press release touted supposedly
positive cognition data, analysts and industry observers noted that
the data had not demonstrated that Simufilam was more effective at
improving cognition than Biogen Inc.'s drug Aduhelm.

On this this news, Cassava's stock price fell $33.82 per share, or
32.72%, to close at $69.53 per share on July 30, 2021."

Then, on August 24, 2021, a citizen's petition filed with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") questioned the quality and
integrity of study results from Cassava, alleging that some of
Cassava's results appeared to show signs of data manipulation.

On this news, Cassava's stock price fell another $36.97 per share,
or 31.38%, to close at $80.86 per share on August 25, 2021.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]

CHATHAM-KENT, ON: Strosberg Sasso Prepares Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plate is going to get fuller for officials dealing with the
aftermath of the explosion in Wheatley.

A Windsor-based law firm, Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, intends to
file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the people who were
affected by the Aug. 26 blast that levelled two buildings in
Wheatley's downtown and caused multiple injuries.

Lawyer Harvey Strosberg said he visited Wheatley after being
contacted by some of the Chatham-Kent town's property owners and
residents.

"The authorities should have turned off the gas and the hydro" to
the building at 15 Erie St. N., which was the site of two previous
gas leaks, Strosberg said.

If these utilities had been turned off, it wouldn't have enabled a
pilot light or an electrical switch to spark the explosion that
destroyed the buildings, the lawyer claimed.

A notice of the class action posted on the law firm's website
states the intention is to name the Municipality of Chatham-Kent,
the Chatham-Kent Police Service and the provincial government,
represented by the minister of northern development, mines, natural
resources and forestry, as defendants.

"In the proposed action, we will seek compensation for damages that
were suffered as a result of the explosion, including general
damages, lost use of office or residential space, lost income,
expenses incurred for alternate accommodation, office space,
replacement or cleaning of damaged items, physical and emotional
injury, damage to property, relocation and other expenses," the
notice stated.

Dave Taylor, Chatham-Kent's director of legal services, indicated
the municipality had received notice of "that intended class action
lawsuit".

"That's the first we had heard about that," Taylor said.

At this point, he added, the municipality was not able to make any
further comment on the lawsuit.

The law firm is advising those affected by the explosion to keep
track of all out-of-pocket expense and keep those receipts in a
secure location for later use.

Strosberg has previously been involved with other high-profile
cases involving explosions, including serving as lead counsel in a
class action lawsuit stemming from a series of explosions at the
Sunrise Propane Industrial Gases propane facility that rocked a
large section on North York on Aug. 10, 2008.

He also won a case against the former Union Gas company in
connection to a massive explosion in downtown Essex on Feb. 14,
1980.

"We're just getting started," Strosberg said about the timeline of
the case.

If the case goes to trial instead of being settled, it could take
three to four years, he added.

On Aug. 26, a hydrogen sulphide leak in Wheatley's downtown was
followed by an explosion that levelled two buildings and caused
multiple injuries. Because of gas-monitoring devices placed at the
scene in the wake of two previous leaks this summer, first
responders already had evacuated the buildings closest to the alarm
and were in the midst of evacuating a wider area when the explosion
occurred.

Wheatley, a town of about 3,000 along Lake Erie, is located
southwest of Chatham in an area of Southwestern Ontario where
plentiful natural gas deposits support a drilling industry, both on
land and in the lake. [GN]


CLASSMATES.COM: Uses Indiana Info Without Consent, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that PeopleConnect, Inc. has
unlawfully used Indiana residents' photographs and personal
information without their consent to promote Classmates.com
subscriptions and products, according to a proposed class action.

The 20-page lawsuit relays that when a consumer types in the name
and location of an individual on Classmates.com, a website operated
by PeopleConnect that sells yearbook reprints and subscriptions to
an online yearbook database, they are shown a list of
low-resolution photographs of the people who supposedly match the
searched name. Those who click on the pictures are shown
advertisements for Classmates.com's subscription services or
yearbook reprints, according to the case.

The suit alleges, however, that many of the subjects who appear in
these photographs have not given the defendant permission to use
their personalities to advertise its products and services.
According to the case, PeopleConnect's use of consumers'
information without their consent is a violation of the Indiana
Right of Publicity Act.

"Plaintiff and the Class have the right not to have their
personalities exploited to promote a product with which they have
no relationship and no interest in supporting," the complaint
reads. "Plaintiff and the Class have an economic interest in their
personalities, which Classmates has stolen, and a privacy interest
in their personalities, which Classmates has violated."

According to the case, Classmates uses consumers' photographs for
advertisement purposes in three ways. If a website visitor clicks
on one of the low-resolution pictures displayed by Classmates, they
are shown two pop-up messages asking them to register as members
with Classmates.com for $3 per month, the suit relays. Those who
attempt to view more than two photographs are shown a pop-up
message asking them to purchase a yearbook reprint for $99.95,
according to the complaint.

Third, Classmates.com allegedly displays messages next to the list
of photographs asking viewers to purchase a subscription to the
site for "as low as $1.23 a month."

The case claims, however, that many of the individuals who appear
in the photographs, most of whom were minor children at the time
the pictures were taken, have no relationship with Classmates and
never consented for their photographs as children to be used for
advertising purposes.

The lawsuit stresses that consent "is not all or nothing," and that
the individuals whose pictures appear on Classmates.com were
initially under the impression that their photos would be used
"solely for print distribution among a narrow circle of friends,
family, and schoolmates."

"Plaintiff and the Class did not consent to the commercial use of
their photographs to promote a website, nor to the worldwide
distribution of their photographs on the Internet," the complaint
attests.

The case goes on to claim that the defendant has not provided a way
for consumers to request that their photographs and personal
information be removed from Classmates.com or a means by which to
opt out of the use of their photographs for advertising purposes.

The plaintiff, an Indiana resident, claims to have never provided
his consent for Classmates to use his photograph, likeness, name or
personality "in any way," and would not have provided his consent
if Classmates had requested it. Nevertheless, the suit alleges, the
plaintiff's face is "plainly visible and identifiable" in
photographs that appear on Classmates.com, accompanied by his name,
city of residence and high school.

The lawsuit alleges the defendant has harmed the plaintiff and
proposed class members by using their intellectual property without
compensation, invading their privacy rights and unlawfully
profiting from the exploitation of their personal information.

The plaintiff looks to represent Indiana residents who are not
Classmates.com subscribers and whose names, photographs or personal
information was extracted from yearbooks by Classmates and used in
the yearbook database used to promote its products. [GN]

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Reaches $95M Settlement in Shareholders Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp (CTSH.O) has reached a $95
million settlement to resolve a lawsuit accusing the information
technology services company of defrauding shareholders by
concealing bribes to officials in India. [GN]

COMCAST CABLE: Blum Sues Over False Promises and Misrepresentations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Blum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOES
1-20, Case No. 2021CH04332 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 27,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for making false promises,
misrepresentations, concealments, suppressions, and omissions of
material facts, with the intent that the Plaintiff rely upon said
false promises, misrepresentations, concealments, suppressions, and
omissions of material facts, through its failure to apply the
payment Plaintiff made to settle his account and subsequent
erroneous referral of the account to multiple third-party debt
collection agencies.

According to the complaint, prior to November of 2019, the
Plaintiff had an existing account with Comcast. During November of
2019, the Plaintiff moved and was assigned a new account number by
Comcast. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff discovered that Comcast
claimed he still owed $215.52 on his old account with Comcast. The
Plaintiff visited one of Comcast's retail locations on February 2,
2020, and made a payment of $215.52, thereby paying off the entire
remaining balance on his old Comcast account. Despite the fact that
Plaintiff had paid off the entire remaining balance on his old
Comcast account, without prior notice to the Plaintiff, Comcast
referred said account to a third-party debt collection agency, CBE
Group.

CBE contacted the Plaintiff on February 17, 2020. The Plaintiff
immediately notified CBE that he had paid off the entire remaining
balance on the Comcast account at issue. The Plaintiff also
notified the representative at Comcast's retail location who had
processed his payment on February 2, 2020, Jose De La Cruz, about
the collection attempts by CBE. In response, De La Cruz sent
Plaintiff email on February 23, 2020, notifying the Plaintiff that
he had forwarded the Plaintiff's payment information to CBE and
left notes in Plaintiff's account. De La Cruz further stated to
Plaintiff via email, "You should be ok going forward."

During August of 2020, the Plaintiff received a letter from another
third-party debt collection agency, Convergent Outsourcing,
regarding the same amount he had paid in full in February of 2020.
The Plaintiff immediately contacted Convergent and notified
Convergent that Comcast had placed the account with Convergent in
error, as he had previously paid off the account in full to
Comcast. Despite his attempts to resolve the matter, Plaintiff
received another letter from Convergent in September of 2020,
attempting to collect from the Plaintiff the same debt which he
allegedly owed to Comcast, and which Plaintiff had previously
advised Convergent that he had paid in full to Comcast.

In response to said letter, on September 23, 2020, the Plaintiff
sent notification by email to Convergent of his dispute of the
alleged debt, along with documents reflecting his prior payment of
the alleged debt in full to Comcast. Despite having been notified
by the Plaintiff that he disputed owing the alleged debt, and
having been provided with proof of the Plaintiff's prior payment of
the alleged debt in full to Comcast, Convergent continued in its
attempts to collect the alleged debt from the Plaintiff, including
but not limited to reporting the alleged debt to credit reporting
agencies Equifax and Experian.

Despite having been notified by Plaintiff that he disputed owing
the alleged debt, and having been provided with proof of
Plaintiff's prior payment of the alleged debt in full to Comcast,
Convergent twice reported the alleged debt to the credit reporting
agencies as a derogatory account, on October 8, 2020 and October
15, 2020. The Plaintiff sought an increase to his credit limit with
Capital One during November of 2020. Plaintiff's request was denied
because of a derogatory collections account related to the issues
with Comcast.

On December 30, 2020, the Plaintiff discovered that Comcast had
placed the same amount he had paid in full in February of 2020,
with yet another third- party debt collection agency, Enhanced
Recovery Company, who reported the alleged debt to the credit
reporting agencies as a derogatory account. In total, Comcast
continued to refer the Plaintiff's account to various third-party
debt collection agencies for at least 11 months after the Plaintiff
had paid off the account in full directly to Comcast, says the
complaint.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC is a corporation of
the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (224) 218-0882
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


CURATIVE INC: Belnavis Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIANA BELNAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CURATIVE INC., YOH SERVICES LLC, DAY &
ZIMMERMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case
No. 21STCV19811, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on September 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-07198 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to authorize and
permit rest breaks, failure to indemnify for necessary business
expenses, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll
records, failure to timely pay wages at the time of separation, and
unfair business practices.

Curative Inc. is a healthcare startup company headquartered in San
Dimas, California.

Yoh Services LLC is an American talent and outsourcing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Day & Zimmerman International, Inc. is a construction engineering
company, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Babak Yousefzadeh, Esq.
         Gal Gressel, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
         Telephone: (415) 434-9100
         Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
         E-mail: byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com
                 ggressel@sheppardmullin.com

DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Culbertson Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL CULBERTSON, KATHY NEAL, KELLY ALLISON-PICKERING,
ALEXANDER CABOT, BRIANA JULIUS, NICHELLE NEWLAND, BERNADETTE NOLEN,
ALEXANDREA POLICHENA, and MARK NIEDELSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELOITTE
CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, No. 20-cv-3962 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York issues an Order approving the settlement with the
language deleted and the other changes made by the parties and as
reflected in their submissions of Aug. 27, 2021.

The original Settlement Agreement in the case had language in the
opt-out section to the following effect: "If the Settlement Class
Member is represented by counsel, and such counsel intends to seek
compensation for his or her services from anyone other than the
Settlement Class Member, the objection will also contain the
following information: (i) the identity of all counsel who
represent the Settlement Class Member, including any former or
current counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any reason
related to the objection; (ii) a statement identifying all
instances in which the counsel or the counsel's law firm have
objected to a class action settlement within the preceding five
years, including the style and court in which the class action
settlement was filed; (iii) a statement identifying any and all
agreements that relate to the objection or the process of
objecting--whether written or oral--between the Settlement Class
Member, his or her counsel, and/or any other person or entity; and
(iv) a statement regarding whether fees to be sought will be
calculated on the basis of a lodestar, contingency, or other
method; an estimate of the amount of fees to be sought; the factual
and legal justification for any fees to be sought; the number of
hours already spent by the counsel and an estimate of the hours to
be spent in the future; and the counsel's hourly rate."

Judge Liman finds that the ostensible, and permissible, purpose of
such language presumably was to identify objections that were not
made in good faith on behalf of the class but only to extract an
unnecessary change to the Settlement Agreement not in good faith
and for the impermissible purposes of obtaining a settlement by a
class anxious to receive its distribution or counsel anxious to
receive its fees. At the same time, however, the language could
have the effect of deterring a party with a valid objection from
making such objection. There are repeat objectors to settlements
who have valid, or at least colorable and good faith, objections.
One purpose of notice is to invite anyone who has an objection to a
settlement to make it so that the Court is fully informed of the
issues the settlement raises.

The Court invited the counsel either to submit briefing to justify
the language or to delete it. The parties elected to delete it.

Judge Liman approves the settlement with the language deleted and
the other changes made by the parties and as reflected in their
submissions of Aug. 27, 2021. He issues the short order only to
identify the issue and to advise that he has not prejudged it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/54z9apbf from Leagle.com.


DOORDASH INC: Marko Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Doordash, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted a
motion for preliminary approval of the Marko settlement.

In November 2019, the company filed an agreement to pay $40 million
with the representatives of Dashers that had filed certain actions
in California and Massachusetts in settlement of claims under the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and class action claims
alleging worker misclassification of Dashers, or the Marciano
settlement.

These actions were filed by and on behalf of Massachusetts Dashers
that utilized the DoorDash platform since September 2014 and
California Dashers that utilized the DoorDash platform since August
2016. The settlement was filed with the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco on November 21, 2019.

On April 24, 2020, the court issued a tentative ruling raising
certain issues with the filed settlement agreement and requesting
supplemental briefing from the parties.

On June 8, 2020, the parties submitted supplemental briefing and an
amended settlement agreement to the court. The amended settlement
agreement increased the total amount to be paid by us from $40
million to $41 million.

On June 19, 2020, the court issued a tentative ruling raising
certain issues with the filed amended settlement agreement and
requesting supplemental briefing from the parties.

On July 24, 2020, the parties submitted supplemental briefing and
an amended settlement agreement to the court.

On August 31, 2020, the court issued a tentative ruling denying
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement without prejudice and inviting the parties to file
supplemental briefing addressing the concerns raised by the court.


On October 30, 2020, the company entered into an amended settlement
agreement to increase the total amount to be paid by us from $41
million to $89 million. On November 4, 2020, the parties submitted
supplemental briefing and the amended settlement agreement to the
court.

On February 17, 2021, the court issued a tentative ruling denying
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement without prejudice. On April 7, 2021, plaintiffs filed a
notice of withdrawal of the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

In light of the court's concern about the plaintiffs releasing
various class claims that were not originally pled in the Marciano
action (which was filed as a PAGA-only case), the parties agreed
not to seek a release of these claims Marciano, but to instead
present a new proposed settlement in Marko v DoorDash, Inc., Case
No. BC659841 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.), where the court currently
has jurisdiction over the various class claims under the Labor Code
encompassed by the agreement.

On April 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a revised settlement agreement
with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or
the Marko settlement. The total amount to be paid by the company is
$100 million.

On July 12, 2021, the court granted a motion for preliminary
approval of the Marko settlement.

If the Marko settlement receives final approval from the court,
this would resolve claims under PAGA and claims alleging worker
misclassification for Dashers in California for the period of
August 30, 2016 through December 31, 2020 and claims alleging
worker misclassification for Dashers in Massachusetts for the
period of September 26, 2014 through March 31, 2021.

DoorDash said, "Although the settlement only involves claimants in
certain actions, any final settlement would be on a class basis and
would encompass claims by all Dashers in California and
Massachusetts for the period noted in the previous sentence.
Dashers that are members of the class purported to be covered by
the settlement could elect to opt out of such settlement, and
therefore could bring claims against us separately."

DoorDash, Inc. operates an online food ordering and food delivery
platform. It is based in San Francisco, California, United States.

DREAM STREET: Sexton Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
LASHANNA SEXTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREAM STREET, L.L.C. d/b/a TD'S GOLD EUBANK,
and DAVID A. STREUBEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00868-SCY-CG
(N.D.N.M., September 3, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, unlawful
taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, and forced tipping and
subsidization of ownership.

The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at the Defendant's
principal place of business located at 2120 Eubank Blvd.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico from approximately 2017 through March 17,
2020.

Dream Street, L.L.C., doing business as TD's Gold Eubank, is an
operator of an adult entertainment facility located at 2120 Eubank
Blvd., Albuquerque, New Mexico. [BN]

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

DYNAMIC EVENT: Antigua Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMIL ANTIGUA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. DYNAMIC EVENT
GROUP INC. (d/b/a Dynamic Productions USA), and Brian Rosenblum,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07272 (S.D.N.Y., August 30, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an event production
staff member from on or around August 2017 through and including
August 15, 2019. The Plaintiff also worked as a general worker at
the Defendants' warehouse, located at 300 Blaisdell Road,
Orangeburg, NY 10962.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week. However, the Defendants did not pay him an overtime
premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. Regardless of how many
additional hours he worked, his wages did not vary. In addition,
the Defendant did not pay him spread of hours pay at the basic
minimum hourly wage rate for each day his shift exceeded 10 hours.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide him with wage
statements, and with wage notice, the Plaintiff asserts.

Mr. Antigua seeks an injunctive relief and all unpaid overtime
wages and spread-of-hours pay, as well as liquidated damages and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, litigation costs and disbursements, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dynamic Event Group Inc. operates an events production company
owned by Brian Rosenblum. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EFINANCIAL LLC: Borden Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DAVID BORDEN filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled DAVID BORDEN, Plaintiff v. EFINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01430-JLR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 30, 2021, Judge
James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington granted
eFinancial's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.

According to the complaint, Mr. Borden filed his original complaint
in the proposed class action on Sept. 9, 2019. On Aug. 10, 2020,
Mr. Borden filed an amended complaint, asserting one cause of
action on behalf of himself and a proposed class under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Section 227
("the TCPA").

The TCPA prohibits companies from using an "automatic telephone
dialing system" ("ATDS" or "autodialer") to make calls to a
telephone number assigned to a cellular service. It defines an ATDS
as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." The TCPA does not impose
liability where the "called party" provides "prior express consent"
to receive calls.

Mr. Borden alleged that after completing a basic form on
Progressive.com's website that offered a quote for life insurance,
he was directed to a page on eFinancial's website that requested
additional information, including his phone number. After
completing the eFinancial form, Mr. Borden clicked a button labeled
"Next, your rates," to proceed with the rate quote. Mr. Borden
alleged that he did not see a message in fine print below the
"Next, your rates" button before he clicked.

Mr. Borden seeks a review of the order granting eFinancial's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as David Borden v. eFinancial, LLC,
Case No. 21-35746, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on Sep. 2, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant David Borden Mediation Questionnaire was due on
September 9, 2021;

   -- Appellant David Borden opening brief is due on November 1,
2021;

   -- Appellee eFinancial, LLC answering brief is due on November
29, 2021; and

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

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

          Shawn Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE
          974 Howard Avenue
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com  

               - and -

          Daniel J. Bugbee, Esq.
          DBS LAW
          155 NE 100th Street, Suite 205
          Seattle, WA 98125
          Telephone: (206) 489-3819
          E-mail: dbugbee@lawdbs.com    

               - and -

          Joshua Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          6709 W 119th Street
          P.O. Box 198
          Overland Park, KS 66209
          Telephone: (913) 213-3064

Defendant-Appellee EFINANCIAL, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability
Company, is represented by:

          James G. Snell, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          3150 Porter Drive
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 838-4367
          E-mail: jsnell@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLP
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-3787
          E-mail: nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com

ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Millam Sues Over Mislabeled AA MAX Batteries
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN MILLAM; and DONALD SPRINKEL, individually and on behalf of
all others situated, Plaintiffs v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and
ENERGIZER BRANDS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01500 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 2, 2021) alleges that the Defendant has made the false
and misleading claim that its AA MAX batteries are "up to 50%
longer lasting than basic akaline in demanding devices" (the "50%
Longer Lasting Claim").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
advertisements, marketing representations, and labeling of the AA
MAX batteries are misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive
reasonable consumers. The Defendants design their packaging to
mislead consumers into thinking that the AA MAX batteries have
superior longevity, the Plaintiff claims.

These claims are allegedly false and deceptive attempts by the
Defendants to confuse and mislead consumers about the comparative
benefits of the Defendants' AA MAX batteries relative to other
alkaline batteries.

Energizer Holdings, Inc. manufactures dry cell batteries and
flashlights. The Company offers a full line of products, including
alkaline, carbon zinc, miniature, and rechargeable batteries, as
well as lighting products. Energizer also manufactures and markets
a range of razor and shave related products on a global basis.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Green, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, California 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  nschubert@sjk.law
                  agreen@sjk.law

FIRST HORIZON: Faces Williams Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAKISHA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST HORIZON CORPORATION, and FIRST HORIZON
BANK, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02553-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn.,
August 30, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated current and former Risk Compliance
Officers against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt Risk
Compliance Officer from approximately June 2019 through June 3,
2021.

The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendants did not properly pay her and those other
similarly situated to her, overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation for
herself and other similarly situated Risk Compliance Officers, as
well as pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and
expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

First Horizon Corporation and First Horizon Bank provide superior
financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Tel: (954) WORKERS
          Fax: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

                - and –

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

FLINT, MI: Class Certification Bid in Water Cases Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Opinion and Order
Relates To: 16-10444, Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued a Second Amended
Opinion and Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part the Class Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification;

   b. denying the Daubert motions filed by Defendants Veolia,
      LLC; Veolia, Inc.; and Veolia Water (collectively "VNA")
      and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, PC; Lockwood Andrews &
      Newnam, Inc.; and the Leo A. Daly Company (collectively
      "LAN") seeking to exclude the expert testimony and reports
      of Dr. Larry Russell relied upon by the Class Plaintiffs in
      their motion for class certification;

   c. granting in part and denying in part the Daubert motions
      filed by VNA and LAN seeking to exclude the expert
      testimony and reports of Dr. Paolo Gardoni relied upon by
      the Class Plaintiffs in their motion for class
      certification; and

   d. denying as moot the remaining Daubert motions.

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

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

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

The Court has also managed extensive discovery in these cases. Over
the years, the Court has conducted conferences to adjudicate
discovery disputes at least once per month and is therefore
familiar with the development of the factual record in these cases.
As the Class Plaintiffs stated at one time, discovery "has been
substantial, including millions of pages of document production and
review, the exchange of substantive written interrogatories, more
than eighty5 depositions, and extensive expert analysis." In sum,
the Flint Water Cases are abundant, complex, and have been
intensely litigated for the last several years.

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

The Class Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
July 16, 2020. The Individual Plaintiffs not seeking to be
represented by the Class, as well as Defendants LAN and VNA,
responded in January 2021. The Class Plaintiffs replied on April 7,
2021.

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

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

Discussion

I. Class Certification

A. Class Definitions

The Class Plaintiffs' proposed definitions are as follows:

     a. Master Issues Class (Rule 23(c)(4)): All persons and
entities who, for any period of time between April 25, 2014 and
Jan. 5, 2016, were exposed to or purchased drinking water supplied
by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of Flint, or
owned or operated a business in the City of Flint.

      Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either through
drinking or consuming foods prepared with drinking water) as well
as any form of physical contact with the water (including contact
with residential plumbing and other appliances as well as human
contact by way of bathing).

     b. VNA Issues Subclass (Rule (23(c)(4)): All persons and
entities who, for any period of time between Feb.y 15, 2015 and
Jan. 5, 2016, were exposed to or purchased drinking water supplied
by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of Flint, or
owned or operated a business in the City of Flint.

       Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either through
drinking or consuming foods prepared with drinking water) as well
as any form of physical contact with the water (including contact
with residential plumbing and other appliances as well as human
contact by way of bathing).

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

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

     e. Minors Damages and Injunctive Subclass (Rule 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3)): All children who, during the period from May 1, 2014 to
Jan. 5, 2016, were (a) in utero or between the ages of 0 to 10
years old, (b) lived in an identified residence or attended an
identified school or day care, and (c) were exposed through
ingestion to unfiltered Flint public water* at such residence,
school, or day care for at least 14 days within a 90 day period.

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

      Exclusions: Excluded from the classes are: (1) Defendants;
(2) the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned in federal
court, Genesee County Circuit Court, and the Michigan Court of
Claims, as well as these officers' staff and immediate family
members; (3) all persons and entities who timely and validly elect
to opt out of the Issues Classes; and (4) all persons and entities
represented by Reporting Counsel as defined in the Amended Order
Regarding the Collection of Claim Data and reported as such on the
census maintained by the Special Master, except those individuals
reported to the Special Master solely by Class Counsel.

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

     a. Multi-Defendant Issues Class (Rule 23(c)(4)): All persons
and entities who, for any period of time between Feb. 10, 2015 and
Oct. 16, 2015, were exposed to or purchased drinking water supplied
by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of Flint, or
owned or operated a business in the City of Flint.

      * Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either through
drinking or consuming foods prepared with the drinking water),
bodily contact with the water (such as by way of bathing), and
property contact with the water (through residential plumbing or
other appliances).

      * Persons is defined to include only those individuals who
have reached the age of majority as of the date of the class
notice.

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

      * Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either through
drinking or consuming foods prepared with the drinking water),
bodily contact with the water (such as by way of bathing), and
property contact with the water (through residential plumbing or
other appliances).

      * Persons is defined to include only those individuals who
have reached the age of majority as of the date of the class
notice.

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

First, Judge certifies two Issues Classes that are substantively
identical, but that represent the two different timelines in which
each Defendant was actively consulting on the City's water matters:
LAN advised the City during the City's April 25, 2014 switch to the
Flint River, whereas VNA did not begin its consulting relationship
with the City until Feb. 10, 2015. She says both parties then
consulted simultaneously, on and off, through 2015.  The parties
have extensively disputed the best way in which to capture these
two timelines, which overlap beginning in February 2015. Any class
that were to include the entire proposed timeline -- from April 25,
2014 to Oct. 16, 2015 -- would be overbroad as to VNA because VNA
could not possibly be liable as a consultant to the City for
conduct that occurred from April 25, 2014 to Feb. 3, 2015—before
it arrived on the scene.

To rectify this problem, the Class Plaintiffs' most recent class
definition suggests that the Court creates a "Master" Issues Class
beginning in April 2014 and a VNA-specific Issues Subclass
beginning in Feb. 2015, after the date of the proposed "Master"
Issues Class. Judge Levy declines this invitation because doing so
would likely render some individuals members of the VNA Subclass --
but not the Master Issues Class -- obviating the purpose of a
"master class." Accordingly, though she is certifying two
independent classes that contain a short temporal overlap, the
Judge believes that doing so is the cleanest way to fulfill the
Court's duty to capture the parties' arguments and "ensure that a
certified class is properly constituted."

Second, the Judge amends the time period for the Multi-Defendant
Issues Class to Feb. 10, 2015 through Oct. 16, 2015. As stated, the
Feb. 10, 2015 beginning date reflects the time by which both
Defendants were unquestionably consulting on -- and therefore
potentially liable for -- the Flint Water Crisis. The Oct. 16, 2015
end date reflects the time by which the City of Flint reconnected
to the Detroit water source.

The Judge adopts this end date because it was consistently proposed
by the Class Plaintiffs until they submitted their Memorandum
Regarding Updated Proposed Class Definitions, in which they
recommend extending the "Master" Issues Class end date through Jan.
5, 2016 for the sole reason that the "Master" Issues Class period
would thereby match the end date of the proposed Minors Damages and
Injunctive Subclass. Because she declines to certify the Minors
Subclass, the Judge adopts the time period that has been most
consistently proposed by the Class Plaintiffs for the "Master"
Issues Class and applies it to the Multi-Defendant Issues Class.

Finally, the Judge modifies the Class Plaintiffs' updated
definition of "exposure" that appears in the Multi-Defendant and
LAN Issues Classes. She finds that the Class Plaintiffs' most
recent proposal defines "exposure" to include "any form of physical
contact with the water (including contact with residential plumbing
and other appliances as well as human contact by way of bathing)."
The Class Plaintiffs explain that this definition attempts to
distinguish between property contact with water, resulting in
property damage, and bodily contact with water, potentially
resulting in personal injury. To clarify this distinction, the
Judge modifies the definition of "exposure" to "include ingestion
(either through drinking or consuming foods prepared with the
drinking water), bodily contact with the water (such as by way of
bathing), and property contact with the water (through residential
plumbing or other appliances)."

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

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

First, Judge Levy opines that certification of the Minors Damages
Subclass is impermissible because it would violate the Rules
Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2072(b), by abridging and/or
modifying several substantive legal rights afforded to minors under
Michigan law. Specifically, she holds that certification of the
Minors Damages Subclass would unlawfully abridge the minors' right
to an individual court-appointed representative, would
impermissibly abridge their right to contract upon reaching the age
of majority by seeking to bind them to an opt-out class, and would
impermissibly waive the tort claims of minors whose parents or
representatives seek to settle the minors' claims on their behalf.

Second, the Judge opines that certification of the Minors Damages
Subclass would violate the Rules Enabling Act by abridging
substantive protections that Michigan law provides regarding the
minors' ability to bring, settle, and abrogate their claims. She
says, the Class Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Court
could certify a class of minors without violating the minors'
substantive rights under Michigan law to bring, settle, and
abrogate their own claims.

Third, the Judge opines that while some medical monitoring
injunction requests may be appropriately forward-looking, the
medical monitoring injunction as framed in the case is ancillary to
the overarching goal of obtaining money damages for the Class
Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Judge denies Rule 23(b)(2)
certification of a Minors Subclass that seeks injunctive relief.

Fourth, Judge Levy finds that the Class Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that all proposed classes -- the Multi-Defendant
Issues Class, the LAN Issues Class, the Residential Property
Damages Subclass, and the Business Damages Subclass -- meet the
four prerequisites of Rule 23(a): Numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation.

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

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

Finally, the Judge finds that the Rule 23(c)(4) certification of
the Multi-Defendant and LAN Issues Classes is appropriate. She
certifies nine questions for the Multi-Defendant and LAN Issues
Classes. She says, these questions address core issues related to
the factual underpinnings of the Defendants' involvement in the
Flint Water Crisis and directly address aspects of duty, breach,
and causation in the Class Plaintiffs' professional negligence
claim.

The nine questions are:

      Issue 1: Did Defendants' contracts with the City create a
duty of care to third parties, and if so, what was the scope of
that duty?

      Issue 2: What is the applicable standard of care in a
professional engineering case?

      Issue 3: If Defendants' contracts created a duty of care to
third parties, did Defendants breach that duty by failing to
provide appropriate advice to the City of Flint regarding treating
the water?

      Issue 4: Did Defendants' conduct cause corrosive water
conditions in the Flint water distribution system?

      Issue 5: What is Defendants' role in creating, exacerbating,
and/or prolonging the contamination of the City's water supply,
including their involvement in the decisions to switch to the Flint
River as a water source, refrain from using corrosion control at
the Flint Water Treatment Plant (FTWP), and conceal information
related to the safety of the City's water supply?

      Issue 6: Were the corrosive water conditions allegedly caused
by Defendants capable of causing harm to Flint residents, property,
and businesses?

      Issue 7: To what extent were other actors at fault for
causing corrosive water conditions in the City water distribution
system, and how should fault be allocated among all those
responsible?

      Issue 8: Was it foreseeable to Defendants that their conduct
would cause corrosive water conditions in the City water system?

      Issue 9: What, if any, precautions should Defendants have
taken to prevent the resulting harm to human health and property?

II. Daubert Motions

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

A. Drs. Larry Russell and Paolo Gardoni

For the reasons set forth on the record, Judge Levy holds that all
four Daubert motions pertaining to Drs. Russell and Gardoni are
denied, with the exception of the following sentence in Dr.
Gardoni's report that was stricken as improper speculation: "VNA
failed to disclose that it believed that lead was currently being
released into the water supply because VNA understood that
releasing this information publicly would compromise its
opportunity to be awarded a lucrative long-term operating
contract."

The Judge holds that, first, at this early stage of the
proceedings, she is not performing its typical Daubert role of
gatekeeping for a jury, but is instead determining whether the
proposed experts will assist her in making a pure determination of
law. Second, the Judge is viewing the experts' testimony not as a
factual referendum on the merits of the Class Plaintiffs' case, but
instead through the limited lens of whether the testimony and
reports can be relied upon to establish that the Class Plaintiffs'
claims are proper for class adjudication.

B. All Other Class Certification Daubert Motions

The remaining Daubert motions -- regarding the Class Plaintiffs'
experts Dr. Alan Ducatman, Mr. R. Bruce Gamble, Dr. Panagiotis
Georgopoulos, Dr. Pierre Goovaerts, Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Daniel
Keating, Dr. David Keiser, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, Mr. David A.
Pogorilich, Dr. Daryn Reicherter, Dr. Robert Simons, and Dr.
Clifford Weisel -- seek to disqualify expert opinion testimony and
reports offered in support of certification of the Class
Plaintiffs' proposed Minors Damages and Injunctive Subclass,
Residential Property Damages Subclass, and Business Damages
Subclass.

Because Judge Levy is not be certifying these Subclasses for the
reasons previously set forth, and because she is and does not rely
on these experts in deciding class certification, the Defendants'
motions are denied as moot. Defendants LAN and VNA may revive their
Daubert motions should the Class Plaintiffs seek to rely on these
experts at a later time.

III. VNA's Motion to Correct a Scrivener's Error, Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, and the Effective Date of Class
Certification

VNA filed a Motion to Correct a Scrivener's Error on Aug. 19, 2021.
In its motion, VNA states that the date it signed a contract to
provide consulting services to the City of Flint was Feb. 10, 2015;
not Feb. 4, 2015 as the previous Opinion and Order granting class
certification states.

Judge Levy has reviewed the underlying contract and agrees the
contract is dated Feb. 10, 2015. Accordingly, VNA's motion is
granted.  Accordingly, all references to Feb.4, 2015 have been
corrected to reflect Feb. 10, 2015. This correction changes the
date range of the Multi-Defendant Issues Class to Feb. 10, 2015 and
Oct. 16, 2015.

Next, the Class Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Clarification on Aug.
26, 2021. In it, they request that the Court clarifies two matters.
First, they ask that the Court's reference in footnote 1 of its
Opinion and Order be modified to reflect that "Class Counsel"
includes both the Co-Lead Class Counsel and the members of Class
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee. That request is granted. Second,
they state, "it is Class Plaintiffs' understanding that any
individually represented Flint residents or businesses that are not
represented by Class Counsel but that otherwise meet the Class
definitions should be provided notice and may opt to participate in
the certified Issue Class(es) if they choose to do so." This
request, as written, is vague, Judge Levy holds. Despite this,
individually represented Plaintiffs who meet the Class definitions
and who wish to participate in the certified Issue Class(es) may
petition the Court through their counsel to be included. The Judge
will consider any such petitions if and when they are filed.

Finally, for clarity, the effective date of class certification for
the purposes of tolling under American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah,
414 U.S. 538 (1974), is the date of the Opinion and Order.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Levy granted in part and denied in
part the Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Rhonda Kelso, on behalf of herself and her minor child, K.E.K., as
well as Barbara and Darrell Davis, are designated as
representatives of the Multi-Defendant and LAN Issues Classes. The
Judge denied the request to designate all other class
representatives.

Theodore J. Leopold and Michael L. Pitt are appointed as the
Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g).

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

Judge Levy denied Defendants LAN's and VNA's Daubert motions as to
Dr. Larry Russell. She granted in part and denied in part
Defendants LAN's and VNA's Daubert motions as to Dr. Paolo
Gardoni.

The Judge denied as moot the remaining Daubert motions filed by
Defendants LAN and VNA.

Judge Levy granted VNA's Motion to Correct a Scrivener's Error. She
granted in part the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ea5ky2xw from Leagle.com.


FMC CORP: Overwatch Class Action Mulled, May Pay Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angus Verley, writing for ABC News, reports that debate over a new
farm chemical appears headed for the law courts, with a Sydney law
firm asking grain growers to join a class action against the
herbicide's manufacturer.

Overwatch is a pre-emergent herbicide developed by chemical company
FMC, launched commercially this year to much fanfare, thanks to its
ability to control ryegrass -- one of the country's worst weeds --
in barley, wheat and canola.

But there have been mixed reactions in its first season of use.

Some farmers say it has been extremely effective in killing
ryegrass and has not affected their crops, but others say it has
caused bleaching that will lead to substantial yield penalties.

Class action proposed
Brett Imlay, a special counsel with law firm Levitt Robinson, which
is bringing the class action against FMC, said the firm had been
approached by a group of farmers from Victoria's Wimmera region.

"They've had experiences across their barley and wheat crops with
bleaching, which is not growing out," he said.

"They've used Overwatch in some of their paddocks, and they have a
very good comparator to see how their crops are going with and
without Overwatch, and they're forecasting a loss of yields in the
order of 30 to 40 per cent."

Mr Imlay said FMC had predicted the chemical would cause bleaching
of crops in some cases but said there would be no yield penalty.

"All of the messages FMC put out were that this product had been
thoroughly tested and was safe." he said

"And yes, there would be some bleaching, but the crop would grow
out, and it would not affect yield.

"That is not the experience. That is not what's happening," he
said.

Mr. Imlay said he had spoken to farmers and agronomists who
described the damage as the worst they had seen in their careers.

"It's far too early to talk about estimated damages, but on an
individual basis -- and these are not big growers -- they say
they've suffered $200,000, $250,000 in damage.

"That's what they're forecasting at this stage given what they're
seeing in their paddocks."

FMC may pay compensation
Kristina Hermanson, managing director of FMC in Australia and New
Zealand, said the company was inspecting affected crops.

"We're really focused on investigating reports in the paddock on a
case-by-case basis, and the reality is the incidence of really
enhanced bleaching is still estimated at one per cent or less of
the total crop area," she said.

"It's September, so no-one has actually suffered a measurable yield
penalty until we get to harvest, but we're aware of some of the
cases."

Ms Hermanson said if it was shown that growers followed the
chemical's label directions and their crops were still damaged,
compensation would be offered.

"Where there's legitimate on-label use of FMC products, where there
is a yield penalty at harvest, we'll address the grower concerns at
that time," she said.

"Class actions, I've been advised, can end up taking 50 per cent of
any kind of settlement.

"They can also take up to three to four years. We're looking to
resolve things with growers that have legitimate cases in this
season," she said. [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Hid Defective Truck Airbags From Drivers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that General Motors
and Fiat Chrysler concealed from drivers that airbag inflators
installed in some of its GMC Sierra, Chevy Silverado, and Ram
trucks are prone to explosion, a new class action lawsuit alleges.


Lead plaintiffs Glenn Sager and Thomas Harries claim General
Motors, along with Fiat Chrysler and Joyson airbag manufacturer Key
Safety Systems, misrepresented vehicles installed with the
defective airbags as safe.

Sager and Harries want to represent a nationwide Class of consumers
who purchased or leased one of the affected vehicles in the United
States, as well as a separate state Class for anyone who purchased
or leased a vehicle in New Jersey or Missouri.

The allegedly defective truck airbags are installed in 2015-16 GMC
Sierra 1500, 2015 GMC Sierra 2500, 2015 GMC Sierra 3500, 2015-16
Chevy Silverado 1500, 2015-16 Chevy Silverado 2500, 2015-16 Chevy
Silverado 3500, 2015-19 Ram 1500, 2015-20 Ram 2500, 2015-20 Ram
3500, and 2019-20 Ram 1500 Classic vehicles, according to the class
action lawsuit.

While neither Sager nor Harris say they have been physically
injured by the alleged defect, they both claim they would not have
paid as much as they did for their trucks - a 2016 Chevy Silverado
and a 2015 GMC Sierra, respectively - had they been aware of the
defective airbags.

Defective Truck Airbags May Explode With No Warning
Sager and Harris say the defect in the Joyson-manufactured airbags
- installed in the side curtains of the above Fiat Chrysler trucks
and the roof-rails of the above GMC trucks -is caused by moisture
contamination during the manufacturing process.

The defect causes the truck airbags to spontaneously explode when
activated by an accident, according to the class action lawsuit,
which adds that Joyson airbags have been involved in three recalls
related to the inflator defect as of August 2021.

"The Truck Manufacturers are putting profits ahead of safety by
continuing to equip vehicles with Joyson airbags, even though they
knew or should have known those airbags were defective," states the
class action lawsuit.

Sager and Harris claim the defendants are in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, among others.

Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting costs,
restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, treble damages,
exemplary damages, compensatory damages, and overpayment damages.

General Motors is the subject of another class action lawsuit filed
last month that alleges millions of its trucks and SUVS have unsafe
airbag and seat belt systems. Have you been injured by an exploding
airbag in one of the affected General Motors or Fiat Chrysler
trucks? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher A. Seeger and
Christopher L. Ayers of Seeger Weiss LLP, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles,
III, H. Clay Barnett, III, and J. Mitch Williams of Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., James E. Cecchi, Caroline F.
Bartlett, and Jordan M. Steele of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, P.C., and Joseph H. Meltzer and Melissa L.
Troutner of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

The GM, Chevy Truck Airbags Class Action Lawsuit is Sager, et al.,
v. Key Safety Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15867, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN]

GEORGIA: Dismissal of Black Voters' Constitutional Claims Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND, MEGAN GORDON, PENELOPE REID,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, ANDY KIM, Plaintiff v. SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF REGISTRATION &
ELECTIONS, ANTHONY LEWIS, SUSAN MOTTER, DELE LOWMAN SMITH, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-13414 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court's
decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

Background

Georgia voters cast their ballots in two main ways -- in person or
through the absentee process. In-person voters can vote on election
day or during a period of advance voting. Absentee voters, after
applying for and receiving an absentee ballot, are responsible for
returning their ballots to the county election office. Those voters
can choose to return their ballots directly to the county election
office, deposit them into a ballot drop box, or mail them to the
county election office. The statute requires neither the state of
Georgia nor county governments to cover the cost of postage for
absentee voters who choose the third option -- mailing their
ballots.

The Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge Georgia's statutory
framework for absentee voting, alleging that requiring voters who
choose to return their absentee ballots by mail to pay for their
own postage is a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth
Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Plaintiffs sued the Georgia Secretary of State, the
DeKalb County Board of Registration & Elections, and other DeKalb
County elections officials ("Defendants") seeking a declaratory
judgment that Georgia's statutory framework for absentee voting by
mail is unconstitutional because it amounts to a poll tax and an
impermissible fee on voting and seeking injunctive relief requiring
Defendants to provide postage for absentee ballots.

The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
Georgia's statutory framework for absentee voting is not a state
poll tax or unconstitutional fee on voting. They also argued that
USPS' policy of delivering absentee ballots even if they have
insufficient postage further defeated the Plaintiffs' claims.

The district court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss
because it determined that the postage requirement is not a poll
tax under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment or an unconstitutional fee on
voting prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. The court found
that "the fact that any registered voter may vote in Georgia on
election day without purchasing a stamp, and without undertaking
any 'extra steps' besides showing up at the voting precinct and
complying with generally applicable election regulations"
necessitated its conclusion. The court acknowledged that "voting in
person is materially burdensome for a sizable segment of the
population, both due to the COVID-19 pandemic and for the elderly,
disabled, or those out of town," however, the court concluded that
these concerns are not "the specific evils the Twenty-Fourth
Amendment was meant to address."

The Plaintiffs appealed. They argue that by not covering the cost
of postage, Georgia is imposing an unconstitutional "poll tax" or
fee on some absentee voters.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the district court erred in
dismissing their claims because they stated a valid claim under
both the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection Clause. They argue that Georgia's statutory
framework for absentee voting by mail violates the Twenty-Fourth
Amendment because postal fees are a "tax," and by not paying for
postage, Georgia "abridges" the electorate's right to vote "by
reason of" their "failure to pay" that tax.

A. Twenty-Fourth Amendment Claim

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
ratified in 1964, provides: "The right of citizens of the United
States to vote in any primary or other election for President or
Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or
for Senator or Representative in Congress, will not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to
pay any poll tax or other tax."

The Court of Appeals opines that the Plaintiffs' Twenty-Fourth
Amendment argument fails because the cost of a postage stamp in the
context is neither a penalty nor a tax but is the cost of a service
-- voters can pay money to have a postal carrier transport their
ballot to the county election office instead of dropping it off
themselves. While the term "tax" may be "broad," it, at a minimum,
requires a "monetary exactio imposed by the government." The
Plaintiffs have failed to allege such an exaction in the case, and
thus the district court properly dismissed their Twenty-Fourth
Amendment claim.

B. Equal Protection Clause Claim

The Equal Protection Clause provides that no "State" will "deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." Because the Twenty-Fourth Amendment only applies to federal
elections, the Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of
Elections, analyzed the constitutionality of a poll tax in a state
election under the Equal Protection Clause. 383 U.S. 663, 666
(1966). There, the Supreme Court held that a state violates the
Equal Protection Clause "whenever it makes the affluence of the
voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard."

In Harper, the Court considered the constitutionality of Virginia's
$1.50 poll tax imposed on voters in a state election. The Court
explained that the Equal Protection Clause "restrains the States
from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate."
Because poll taxes bear "no relation" to voter qualifications, the
Court concluded that Virginia had "introduced a capricious or
irrelevant factor" by requiring voters to pay a $1.50 poll tax and
invalidated the tax.

The Plaintiffs argue that they stated a valid Equal Protection
Clause claim under Harper because Georgia's decision not to pay for
postage amounts to a poll tax or fee that is not related to a
voter's qualifications and discriminates against persons who do not
vote in person.

The Court of Appeals opines that this argument fails because
Georgia has not made the "affluence of the voter or payment of any
fee an electoral standard." Georgia does not require voters to pay
a poll tax or fee as part of their qualifications to be eligible to
vote, so it has not made the payment of any fee or poll tax an
"electoral standard." Similarly, to the extent the Plaintiffs ask
the Court of Appeals to analyze their Equal Protection Clause claim
as discriminating against different types of absentee voters, that
argument likewise fails.

Conclusion

While voting often involves incidental costs like transportation,
parking, child care, taking time off work, and -- for those who
choose to vote absentee by mail -- the cost of a postage stamp,
those incidental costs do not mean that Georgia has imposed an
unconstitutional poll tax or fee on its voters. Accordingly, the
Court of Appeals affirms the district court's dismissal of
Plaintiffs' claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/u6k5c64 from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Faces Biometric Privacy Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Illinois agreed with Google that a biometric
privacy lawsuit filed against it in the Northern District of
Illinois should be stayed in favor of a similar pending state court
case. Although it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' firms to file
nearly duplicative lawsuits in state and federal courts, it is not
always a guarantee that such lawsuits will be automatically stayed.
Before a stay order can be obtained, the defendant typically must
still engage in costly (and sometimes lengthy) motion practice. And
at least some courts still allow the later-filed action to proceed,
on various grounds.

This time, the district court made it clear that such duplicative
actions should not be allowed, as they waste the parties' and
judicial resources. They also create the risk of inconsistent
rulings. In the underlying lawsuit, which will now be addressed by
the Illinois state court, the named plaintiff alleged that Google
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by
using Google Photos service to scan individual pictures and extract
biometric data without informed consent.

This is a helpful procedural win for Google and for defendants
facing similarly duplicative privacy class actions around the
country.

"The significant costs imposed by piecemeal litigation-dividing the
informed-consent claims and the retention-policy claims into two
different forums-and the strong Illinois interest in presenting an
Illinois statutory dispute to the Illinois state court system
dictate that this federal case be stayed in favor of the state
case," Chang wrote. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Voice Assistant Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Curren, writing for Law Enforcement Today, reports that
according to reports, a recent lawsuit alleges that the virtual
assistants of big tech companies like Apple and Google are
listening in on users even when they are not supposed to.

A judge has ruled that Apple will have to fight a lawsuit brought
by users in federal court in California which alleges that Apple's
voice assistant Siri is improperly recording users' conversations.


The Washington Post reported that the judge ruled that the lawsuit
would continue despite Apple's many attempts to have the suit
thrown out.

Judge Jeffrey S. White of the federal district court in Oakland did
dismiss one element of the lawsuit, which involved users' economic
harm.

However, he did finally rule that the plaintiffs could continue
pursuing allegations that Siri activated without prompting and
recorded user conversations that it shouldn't have.

The lawsuit also alleges that the data was then passed on to third
parties, thus violating user privacy. This recent lawsuit, which
aims to gain class-action status, is just one of many brought
against Google, Apple, and Amazon over the companies' voice
assistants.

As of this writing, the tech giants have denied that their voice
assistants are spying on conversations and only listen in for "wake
words" and to receive commands.

Reuters reported that Judge White said the plaintiffs could try to
prove Siri routinely recorded their private conversations because
of "accidental activations," and that Apple disclosed those
conversations to third parties, such as advertisers. Voice
assistants typically react when mobile device owners use "hot
words" such as "Hey, Siri."

One Siri user said his private discussions with his doctor about a
"brand name surgical treatment" caused him to receive targeted ads
for that treatment, while two others said their discussions about
Air Jordan sneakers, Pit Viper sunglasses, and "Olive Garden"
caused them to receive ads for those products. White wrote:

"Apple faults plaintiffs for not alleging the contents of their
communications, but the private setting alone is enough to show a
reasonable expectation of privacy."

The Oakland, California-based judge said the plaintiffs may pursue
claims that Apple violated the federal Wiretap Act and California
privacy law, and committed breach of contract. He dismissed an
unfair competition claim.

In a statement, an Amazon spokesperson said that Amazon only stores
user audio when a wake word is used and even then only a "small
fraction" of user audio is manually reviewed. A similar suit to the
one recently filed against Apple has been taken against Google.

That suit is also going through the federal court system in
California. On July 1st, another federal judge in California said
users of Google's Voice Assistant, represented by the same law
firms as in the Apple case, could pursue a similar lawsuit against
Google and its parent Alphabet Inc.

In seeking dismissal of that suit, Google said the plaintiffs
failed to show they were harmed or that it broke any contractual
guarantees. The big tech company said:

"Google never promises that the Assistant will activate only when
plaintiffs intend it to."

The proposed class seeking unspecified damages includes U.S.
purchasers of Google Assistant-enabled devices since May 18, 2016.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman wrote in her 37-page
decision that the plaintiffs showed they used Google
Assistant-enabled devices often enough to have had a reasonable
expectation of privacy when speaking.

She added that while Google disclosed in its privacy policy how it
collects information for targeted advertising, "it does not
sufficiently apprise users that it will use recordings made in the
absence of manual activation or a hot word utterance."

According to eMarketer, it is estimated that 128 million people in
the United States use a voice assistant on a monthly basis. This
means that potential privacy issues could cause major complications
for big tech companies.

Breitbart News has also reported on privacy issues relating to
Amazon's Alexa and the sheer amount of voice data recorded by those
devices. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Welker Sues Over Disability Discrimination, Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WELKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV33148 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
September 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the California Government Code and the California
Labor Code including disability discrimination, harassment based on
disability, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure
to provide reasonable accommodation, retaliation, failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent harassment and discrimination in the
workplace, wrongful termination, and unfair business practices.

Mr. Welker was hired as a software engineer by the Defendant from
in or around August 2016, with a start date in or around October
2016, until his termination on or around September 11, 2019.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Steven R. Diaz, Esq.
         STEVEN DIAZ LEGAL
         3500 W. Olive Ave., Suite 300
         Burbank, CA 91505
         Telephone: (818) 827-7165
         Facsimile: (818) 827-6062
         E-mail: steven@stevendiazlegal.com

GRANITE ROCK: Denial of Bid to Certify Class in Altiery Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK ALTIERY, Plaintiff and Appellant v. GRANITE ROCK
COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. H045263 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California for the Sixth District affirmed
the trial court's order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Background

Mark Altiery brought a putative class action against his former
employer, Granite Rock, alleging the Defendant failed to provide
rest breaks as required by applicable wage orders.

The Defendant is a northern California civil engineering and
materials manufacturing company. Throughout its nine divisions, the
Defendant employs several hundred union and nonunion employees in
non-exempt positions, with the unionized trade employees operating
under multiple collective bargaining agreements. The company's
onsite construction and mining operations are governed by
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16. A different order,
Wage Order No. 1, applies to employees not covered by Wage Order
No. 16. Both orders provide for rest periods "based on the total
hours worked daily at the rate of 10 minutes net rest time per four
hours or major fraction thereof," unless the employee's "total
daily work time is less than three and one-half hours."

The Plaintiff is a cement mason who worked for the Defendant from
October 2010 to November 2015. He filed a putative class action
alleging that the Defendant failed to provide off-duty rest periods
(Lab. Code, Section 226.7; second cause of action) and committed
unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et
seq.; fourth cause of action).

The operative complaint alleged that the Defendant had engaged in
"a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code,
Business and Professions Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders by
creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that
knowingly deny employees their rights and benefits." The complaint
also alleged, as a pattern and practice, that the Defendant
"regularly required employees to work through their rest periods
without proper compensation and denied the Plaintiff and other
employees the right to take proper rest periods as required by
law."

The Plaintiff moved to certify a "rest period class" consisting of
"all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who
worked for the Defendant in the State of California at any time
during the period of time from Dec. 18, 2010, through Jan. 31,
2013, and worked 3.5 hours or more in any shift."

The Defendant submitted several collective bargaining agreements
with its trade union employees. All provided for 10-minute rest
breaks during each four-hour work shift, with one (applying to
carpenters) containing the "major fraction thereof" language. All
contained shift rules governing the number of hours an employee is
assigned to work each day, and the collective bargaining agreement
covering plaintiff as a cement mason provided for minimum shifts of
either four or eight hours. The Defendant also submitted
declarations from several putative class members attesting to
receiving notice of the applicable industrial wage order; taking
one rest break approximately two hours before lunch and a second
break approximately two hours after lunch during an eight-hour work
shift; and observing the Plaintiff taking rest breaks.

In a written order denying certification, the trial court ruled,
among other things, that the putative class was inappropriately
defined to the extent it included nontrade employees because the
Plaintiff failed to show those employees were covered by the same
rest break policy as the unionized trade employees. The Plaintiff
thus failed to show a common question predominated as to all
nonexempt employees. The court viewed differences in the
Defendant's rest break practices among trade employees insufficient
by itself to defeat certification, but noted the Plaintiff had made
no attempt to define a subgroup.

The trial court also found certain past acts by the Plaintiff
rendered him unable to adequately represent the proposed class. The
Plaintiff had omitted felony convictions from his employment
application and had been complicit in a different employer's
practice of attributing hours worked during certain pay periods to
other pay periods. The court found the Plaintiff's past conduct
bore directly on his credibility, rendering him an inappropriate
class representative.

The Plaintiff challenges the trial court's denial of class
certification on predominance and adequacy grounds.

Discussion

As in the trial court, the Plaintiff argues that a common question
predominates in that all nonexempt employees, including those in
nontrade positions, are subject to the facially unlawful rest break
policy contained in the Defendant's handbook.

The Court of Appeals opines that, as in the trial court, the
Plaintiff argues that a common question predominates in that all
nonexempt employees, including those in nontrade positions, are
subject to the facially unlawful rest break policy contained in
defendant's handbook. His argument fails for the reasons stated by
the trial court. The trial court found substantial evidence of a
common rest break policy governing unionized trade workers such as
Plaintiff. But the Plaintiff did not show a common rest break
policy applicable to defendant's nonunion workers. Plaintiff
deposed several managers who oversaw trade employees and identified
the handbook as governing their workers, but he produced
insufficient evidence that the handbook applied to nontrade
workers. The Court of Appeals sees no abuse of discretion in that
ruling.

The Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by considering the
scope of his discovery in denying class certification. First, the
Court of Appeals holds that the trial court noted that Plaintiff
limited his precertification discovery and notices to union workers
but then sought to certify a much broader class to include nonunion
employees. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate for class
certification that all hourly workers came under the same rest
break policy. Second, the Plaintiff did not show that the handbook
rest break policy was facially unlawful in light of the collective
bargaining agreements governing the trade employees. Substantial
evidence supports the trial court's finding that the trade
employees are covered by 15 collective bargaining agreements.

Third, the Plaintiff adduced no evidence that the Defendant
systematically denied lawful rest breaks to a class of unionized
trade workers. Proof of a common rest break policy does not compel
class certification since the policy by itself does not establish
employer liability. The Plaintiff must adduce some evidence that
defendant unlawfully applied the policy on a classwide basis. The
Plaintiff produced no evidence from any employee -- other than
himself -- attesting to the denial of a legally mandated rest
break.

Finally, the Plaintiff's other authorities are likewise inapposite,
as none involves a class proponent who produced no evidence
suggesting a classwide unlawful employment practice.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals finds no abuse of discretion in the trial
court's denial of class certification based on the Plaintiff's
failure to identify a predominating common question of law or fact.
In light of that conclusion, the Court of Appeals does not reach
the Plaintiff's challenge to the trial court's finding that
credibility issues rendered him unable to adequately represent the
class.

For these reasons, the order denying class certification is
affirmed. The Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal by
operation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/259bf753 from Leagle.com.


HAWAI'I: 5-Member Panel to Oversee Prison COVID-19 Response Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that a five-member oversight
committee should be up and running by Sept. 16 to report on what is
actually occurring inside Hawaii's prisons and jails regarding the
Department of Public Safety's alleged failure to comply with its
own response plan to COVID-19, resulting in harm to inmates.

The formation of the panel is part of a settlement agreement
entered into on Sept. 3 in a class-action lawsuit brought forth by
Hawaii inmates against state Public Safety Director Max Otani in
U.S. District Court.

On July 13 federal Judge Jill Otake issued a preliminary injunction
and slammed the Public Safety Department, saying its failures
allowed the rapid spread of COVID-19 resulting in outbreaks at five
of its eight facilities, with over 50% of the inmate population of
3,000 infected, 272 staff infections and seven deaths.

Since then the numbers have risen to over 2,000 inmates infected.

DPS and representatives of the inmates said in a joint statement
the settlement is "fair, adequate, and reasonable, " noting in
particular the provision for the establishment of the five-person
Agreement Monitoring Panel.

The panel, which will be an advisory and comprised of experts, will
provide nonbinding, informed guidance and recommendations to help
DPS implement and update its response to COVID-19, and information
to the parties' counsel.

Eric Seitz, attorney for the inmates in the class action, said,
"Subject to the court's final approval, we have entered into a
settlement with the state, which will enable us to enforce Judge
Otake's preliminary injunction by allowing our experts to have
access to the state prisons' staff and inmates to determine what
actually is being done and can be done better to combat COVID-19
and to more effectively protect inmates, staff and communities at
large."

The class-action lawsuit includes all inmates who contracted
COVID-19 and all inmates in the prison system who are at risk of
getting it.

Seitz said once the oversight committee work is underway and
"hopefully is producing some favorable results to fight the
pandemic more effectively, we will then turn our attention to
pursuing monetary damages claims for inmates and staff resulting
from the COVID pandemic."

Seitz initially asked the court to name a monitor or master to
oversee the process, but the judge declined.

The five panelists include Gavin Takenaka, Corrections health care
administrator; Tommy Johnson, Corrections Division deputy director;
Seitz appointees Dr. Homer Venters (epidemiologist and former chief
medical officer for prisons in New York Cit ) and Dr. Kim Thorburn
(former Hawaii corrections medical director ); and appointed
Chairman Dan Foley, retired associate judge of the state
Intermediate Court of Appeals.

The settlement agreement requires the panel to issue monthly
reports that should address each prison or jail's efforts to follow
the Pandemic Response Plan.

The panel should be given prompt access to the facilities after
providing 72 hours' notice to DPS to conduct on-site visits and
have access to all staff, inmates and consulting physicians and
experts with respect to the department's COVID-19 response.

"Even though DPS claims it is compliant (with its COVID-19 response
plan ), the problematic conditions identified by Plaintiff would
not change if the status quo is merely maintained, and Plaintiffs
would not obtain the relief they desire, " Otake said in her
preliminary injunction.

"DPS . . . continues to violate its own policies, " the injunction
says.

She further states that the wardens' declarations and other DPS
officials "uniformly recite provisions from the Response Plan,
while Plaintiffs share personal reports from inmates and DPS staff
at different facilities. . . . In other words, Defendant conveys
what should happen at DPS facilities and Plaintiffs reveal what is
occurring or has occurred at the facilities."

She ordered DPS to fully comply with its March 23, 2020, Response
Plan, consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
guidelines, focusing on good health habits, cleaning, social
distancing, use of masks, no-contact barriers, new intake
screening, personal protective equipment, medical isolation,
quarantine (with an emphasis on inmates at increased risk for
severe illness and single-cell and available housing prioritization
of inmates with increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19) and
surveillance for new cases.

She also ordered providing sanitary living conditions to all
inmates, including a working toilet, sink and drinking water. DPS
employees are prohibited from restricting access to inmate
grievance forms or preventing their submission.

Otake found that prison officials showed deliberate indifference,
which requires showing prison officials were aware of a substantial
risk of serious harm to an inmate's health or safety and that there
was no reasonable justification for the deprivation, in spite of
the risk.

The court found credible what the plaintiffs reported.

The most recent outbreak, which began in May at the Hawaii
Community Correctional Center, saw two-thirds of inmates infected
with the disease within three weeks, and 20 staff and 228 pretrial
detainees testing positive.

Inmates attributed that to the unsanitary conditions in a
31-by-35-foot holding area known as the "fishbowl" in which up to
60 detainees have been housed, urinating and defecating on the
floor since no toilets or running water exist.

Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit include Halawa Correctional
Facility inmate Anthony Chatman, who contracted the coronavirus
after two inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 were placed in
his housing quad, designated a COVID-19-negative quad. They were
allowed to mingle with other inmates without masks.

Nearly all in the quad tested positive, including Chatman's
cellmate, who remained in their cell even after getting sick, and
Chatman then got sick.

Despite the outbreak, there was never any social distancing
practiced, with 60 people eating shoulder-to-shoulder in a
400-square-foot room, he said.

A 52-year-old former Ha ­lawa inmate with lupus, Francisco
Alvarez, contracted COVID-19 in December but received little to no
medical help, eventually sustaining serious kidney damage. [GN]

HAWAI'I: Inmates Reach Class Settlement in COVID-19 Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached between Hawaii inmates and Max Otani,
director of the state's Department of Public Safety, in a class
action lawsuit challenging the department's response.

DPS and representatives of the inmate class said in a joint
statement that the settlement is "fair, adequate, and reasonable, "
noting in particular the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
General Release that provide for the establishment of a five-person
Agreement Monitoring Plan.

The AMP, which will be an advisory panel comprised of experts, will
provide non-binding, informed guidance and recommendations to help
DPS implement and update its response to COVID-19.[GN]


HEAVENLY VALLEY: Hamilton Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Hamilton, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEAVENLY VALLEY, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of El Dorado, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 8,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01608-MCE-DB to
the proceeding.

Heavenly Mountain Resort -- https://www.skiheavenly.com/ -- is a
ski resort located on the California–Nevada border in South Lake
Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Melis Atalay, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com
                 melis.atalay@ogletree.com


HERBERT D. BUTTERCUP: Alonzo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thuy Thanh Alonzo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HERBERT D. BUTTERCUP L.P., a Texas limited
partnership; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-06957-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2021), is brought to
secure redress against the Defendants for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the Defendant's
website, https://hdbuttercup.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant's stores provide to the public important goods and
services. The Defendant's website provides consumers with access to
a range of furniture products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HONEYWELL INT'L: Stipulated Protective Order in Ogaz Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY OGAZ, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation;
INTELLIGRATED SERVICES, LLC DBA 415 INTELLIGRATED SERVICES, LLC, an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00739-JFW-KK (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Kenly Kato of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division, granted the Parties'
Stipulated Protective Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/a2sh5kxc from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Hinds -- Jennifer.hinds@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH
BLACKWELL LLP, in Los Angeles, California.

Andrew J. Weissler -- aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com -- [Pro Hac
Vice], HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, in St. Louis, Missouri, Attorneys for
Defendants Honeywell International, Inc. and Intelligrated
Services, LLC.

Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@calljustice.com -- Arby Aiwazian --
arby@calljustice.com -- Daniel J. Kramer -- daniel@calljustice.com
-- LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, in Glendale, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiff GARY OGAZ.


HUSKY OIL: Zimmerman Reed Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman Reed LLP announces a proposed settlement in the case of
Jasen Bruzek, Hope Koplin, and Christopher Peterson v. Husky Oil
Operations LTD and Superior Refining Company LLC, Case No.
18-cv-697. Individuals over the age of 18 and subject to the April
26, 2018, Evacuation Order in Superior, Wisconsin resulting from
the Superior Refinery explosion and fire are eligible to receive
$150 per person (up to $300 per household) from a class action
settlement preliminarily approved by the federal court overseeing
the case. Individuals over the age of 18 and within the evacuation
area on April 26, 2018, may submit a simple, confidential claim
form online at www.SuperiorRefinerySettlement.com or by contacting
1-833-677-1092. The claim form is designed to take just a few
minutes to complete. Claimants need not have evacuated to receive a
payment and need not provide any proof of losses. Claims must be
submitted online or postmarked by November 3, 2021. The amount that
a person receives may be adjusted upward or downward based on the
number of claims filed. Any amounts already received from the
Reimbursement Program put in place after the incident will be
deducted from the claim.

The class action was originally brought in 2018 to recover damages
caused by the inconvenience of the evacuation (not including
damages for personal injury, emotional distress, or fear). "The
settlement is designed to make money available to those subject to
the Evacuation Order without providing any proof in terms of
documents or receipts. People in Superior on April 26, 2018, should
absolutely take a few minutes to submit the simple, online claim
form or mail one to receive this money. The claim process is
confidential and designed to allow people to take part in the
recovery with minimal effort," said Gordon Rudd, one of the
attorneys representing people subject to the Evacuation Order. [GN]

HYRECAR INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ:
HYRE).

Shareholders who purchased shares of HYRE during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19414&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: May 14, 2021 to August 10, 2021

ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) HyreCar had materially
understated its insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had systematically
failed to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class
Period; (c) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning
to its new third-party insurance claims administrator and
processing claims incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had
failed to appropriately price risk in its insurance products and
was experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) HyreCar
had been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting,
policies and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims
severity and customer complaints; and (f) as a result, HyreCar's
operations and prospects were misrepresented because the Company
was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to
investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a
reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross
margin, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization), and net loss trajectories.

DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19414&from=5

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of HYRE during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 26, 2021. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]

HYRECAR INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Sept. 6 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of HyreCar Inc.
(NASDAQ: HYRE) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: May 14, 2021 and August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in HYRE:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19391&from=5

HyreCar Inc. NEWS - HYRE NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that HyreCar
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) HyreCar had materially understated its
insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had systematically failed to pay
valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (c)
HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning to its new
third-party insurance claims administrator and processing claims
incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had failed to
appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was
experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) HyreCar had
been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting,
policies and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims
severity and customer complaints; and (f) as a result, HyreCar's
operations and prospects were misrepresented because the Company
was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to
investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a
reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross
margin, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization), and net loss trajectories.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in HyreCar you have until October 26, 2021 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased HyreCar securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the HYRE lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

HYRECAR INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against HyreCar Inc.
("HyreCar" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: HYRE) for violations of
§§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 14,
2021 and August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 26, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. HyreCar understated its insurance
reserves. The Company consistently failed to pay valid insurance
claims incurred before May 2021. The Company suffered from
considerable expenses transitioning to a new third-party claims
administrator. The Company failed to price appropriate risk into
its insurance products leading to a higher claims rate. The Company
had to completely overhaul its claims underwriting policies and
procedures in the face of high claims severity and customer
complaints. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about HyreCar, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS: Gomez Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics Usage
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2021L000952 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Cir.,
Dupage Cty., September 7, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has captured, collected,
disseminated, and otherwise used the biometrics of the Plaintiff
and other Class members, without their informed consent. In
addition, the Defendant has failed to make publicly available any
written biometric retention and destruction policy.

Industrial Business Services, LLC is a staffing agency,
headquartered in Bensenville, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
         Brendan Duffner, Esq.
         MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
         55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 893-7002
         E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
                 bduffner@mcgpc.com

INMEDIATA HEALTH: Stasi Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to D.P.R.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICKI STASI, SHANE WHITE, and CRYSTAL GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INMEDIATA HEALTH GROUP CORP. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. 3:19-cv-02353, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico on September 3, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Puerto Rico assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-01419-RAM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligence
per se, breach of contracts, and violations of the California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the Minnesota Health
Records Act by failing to properly secure the personal information
of its customers, including the Plaintiffs, which resulted to a
data breach in January 2019.

Inmediata Health Group Corp. is a company that provides software
and service solutions to healthcare providers, headquartered in San
Juan, Puerto Rico. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         10728 Lindbrook Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

                 - and –

         Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
         ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
         320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
         Tulsa, OK 74103
         Telephone: (918) 588-3400
         Facsimile: (800) 969-6570
         E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
         Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
         CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
         E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                 awf@chimicles.com

INTERNAL CREDIT: Sandberg et al. Sue Over Illegal Dunning Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SANDBERG and MICHAEL FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTERNAL CREDIT
SYSTEMS, INC. and THEODORE LACHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-40093
(D. Mass., August 30, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Massachusetts Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs claim that they received and read a dunning letter
from the Defendants – Sandberg's letter received was dated
January 20, 2021, while Figueroa's was dated October 30, 2020. The
dunning letters were requesting payment of the Plaintiffs' alleged
debt owed to "Anytime Fitness." However, the Defendants were not
licensed to collect debts by the Division of Banks.

As a result of the Defendants' letters, the Plaintiffs peace of
mind were allegedly intruded and caused them to become distressed
and concerned. Thus, on behalf of themselves and those other
similarly situated persons who received the Defendants' dunning
letter and caused them harm, the Plaintiffs seek doubling or
trebling all actual damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees,
and other relief as shall be just and proper.

Internal Credit Systems, Inc. and Theodore Lachman are debt
collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          373 Winch Street
          Framingham MA 01701
          Tel: (508) 872-1261
          E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com

                - and –

          Christopher M. Brine, Esq.
          BRINE CONSUMER LAW
          100 Grove Street, Suite 116
          Worcester, MA 01605
          Tel: (508) 556-1899
          E-mail: cmb@brineconsumerlaw.com


INTRUSION INC: Bid to Consolidated Celeste & Neely Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
consolidate the Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-00307 and Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al., Case No.
4:12-cv-00374 lawsuits, is pending.

On April 16, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division, captioned Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:21-cv-00307 against the Company, the Company's chief
financial officer, and former chief executive officer alleging,
among other things, that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of The
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The Celeste lawsuit claims compensatory damages and legal fees.

On May 14, 2021, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division, captioned Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:12-cv-00374 against the Company, the Company's chief
financial officer, and former chief executive officer. The Neely
lawsuit alleges the same violations under the federal securities
laws as those alleged in the Celeste lawsuit.

The Neely lawsuit also seeks compensatory damages and legal fees.

A motion to consolidate the two lawsuits and appoint a lead
plaintiff is pending before the court. The Company believes the
claims in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

Intrusion Inc. is a leading global provider of enterprise security
solutions for the information-driven economy. Intrusion's suite of
security products help businesses protect critical information
assets by quickly detecting, analyzing and responding to network-
and host-based attacks. The company is based in Plano, Texas.


ITALIAN GOLD: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Italian Gold, Inc.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Italian Gold, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07518 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021).

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

Italian Gold -- http://www.italiangoldinc.com/-- specializes in
gold chains, necklaces, rings, pendants, earrings etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klein Putative Class Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iterum Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit entitled, Klein v. Iterum Therapeutics
PLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-04181.

On August 5, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, captioned Klein v. Iterum
Therapeutics PLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-04181.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 30, 2020 and
July 23, 2021.

The complaint generally alleges 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 purportedly
material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's
submission of a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for marketing approval of sulopenem
etzadroxil/probenecid (oral sulopenem) for the treatment of
uncomplicated urinary tract infections in patients with a quinolone
non-susceptible pathogen and the likelihood of such approval. The
complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
believes the defendants have valid defenses against these claims
and, therefore, intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


The Company is unable, however, to predict the outcome of this
matter at this time. Moreover, any conclusion of this matter in a
manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial
costs or damages not covered by the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance would have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition and business."

Iterum said, "In addition, the litigation could adversely impact
the Company's reputation and divert management's attention and
resources from other priorities, including the execution of its
business plan and strategies that are important to the Company's
ability to grow its business, any of which could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business.

Iterum Therapeutics plc is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company
dedicated to developing and commercializing sulopenem to be
potentially the first oral branded penem available in the United
States and the first and only oral and intravenous (IV) branded
penem available globally. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland.


JAGUAR HEALTH: Plant Settlement Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that court in Tony Plant v.
Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Jaguar Health, Inc. was
formerly known as Jaguar Animal Health, Inc.), gave approval to the
proposed settlement and the entire settlement consideration will be
provided by the Company's director and officer liability insurance
carrier.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-04102, by Tony Plant on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar
Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Jaguar Health, Inc. was formerly known
as Jaguar Animal Health, Inc.), making claims arising under Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The
claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4 (File
No. 333-217364) declared effective by the Commission on July 6,
2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.

The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.

By order dated September 20, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit
for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was entitled to amend that
complaint within 20 days from the date of dismissal.

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to
focus on the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia
and the related disclosure statements in the Form S-4 described.

On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss on June 28, 2019.

The Company answered the second amended complaint on August 2,
2019; the answer denied the material allegations of the second
amended complaint.

Following the completion of document discovery, the parties engaged
in a mediation that resulted in an agreement in principle to settle
the litigation on a class-wide basis for $2.6 million, subject to
court approval.

Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement on December 30, 2020.

The court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, and
authorized Plaintiff to provide settlement class members with
notice of the proposed settlement, in an order dated February 2,
2021.

On May 27, 2021, the final settlement approval hearing was held.

The court gave approval to the proposed settlement and the entire
settlement consideration will be provided by the Company's director
and officer liability insurance carrier.

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial-stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JELLY BELLY: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Lucero Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LUCERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-at-00831 (E.D.
Cal., Sept. 2, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.jellybelly.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers like her, which
is a direct violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' Website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the suit says.

Jelly Belly Candy Company manufactures candy and other
confectionery products. The Company offers jelly candies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Evansville Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH 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-06943 (N.D. Cal., September
8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana 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.

Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation is a public school
corporation with its offices located on Walnut Street in
Evansville, 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:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

                - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 7 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

DIDI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19412&wire=1
KPLT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/katapult-holdings-inc-information-request-form?prid=19412&wire=1
ANVS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19412&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Didi Global Inc. F/K/A Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. (NYSE:DIDI)
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering; and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 21,
2021, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19412&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) DiDi's apps did not comply
with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection
and the collection of personal information; (2) as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace
Administration of China; (3) the CAC had already warned DiDi to
delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network
security; (4) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were
reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China, which
would have an adverse effect on its financial results and
operations; and (5) 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.

Katapult Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:KPLT)
KPLT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 18,
2020 - August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/katapult-holdings-inc-information-request-form?prid=19412&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Katapult
Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Katapult was experiencing
declining e-commerce retail sales and consumer spending, (2)
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 of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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=19412&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 deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Haddix Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Edward Haddix, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00481 (S.D.W. Va., Aug. 27, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 346-2889
          Fax: (304) 346-2895
          Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

               - and -

          Harry G. Deitzler, Esq.
          James C. Peterson, Esq.
          HILL PETERSON CARPER BEE & DEITZLER
          500 Tracy Way
          Charleston, WV 25311-1555
          Phone: (304) 345-5667
          Fax: (304) 345-1519
          Email: hgdeitzler@hpcbd.com
                 jcpeterson@hpcbd.com


LENOVO US: Advertises Products at False Discount Prices, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges Lenovo
has displayed false "regular" prices on its website in order to
deceive consumers into believing they are buying certain products
at a discount.

According to the lawsuit, Lenovo's false reference prices have the
effect of artificially inflating the perceived value of its
products, and entice consumers into making purchases they otherwise
would not have made. The case claims this practice violates
California law, under which retailers are prohibited from
advertising an item's former price unless it was the "prevailing
market price" during the previous three months.

Lenovo, in reality, does not sell its products for the advertised
"regular" price listed on its website, and instead fabricates the
amount in order to trick consumers into believing they are "getting
an incredible deal," the suit alleges. Per the case, the
"pervasive, ongoing nature" of this deceptive marketing practice
demonstrates that it is "central to [Lenovo's] overall marketing
strategy."

The lawsuit states that Lenovo, described in the complaint as the
largest computer manufacturer in the world, has no physical retail
stores in the U.S., and instead sells its products directly to
consumers through its website. According to the case, Lenovo often
advertises a "regular" price for its products, which, prior to
August 25, 2021, was represented either as the "Web Price," "Base
Price" or as a strikethrough price such as $1,199.99. Below each
regular price, Lenovo listed a sale price represented as the "After
Instant Savings" or "After eCoupon" price and accompanied by a
dollar amount or percentage purportedly saved, the suit relays.
While Lenovo redesigned its website on August 25, "the substance of
its deceptive pricing scheme remains the same," the case alleges.

The lawsuit claims, however, that the "vast majority" of Lenovo's
regular prices are false and deceptive because they do not
represent the prices at which the products were actually sold "for
a reasonably substantial period of time." For example, the
complaint states, although Lenovo advertised in June 2021 that the
regular price of its ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 8 Intel (14") laptop
was $2,279 and offered it for sale at a 40 percent discount with a
purported sale price of $1,367.40, the laptop was "rarely, if
ever," sold for "anywhere near" the advertised regular price, as
purportedly demonstrated in the pricing table below:

The case claims Lenovo's false reference pricing scheme is "so
deeply ingrained in its marketing strategy" that when the retailer
increases the sale price of an item, it also increases the regular
price in order to maintain a certain percent-off discount. In the
example above, while Lenovo increased the sale price of the X1
laptop between April and June 2021, the advertised "regular" price
of the computer was also increased to maintain a 40 percent
discount, the suit says.

"The parallel increases to the sale price and regular price
demonstrate that the regular prices did not reflect the actual
price at which Lenovo formerly sold the X1 Laptop," the complaint
reads. "Rather, Lenovo deliberately inflated the regular price to
convey a false sense of savings to potential customers-here, 40%
off."

According to the suit, pricing data collected by the plaintiffs'
counsel over the course of more than three months demonstrates that
Lenovo's products are on sale roughly 75 to 80 percent of the
time.

The case goes on to claim that Lenovo further perpetuates this
scheme by advertising that the sale prices are available for a
limited time, and thus pressures consumers into making a purchase
in order to take advantage of the purported offer. Through
"eCoupons," Lenovo misleads consumers into believing they must act
before the supposed coupon expires when, in reality, Lenovo simply
updates its coupon codes and continues to sell the product at the
same "discounted" price, according to the suit. The case claims the
defendant's coupon codes, which frequently incorporate a reference
to a specific month, holiday or sale, are "a sham" and merely a
means to increase sales.

Likewise, the suit says, the company's representation that a
certain percentage of coupons have already been claimed, or that
advertised discounts will end at a certain time, is similarly false
and misleading given Lenovo simply continues to sell its products
"at the same price and discount" whenever a sale purportedly
expires.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction ordering Lenovo to cease its
allegedly false and deceptive pricing scheme as well as damages for
certain consumers who were purportedly injured thereby.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox - sign up for
ClassAction.org's newsletter here.[GN]

LIFEMD INC: Cho Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
LifeMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the purported securities class
action suit entitled, Cho v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-04004, has been voluntarily dismissed.

On May 5, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Cho v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-04004, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the same aforementioned parties.

The Cho Complaint makes the same claims as found in the David L.
Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-03384 Lawsuit,
and, similarly, does not quantify damages and seeks to recover
damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
LifeMD's common stock during the same, aforementioned time period
between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021.

On May 19, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company
was voluntarily dismissed.

LifeMD, Inc. direct-to-patient telehealth company that provides a
smarter, cost-effective and convenient way of accessing healthcare.
The company is based in New York, New York.


LIFEMD INC: Continues to Defend Sosa ADA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
LifeMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) class action
lawsuit, captioned Sosa v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-05032.

On June 7, 2021, a purported ADA class action lawsuit, captioned
Sosa v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-05032, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The Sosa Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the defendants'
website, www.rexmd.com, has barriers making it inaccessible to the
visually impaired needing the assistance of screen-reading
software, and therefore, allegedly violates: (i) the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 et seq.; (ii) the New
York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law Sections 292
and 296; and (iii) the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL),
Section 8-102 and 8-107.

The Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to recover
compensatory damages, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, as well as punitive damages
under the NYCHRL.

The Complaint also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief.

The Company's response to the Complaint is currently due on
September 6, 2021.

LifeMD, Inc. direct-to-patient telehealth company that provides a
smarter, cost-effective and convenient way of accessing healthcare.
The company is based in New York, New York.


LIFEMD INC: Owens Putative Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LifeMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the purported securities class
action suit entitled, Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-03384, has been voluntarily dismissed.

On April 16, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned David L. Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-03384, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Justin Schreiber
(LifeMD's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), Juan
Pinero Dagnery (LifeMD's former Chief Financial Officer), and Marc
Benathen (LifeMD's current Chief Financial Officer).

The Owens, Sr. Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements about, and allegedly
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning, the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to recover
damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
LifeMD's common stock between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021.


On May 18, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company
was voluntarily dismissed.

LifeMD, Inc. direct-to-patient telehealth company that provides a
smarter, cost-effective and convenient way of accessing healthcare.
The company is based in New York, New York.


LIVE VENTURES: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Sept. 6 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Live
Ventures Inc. securities between December 28, 2016 and August 3,
2021, inclusive ("Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Live Ventures Inc.,
you may, no later than October 12, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Live Ventures Inc.

According to the filed complaint, Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose a variety of facts
to investors. Live Ventures failed to disclose that its earnings
per share for Fiscal Year 2016 was only $6.33 per share; that the
Company used an artificially low share count to boost the earnings
per share by 40%; and that Live Ventures had overstated pre-tax
income for fiscal 2016 by 20% by including $915,500 of "other
income" related to certain amendments that were not negotiated
until after the close of the fiscal year.

It is also alleged that Live Ventures made numerous false
statements regarding its acquisition of Appliance Smart and the
manner in which it recognized revenue did not conform to generally
accepted accounting principles.

On August 3, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filed a complaint against Live Ventures, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging "multiple
financial, disclosure, and reporting violations related to inflated
income and earnings per share, stock promotion and secret trading,
and undisclosed executive compensation."

The SEC alleged that Live Ventures had recorded income from a
backdated contract, which increased pre-tax income for fiscal 2016
by 20%, and understated its outstanding share count, which
overstated earnings per share by 40%.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $29.08, or 46%, to
close at $33.50 per share on August 4, 2021. The stock continued to
decline, and fell another 23% over the next four consecutive
trading sessions to close at $25.76 per share on August 10, 2021.

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

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

Contact:

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

LOAN DEPOT: Bottini & Bottini Reminds of November 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bottini & Bottini, Inc., a law firm specializing in securities
class action litigation, on Sept. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of LOAN DEPOT, Inc. (NYSE: "LDI") pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
February 16, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit --
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California -- seeks to recover damages under the
federal securities laws for those who purchased LOAN DEPOT stock.

Investors who have purchased Loan Depot stock at any time between
February 16, 2021 and September 3, 2021 and incurred losses are
urged to contact the firm immediately at fab@bottinilaw.com or
(858) 914-2001. Bottini & Bottini is representing clients on a
contingency fee basis. You may obtain additional information
concerning the action on our website, www.bottinilaw.com.

If you purchased shares of LOAN DEPOT Holdings, Inc. and would like
to assist with the case as a lead plaintiff, you must, no later
than November 6, 2021, request that the Court appoint you a lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.

The lawsuit charges that Loan Depot violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the Registration Statement failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's loan originations had already declined
substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity
and increased competition; (2) that the Company's gain-on-sale
margins had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO;
(3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue and growth would be
negatively impacted; (4) that the Company had already been forced
to embark on a significant expense reduction plan due to the
significantly lower growth and refinance originations that the
Company was experiencing; and (5) that, 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.

Subsequent to the IPO, Loan Depot's stock declined immediately,
declining below $8 per share less than six months after the IPO --
a decline of over 42% from the IPO price.

If you wish to join the litigation or discuss your interests in
this lawsuit, contact Frank A. Bottini of Bottini & Bottini at
(858) 914-2001 or fab@bottinilaw.com.

Contact:

Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
Frank A. Bottini, Esq.
Email: fab@bottinilaw.com
Tel: (858) 914-2001 [GN]

LOANDEPOT INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDI)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with loanDepot's February 16, 2021 initial
public offering (the "IPO"). Investors have until November 8, 2021
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the complaint, loanDepot violated the Securities Act
of 1933 because the Registration Statement failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's loan originations had already declined
substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity
and increased competition; (2) that the Company's gain-on-sale
margins had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO;
(3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue and growth would be
negatively impacted; (4) that the Company had already been forced
to embark on a significant expense reduction plan due to the
significantly lower growth and refinance originations that the
Company was experiencing; and (5) that, 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.

In February 2021, loanDepot completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 3.85 million shares of Class A common stock at
$14.00 per share.

By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock had declined to $8.07 per
share, a more than 42% decline from the IPO price after the Company
disclosed disappointing second quarter 2021 financial results and
provided significantly lower guidance for its business.

If you purchased loanDepot shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

LOANDEPOT INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Reminds of Nov. 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
loanDepot, Inc. (NYSE:LDI) shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with loanDepot's
February 16, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") have until
November 8, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The
loanDepot class action lawsuit charges loanDepot, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The loanDepot class
action lawsuit was commenced in the Central District of California
and is captioned Lako v. loanDepot, Inc., No. 21-cv-01449.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the loanDepot class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the loanDepot class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than November 8, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: In its IPO, loanDepot sold 3,850,000 shares of
its Class A common stock to the public at a price of $14.00 per
share for total proceeds of approximately $54 million, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions. Nearly 40% of the shares
sold in the IPO were by loanDepot's founder, chairman, and CEO,
defendant Anthony Hsieh, and loanDepot's early partner and
investor, Parthenon Capital.

The loanDepot class action lawsuit alleges that loanDepot's
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state that: (i) loanDepot's refinance originations had
already declined substantially at the time of the IPO due to
industry over-capacity and increased competition; (ii) loanDepot's
gain-on-sale margins had already declined substantially at the time
of the IPO; (iii) as a result, loanDepot's revenue and growth would
be negatively impacted; and (iv) consequently, defendants' positive
statements about loanDepot's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The loanDepot class action lawsuit further alleges that when
loanDepot announced disappointing second quarter 2021 results on
August 3, 2021, Anthony Hsieh admitted that everything about
loanDepot's business is "highly predictable" and thus that
loanDepot had perfect visibility at the time of the IPO as to where
its business was and was going. By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's
stock price fell to $8.07 per share, a more than 42% decline from
the IPO price, having plummeted in response to information
reflecting the materialization of significant risks misrepresented
and omitted from the Registration Statement.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased loanDepot
shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the loanDepot 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 loanDepot class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the loanDepot class action lawsuit. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the loanDepot class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

                    About Robbins Geller

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]

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: George Troicky Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Lordstown Motors Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that  the Court appointed
George Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18,
2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-616); Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-633); Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-720); Brury, et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case
No. 21-cv-760)); Romano et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.,
(Case No. 21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC, et al. v.
Lordstown Motors Corp. et al., (Case No. 21-cv-1021)), asserting
violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section
14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

The complaints generally allege that the Company and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline.

The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George
Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

Lordstown said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters
or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any."

Lordstown Motors Corp. designs and manufactures electric vehicles.
The Company offers electric light duty trucks, pickup trucks, and
other vehicles. Lordstown Motors serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Lordstown, Ohio.


MATTEL INC: Bid to Continue Class Status Hearing to Oct. 4 Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Mattel, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 19-cv-10860-MCS-PLAx (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C.
Scarsi entered an order that the motion to continue hearing on Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from September 20, 2021
to October 4, 2021, is denied.

Mattel, Inc. is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in 1945 with headquarters in El Segundo, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38St3zq at no extra charge.[CC]


MORTON SALT: Faces Brown Suit Over Mislabeled Himalayan Salt
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA BROWN; and HEATHER BLUM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MORTON SALT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-06855-KAW (N.D. Cal., Sept 2, 2021)
alleges that the Defendant misrepresented and mislabeled the
Himalayan Pink Salt Products, including the Morton Coarse Himalayan
Pink Salt and Morton Fine Pink Salt (collectively, the "Salt
Products").

According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells the
Salt Products as "Himalayan" and "harvested from ancient sea salt
deposits deep within the
Himalayas". However, the Salt Products are not "harvested from deep
within in the Himalayas." In fact, they are sourced from salt mines
hundreds of miles away in Pakistan, the suit says.

As a result of Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, the
Defendant is able to charge consumers more money for its Salt
Products because Himalayan pink salt is supposedly mined in the
pristine Himalayan Mountains, which are rich in iron. Accordingly,
consumers are willing to pay more for Himalayan salt.

By virtue of the misrepresentations on the Product's packaging, the
Defendant engaged in widespread false and deceptive advertising on
its Salt Products by claiming that the Salt Products were
"harvested from deep within in the Himalayas" (the "Himalayan
Claims"), added the suit.

Morton Salt, Inc. manufactures salt products. The Company provides
products which includes table salts, gourmet salts, seasoned salts,
and pool salt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MOUNTAIN VIEW: Begins Enforcing Ban on Most RV Street Parking
-------------------------------------------------------------
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com reports that despite a lawsuit calling
its ban on oversized vehicles on narrow streets inhumane, the city
of Mountain View began posting signs to enforce the voter-approved
measure.

It has left many, like Patrick True and Todd Wolff, making plans to
leave the city - not by choice.

"I think it's stupid, I think they're putting a lot of money where
they don't need to," True said. "My family's been here for eons. I
don't care, I'm out of here, you know, c'est la vie to Mountain
View."

The class-action lawsuit, filed by legal advocates on behalf of the
residents who live in RVs, calls the ban "unconstitutional" and
"inhumane." Mountain View city leaders have asked a federal judge
to throw out the lawsuit; arguing that the ban's goal is to ensure
safety on its narrow roads.

The ban prohibits oversized vehicles on streets less than 40 feet
wide. There's also a ban of oversized vehicles on streets with bike
lanes. That means oversized vehicles, including RVs, are not
allowed on more than 80% of streets in Mountain View.

The city began posting signs in the area of Monta Loma, Farley and
Rock Streets on August 14. Between now and mid-September, signs
will go up in the area of Moffett and Whisman Road.

Wolff, who lived in a tent along a creek after losing his parents,
feels lucky to now own an RV. He's lived on Gemini Avenue for more
than a year.

"It's been great, we've kept it quiet and clean, we haven't had any
problems," Wolff said.

But he said he doesn't blame residents who want to see them go.

Wolff and his neighbor have looked at a few spots in Sonora. That's
where True plans to move next month despite the fact that the
street he and Wolff are parked on is wide enough to allow them
stay. But they know of another city law that only allows them to
park there no more than 72 hours.

They know it's only a matter of time before their time is up.

"I mean they need to solve the problem, that's not solving the
problem, that's just making the problem bigger," True said. "I'm
out of here, I've lived here all my life and I'm forced out of
here. I mean that sucks. I grew up here."

Mountain View leaders said they could not comment on the litigation
that has been filed against them. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccination Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Bascome at silive.com reports that New York City is being
taken to court over a controversial policy that requires all public
school employees to get vaccinated against the coronavirus
(COVID-19) or lose their job, with no alternate option of weekly
testing.
Staten Island-based lawyers Mark Fonte and Louis Gelormino filed a
class action lawsuit against New York City, the Department of
Education (DOE) and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
(DOHMH) regarding the requirement that all New York City public
school employees must receive at least one dose of the COVID-19
vaccine by Sept. 27.

"After many conversations with my partner Louis Gelormino and
former Congressman Vito Fossella we decided to take on this fight
on behalf of our teachers and school children," Fonte said. "We all
felt it was imperative to be a voice for the voiceless."

On Aug. 23, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that every city DOE
employee - including teachers, principals, custodians and central
office staff - will be required to receive at least one dose of the
vaccine by Sept. 27.

The mandate removed the test-out option for school staff that
currently allows city workers to either be fully vaccinated or be
subject to weekly testing, making public school employees the first
group of city workers required to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) announced that it is
seeking mediation from the state due to New York City's
unwillingness to negotiate medical or religious exemptions for the
vaccine mandate.

The UFT requested intervention from the state's Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) to resolve the issue by mediation, claiming
that the city's refusal to provide exceptions to the mandate is in
violation of state and federal laws, as well as the union's
contract.

"Our bargaining negotiations with the city have gone to a very bad
place to say the least," UFT President Michael Mulgrew told
reporters. "It's clear that the two sides are very, very far apart
in terms of how to deal with this vaccine mandate."

When the mandate was announced, de Blasio said the city will start
working with the labor unions representing school staff on the
"impact of this decision and how to ensure we can implement
properly and fairly."

However, the union claims that during those conversations, the city
has refused to accommodate teachers with legitimate medical or
religious exceptions, failing to provide them with the option of
weekly testing or remote instruction.

The UFT stated that city negotiators have said that those with
medical issues can stay on the payroll and use up their sick days
before being placed on unpaid leave, while those with religious
objections would be placed on unpaid leave immediately, leaving
them without a source of income or health insurance.

"The absence of medical and religious exemptions or testing options
is grossly unfair and lacks parity with other city employees,"
Fonte said.

A representative from the DOE has said that the department will
review the lawsuit.

"The health and safety of New York City children and the protection
of our employees is at the core of our vaccine policy -- we will
review this suit," said DOE spokeswoman Katie O'Hanlon.

Also, the city's major municipal unions, including the UFT, filed
their own suit against the city in Manhattan Supreme Court. In the
suit, the unions call the vaccine mandates "coercive," according to
the New York Post.

The class action lawsuit is not Fonte and Gelormino's first foray
into coronavirus-related cases. [GN]

NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD: Class Action Over Paper Mill Odor Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Lee and Brandon Goldner, writing for WCNC Charlotte, report
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been made aware
of increased emissions at the New-Indy Containerboard paper mill in
Catawba, South Carolina, state health officials said.

In a statement, South Carolina's Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) said the EPA is in the process of
gathering additional details after they were notified by New-Indy
of increased emissions, which violate the requirements of the Clean
Air Act Emergency Order currently in place at the mill.

"The cause of the exceedances has been attributed to the overflow
of black liquor at the aerations stabilization basin which is part
of the facility's wastewater treatment process," the statement
says.

Black liquor is a byproduct of converting wood into paper. DHEC
said New-Indy informed officials they are working to implement
corrective actions to prevent a future occurrence.

New-Indy has been under the microscope of regulators after the EPA
and DHEC determined the company was emitting too much hydrogen
sulfide, which they believe is responsible for the foul odor
affecting thousands of homeowners across the Charlotte region.
State officials started receiving complaints in January about the
smell.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against New-Indy over the smell,
including a class-action suit filed by a Charlotte man. In early
July, an attorney representing the company asked a federal judge to
dismiss one of the lawsuits.

Homeowners told WCNC Charlotte they're concerned about the
increased emissions.

"All I want to do is just go back to my house," JoAnn Carroll said.
"I want to go back, and I want to enjoy it. I don't want to feel
like a prisoner in my own home."

Karen Reilly's family is preparing to sell their house.

"It's sad. It's heartbreaking," Reilly said. "We're basically
having to downsize for all of us to do this so yeah, it's
devastating."

New-Indy released the following statement concerning the increased
emissions:

"On Thursday, September 2nd, the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitor
located adjacent to Holding Pond # 1 detected levels of H2S in
excess of the 30-minute limit set forth in our consent order with
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We
immediately investigated this event and determined that these
levels were the likely result of an unexpected release of process
liquid from the paper mill into the wastewater treatment system.
Since the current H2S monitoring stations were first installed at
the facility in May, we have learned that H2S levels detected at
Monitoring Station 1 are frequently elevated when wind blows across
Holding Pond # 1 from the North at a velocity greater than 8 miles
per hour. Our engineers are currently developing a system to detect
and prevent unexpected process water releases from entering the
wastewater treatment system in the future. We expect to have that
solution in place within the next 180 days. Other than this event,
the wastewater treatment system continues to function well and
improve each day.

As soon as we became aware of this issue, we immediately informed
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and
EPA of this occurrence and about our plans to address it. We
continue to work with these agencies and to regularly post our
monitoring results on this website." [GN]

NMC HEALTH: November 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 7 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Central District of
California has approved the following announcement of a proposed
partial class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
NMC Health PLC common stock (OTCMKTS: NMHLY):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED NMC HEALTH PLC ("NMC")
AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSs") BETWEEN MARCH 13, 2016 AND
MARCH 10, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. PLEASE REVIEW THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION ("NOTICE") POSTED AT
WWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET/NMCHEALTH/ FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND
INSTRUCTIONS.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held in the
above-captioned action (the "Action") on November 30, 2021, at
10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall in Courtroom
8B of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, to
determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Settlement
Class's claims against Defendant H.J. Mark Tompkins ("Tompkins" or
"Settling Defendant") for $120,000 should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the
Court should permanently bar and enjoin the assertion of any claims
against the Tompkins Released Parties that arise from or relate to
the subject matter of the Action; (4) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Tompkins as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Settlement Stipulation")
filed with the Court; and (5) whether the application by Co-Lead
Counsel for reimbursement of reasonable expenses should be
approved. At the Court's discretion, the Final Approval Hearing may
be telephonic, in which case call-in details will be displayed by
the Claims Administrator at its website:
www.strategicclaims.net/nmchealth/.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED NMC ADSs FROM MARCH 13, 2016
TO MARCH 10, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
Form ("Proof of Claim"), postmarked or delivered to the Claims
Administrator (see address below) no later than October 30, 2021.
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 30, 2021,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the
Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgments, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

A copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the
Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to
object to the Settlement or exclude yourself from the Settlement),
a Proof of Claim form, and the Settlement Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice) may be obtained online at
www.strategicclaims.net/nmchealth/, or by writing to:

NMC Health PLC Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
Telephone: 1-866-274-4004
Fax: 1-610-565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Courts, or the
Clerks of the Courts. Inquiries may also be made to a
representative of Co-Lead Counsel:

Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Fl.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060

Co-Lead Counsel

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY THE
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 9, 2021, IN THE MANNER
AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
WILL BE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENTS ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY
DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY
CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE
FILED WITH THE COURT, CO-LEAD COUNSEL, AND COUNSEL FOR THE SETTLING
DEFENDANT BY NOVEMBER 9, 2021, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN
THE NOTICE.

DATED: AUGUST 12, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL [GN]

NORTH AMERICAN: Hoffman Suit Remanded to New Jersey Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH AMERICAN NUTRACEUTICALS,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-00445 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C.
Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the putative class action
to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.

Background

The Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, commenced the putative class
action against the Defendant, a company incorporated in Delaware
with its principal place of business located in Florida, in the
Superior Court on Dec. 21, 2020, alleging that the Defendant
defrauded purchasers of its male virility product by making false
and unlawful claims regarding the therapeutic nature of the
Product, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and a putative
class consisting of "all nationwide purchasers of the Product, who
purchased such product during the four-year period preceding the
filing of this suit," and seeks damages for the price of each
Product sold.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the Defendant removed the action to the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, purporting to invoke federal
subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Specifically, the Plaintiff
asserted that this Court has original jurisdiction over the
putative class action because (1) minimal diversity is satisfied,
as at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a
different state than Defendant; (2) there are more than 100 members
of the proposed class; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million, exclusive of interest and costs.

On Jan. 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), arguing that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA and, therefore, that the
Defendant had no basis to remove this action, because it has failed
to establish that the Plaintiff has placed in excess of $5 million
(CAFA's jurisdictional minimum) in controversy.

The Defendant submitted a sworn certification executed by Cheryl
Marie, the Defendant's owner, which was challenged by the
Plaintiff, in which Marie attested that: When considering the
Defendant's sales of the Product throughout the United States over
the four years immediately preceding the filing of Mr. Hoffman's
Complaint, as well as the additional relief sought by Mr. Hoffman
in his Complaint, the amount in controversy in the action exceeds
$5 million.

Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") concluding that the Plaintiff's motion to
remand should be granted.

Discussion

The only question for the Court on de novo review of the
Plaintiff's motion to remand is whether the Defendant has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that he has placed
in excess of $5 million in controversy, as required under CAFA.

After reviewing the record, Judge Cecchi agrees with Magistrate
Judge Espinosa's recommendation that the action be remanded to the
Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the
Defendant has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the Plaintiff has placed in excess of $5 million in
controversy. The Judge holds that the Defendant's certification --
its proffered evidence -- summarily concludes that, when
considering the Defendant's sales of the Product during the class
period, "the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million."

The Defendant's damages assertion, however, is not grounded "on
some reasonable inference that can be drawn from fact," as the
Defendant fails to articulate the basis in which it formulated this
calculation. The Judge further notes that the Defendant has not
produced the underlying data in support of its damages assertion to
either the Plaintiff or the Court.

Therefore, as the Judge cannot reasonably infer from the present
record that the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $5
million, the Defendant has not met its burden under CAFA.

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi adopts
Magistrate Judge Espinosa's R&R. The Plaintiff's motion to remand
is granted, and the action is dismissed without prejudice. An
appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/hw6pab6y from Leagle.com.


NORTHWESTERN RETIREMENT: Cert. Petition Filed in Retirement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, a case brought by Schlichter Bogard &
Denton on behalf of Northwestern retirement plan participants is
scheduled to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. Originally
filed in 2016, the Northwestern case revolves around plan
participants' challenge to Northwestern's retirement plan
investments and fees. The Supreme Court on July 2, 2021 accepted
plan participants' writ of certiorari and will review the Seventh
Circuit's decision affirming the trial court's dismissal of the
case.

As reported by Law360, Schlichter Bogard & Denton on September 3,
2021 filed its Brief for Petitioners on behalf of the Northwestern
retirement plan participants. Therein, the plan participants
represented by Schlichter Bogard & Denton argue that the Seventh
Circuit erred in its previous decision to dismiss the case when it
wrongly concluded that Northwestern circumvented liability for
depleting workers' retirement savings through excessive fees by
simply offering their workers a multitude of retirement options at
varying costs. The Brief asserts that "in characterizing choice as
an unabashed virtue, the Seventh Circuit disregarded [the workers']
well-pleaded allegations that offering too many duplicative choices
caused harm." The Brief further contends that the Seventh Circuit
"inverted. . . . applicable pleading standard[s]" by impermissibly
viewing the alleged facts in a light most favorable to
Northwestern, as opposed to that of the workers, potentially
"voiding Congress' intent to protect beneficiaries[']" interests
first and foremost and subsequently making it "extremely difficult
for ERISA participants to bring a lawsuit" in the future.

We are proud to be pioneers in retirement plan litigation. Visit
our website to learn more about other high-impact cases we've
handled. For additional information about Schlichter Bogard &
Denton's Retirement practice, please contact us at 800-873-5297 or
via email at contact@uselaws.com. [GN]

NVR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Cossaboom Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA COSSABOOM, et al.,
v. NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC. and NVR, INC., Case No.
9:21-cv-80627-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon
entered an order that:

   1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
      Complaint is granted in part as to Defendants' arguments
      under Rule 12(b)(2).

      -- Plaintiff Hughes is dismissed with prejudice from this
         action, and any opt-in Plaintiffs whose claims do not
         satisfy the requirements of this Order are dismissed
         without prejudice. Defendants' additional arguments in
         the Motion to Dismiss are denied without prejudice to
         be revisited, if necessary, upon the filing of a Second
         Amended Complaint.

   2. Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint in
      accordance with this Order on or before September 15,
      2021.

      -- To the extent Plaintiffs seek to allege a joint-
         employer relationship between Defendants NVR Mortgage
         Finance, Inc. and NVR, Inc., they must plead sufficient
         facts to support that allegation.

   3. Plaintiffs' Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and
      Issuance of Court-Authorized is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
      to be refiled, if so desired, in accordance with the
      personal jurisdiction conclusion in this Order.

The Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
whose claims do not arise out of Defendants' contacts with the
state of Florida. Here, that means the Court cannot exercise
personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff Hughes or any other opt-in
plaintiff whose claims do not arise out of or relate to Defendants'
conduct in Florida. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek
certification of a collective action, any such collective action
must be limited to employees whose claims arise from Defendants'
Florida activities.

This proposed collective action is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") based on Plaintiffs' allegations that
Defendants did not pay overtime wages to its Loan Officer
employees.

The Defendants NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. and NVR, Inc. are engaged
in the homebuilding business and provide home mortgages in fourteen
different states. Both NVR, Inc. and NVR Mortgage Finance Inc. are
Virginia Corporations with their principal place of business in
Reston, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs Melissa Cossaboom, Ann Adair Hatch, and Joel Hughes
are the named plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint. All three are
former loan employees who facilitated the sale of home financing
for Defendants. Cossaboom is a resident of Apollo Beach, Florida,
and worked in Defendants' Tampa, Florida, office from December 2017
to August 2018. Hatch is a resident of Jupiter, Florida, and worked
in the West Palm Beach, Florida office from June 2017 to August
2019. Hughes is a resident of Greenville, South Carolina, and
worked in the Greenville, South Carolina office from May 2019 to
August 202.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k0kEk0 at no extra charge.[CC]

ORBCOMM INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, George Faulkes v. ORBCOMM, Inc. et
al, Docket No. 1:21-cv-04838, on behalf of public common
shareholders of ORBCOMM, Inc., ("ORBCOMM" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:ORBC) who held ORBCOMM securities as of the record date May
25, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by ORBCOMM's
and its board of directors' alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") regarding the acquisition of ORBCOMM by GI Partners (the
"Merger").

Under the terms of the Merger, each share of ORBCOMM common stock
will be canceled and converted into the right to receive $11.50 in
cash (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the
Merger Consideration harms ORBCOMM shareholders by providing less
than the inherent value of the Company and that the Proxy Statement
filed by the Company to solicit shareholder approval of the Merger
misleads shareholders about the Company's financials and the Merger
in violation of the Exchange Act. The special meeting of ORBCOMM
stockholders to vote on the Merger was held on July 8, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 8, 2021. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/orbcomm-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

If you own common stock in the above listed company and wish to
obtain additional information and protect your investments free of
charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde,
Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by
telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]

OSL RETAIL: Faces Purvis Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Team Leads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN PURVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSL RETAIL SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01738 (N.D. Ohio, September 7, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio Rev. Code by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a team lead from May
2020 to June 2021.

OSL Retail Services Corporation is a company that sells cellular
phones and services, with its principal place of business in
Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
                 
         Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Telephone: (216) 230-2955
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

                  - and –

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

PACIFIC BEACH: Whitehair Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE WHITEHAIR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC BEACH RECOVERY, LA JOLLA
RECOVERY, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00038307-CU-WT-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., September
8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code including failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay earned wages
upon discharge, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, and wrongful termination.

Mr. Whitehair was employed by Pacific Beach Recovery as a
behavioral help therapist from 2019 until April of 2021.

Pacific Beach Recovery is an addiction treatment center located in
San Diego County, California.

La Jolla Recovery is an addiction treatment center located in San
Diego County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Narak Mirzaie, Esq.
         M LAW ATTORNEYS, APC
         680 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 180
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 626-4422
         Facsimile: (626) 626-4420

PARKER HANNIFIN: Malauulu Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FAUTUA MALAUULU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01204553-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on September 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-01459 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to
pay all vested and accrued vacation wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized statements, failure to provide all wages upon
separation of employment, and unfair business practices.

Parker Hannifin Corporation is an American corporation specializing
in motion and control technologies, headquartered in Cleveland,
Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
         Sage S. Stone, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: christopher.decker@ogletree.com
                 sage.stone@ogletree.com

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
PYPL) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-06468, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal securities between February
9, 2017 and July 28, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal
securities during the Class Period, you have until October 19, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

PayPal operates as a technology platform and digital payments
company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of
consumers and merchants worldwide. The Company's services include,
among others, PayPal Credit and certain debit card services. PayPal
Credit is an open end (revolving) credit card account that provides
a reusable credit line built into a consumer's account with
PayPal.

In 2015, PayPal settled regulatory claims with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") arising from certain of its
business practices related to PayPal Credit between 2011 and 2015.
Following this incident, the Company repeatedly asserted that it
was remediating issues with its PayPal Credit business practices in
accordance with its 2015 settlement with the CFPB.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PayPal had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, PayPal's business
practices with respect to PayPal Credit remained non-compliant with
applicable laws and/or regulations; (iii) PayPal's practices
regarding payment of interchange rates related to its debit cards
were likewise non-compliant 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
subjected the Company to an increased risk of regulatory
investigation and enforcement; and (vi) as a 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. 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."

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.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL) securities
between February 9, 2017 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until October 19, 2021 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the PayPal class action lawsuit. The PayPal class
action lawsuit - captioned Kang v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No.
21-cv-06468 - charges PayPal and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The PayPal class
action lawsuit is pending in the Northern District of California.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the PayPal class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: In 2015, PayPal settled regulatory claims with
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") arising from
certain of its business practices related to PayPal Credit between
2011 and 2015. Following this incident, according to the PayPal
class action lawsuit, PayPal repeatedly asserted that it was
remediating issues with its PayPal Credit business practices in
accordance with its 2015 settlement with the CFPB.

The PayPal class action lawsuit 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's business practices with
respect to PayPal Credit remained non-compliant with applicable
laws and/or regulations; (iii) PayPal's practices regarding payment
of interchange rates related to its debit cards were likewise
non-compliant 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) this subjected PayPal to an increased
risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement; and (vi)
consequently, PayPal's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 29, 2021, PayPal disclosed investigations by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("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 PayPal 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." On this news, PayPal's stock price fell more than
6%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased PayPal
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the PayPal 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 PayPal class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the PayPal class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the PayPal class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

                   About Robbins Geller Rudman

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.

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. [GN]

PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing Underway in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that company is defending
itself against a class action related to the alleged overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which the company neither
makes nor sells suit initiated by an end payor, in Ontario,
Canada.

In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada
against Perrigo and 29 other manufacturers alleging an overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells.

The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the
same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming
Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin.

In December 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
additional claims based on the State AG complaint of June 2020.

Perrigo said, "At this stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the
outcome of the liability if any, associated with the claims listed
above."

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

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PONTO LLC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ponto LLC. The case
is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Ponto LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-07513 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021).

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

Ponto LLC, doing business as Ponto Footwear --
https://pontofootwear.com/ -- is a sustainable footwear brand built
with the changemaker in mind.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


PORTUS 821: Fischler Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Website Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTUS 821, LLC, d/b/a New York Dermatology
Group, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07472-JMF (S.D.N.Y., September
7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.nydermatologygroup.com, allegedly contains access barriers
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits
of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general
public through the website. These access barriers include, but not
limited to: (a) images are not properly labeled, (b) document
titles are blank, (c) frames do not have a title, (d) form controls
have no labels, (e) forms have fields without label elements or
title attributes, (f) webpages have duplicate IDs which cause
problems with screen readers, (g) webpages have markup errors, (h)
webpages have no headings and headings are not nested correctly,
and (h) several links on a page share the same link text but go to
different destinations.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Portus 821, LLC, doing business as New York Dermatology Group, is a
provider of cosmetic and medical services, headquartered in New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
                 
         Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10170
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com

POSTMATES INC: Bobrow Sues Over Misleading Delivery Service
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALVAN BOBROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. POSTMATES, INC., Defendants, Case
1:21-cv-07382 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
has deceptively, mistakenly and misleadingly represented and
advertised that its POSTMATES-branded delivery application and
website ("the Service") would deliver "Anything. Anytime.
Anywhere.", when in fact, they do not, because the Service does not
allow delivery of anything, anytime, or anywhere in Manhattan, New
York.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's "Anything. Anytime.
Anywhere." statement prominently displayed on the POSTMATE's
advertisements, website and application to people in Manhattan, New
York, is false, misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable people
in Manhattan, New York, such as the Plaintiff and members of the
Class, because the Service is not able to deliver "Anything.
Anytime. Anywhere." in Manhattan, New York.

Contrary to the Defendant's express or implied representations, the
POSTMATE's website and application cannot deliver anything,
anytime, anywhere - and is POSTMATE's attempt to unfairly increase
the value of their brand to people in Manhattan, New York, by
deceiving the people of Manhattan, New York, into believing
POSTMATES already has access to countless NYC vendors, while their
competitors, such as Uber Eats, continue to legally contract with
local businesses, costing them large sums, to fairly increase the
value of their brands to people in Manhattan, New York, says the
suit.

Postmates Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers a
platform that allows users to discover, order, and track food.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joann Feld, Esq.
          44 Seward Drive
          Dix Hills, NY 11746
          Telephone: (908) 610-5536
          E-mail: joann.feld@gmail.com

PRINCESS CRUISE: Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak to Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Scheikowski at lithgowmercury.com.au reports that an
Australian class action over a deadly coronavirus outbreak on board
the Ruby Princess cruise ship can still include passengers from the
United States and the United Kingdom, a judge has ruled.

Many passengers contracted the disease and some died after the
outbreak on the ship which left Sydney on March 8 and returned on
March 19 2020 after sailing via a number of ports in New Zealand.

Susan Karpik commenced representative proceedings against Carnival
plc, the time charterer of the vessel, and Princess Cruise Lines
Ltd, the owner and operator of the vessel.

The group is made up of passengers, executors and close family.

In the Federal Court, Justice Angus Stewart rejected a preliminary
application to stop a "sub-group" of overseas passengers from being
part of the action.

Of the 2651 paying passengers on board, the respondents allege that
696 contracted their cruise on US terms and conditions and 159
contracted on UK terms and conditions.

The balance are said to have contracted on Australian terms and
conditions.

The differing conditions include a class action waiver clause in
the US terms.

Ms Karpik alleges the respondents negligently and in breach of
their duties of care allowed the voyage to proceed and failed to
take adequate measures to protect passengers from the risk of
COVID-19.

They also allegedly failed to warn passengers of the risk of
contracting the disease.

Further, they allegedly engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct
and breached their consumer guarantees under the Australian
Consumer Law.

Justice Stewart ruled it wasn't necessary or appropriate at this
early stage of the proceedings to determine the law applicable to
the US and UK sub groups' negligence claims.

He noted a stay on the US passengers would result in the fracturing
of the litigation with essentially identical claims being brought
in the Federal Court and any stayed claims being brought in the
US.

"Such a result is wasteful of parties' and judicial resources and
runs the risk of producing conflicting outcomes in different
courts, which would bring the administration of justice into
disrepute."

The Federal Court was "not a clearly inappropriate forum" for the
determination of the claims of the overseas passengers, the judge
said.

Those claims had a substantial connection with NSW as many of the
breaches of duty of care that are alleged concern conduct or
omissions in Sydney.

The case will return to court on September 17. [GN]

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend itself against a putative class action
suit entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as
Securities Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v.
Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and
variable universal life policies issued or administered by the
Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance
rates are to be determined based on expectations of future
mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.

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

Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.


QUALITY PACKAGING: Callender Stayed Pending Tims & Cothron Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAWN CALLENDER, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUALITY PACKAGING
SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-505-SMY
(S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in
part the parties' Agreed Motion to Stay Proceedings.

Background

Plaintiff Callender brings the putative class action against her
former employer Quality Packaging Specialists International, LLC
("QPSI") for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"). Callender was
formerly employed by QPSI and clocked in and out from work each day
utilizing QPSI's biometric timekeeping system. She alleges that
QPSI violated BIPA by collecting and storing her biometric
information without issuing proper notices, obtaining written
consent, or disclosing its retention and destruction policies.

The matter is now before the Court for consideration of the
parties' Agreed Motion to Stay Proceedings.

Discussion

A. Illinois Workers Compensation Act

In McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, the Illinois Appellate
Court held that the Illinois Workers Compensation Act ("IWCA"), 820
ILCS 305/1, does not preempt BIPA claims. That decision is
currently on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. "Where the
Illinois Supreme Court has not ruled on an issue, decisions of the
Illinois Appellate Courts control, unless there are persuasive
indications that the Illinois Supreme Court would decide the issue
differently."

Judge Yandle holds that both Illinois courts and federal district
courts have noted it is unlikely that the Illinois Supreme Court
will rule that IWCA preempts BIPA. Given this persuasive authority,
the Judge finds that a stay based on McDonald is not likely to
simplify the issues, streamline trial, or reduce the burden of
litigation on the parties.

B. Statute of Limitations

BIPA does not contain a limitations period and no Illinois
Appellate Court has decided the appropriate statute of limitations
for BIPA claims. The parties contend that the Court should stay the
case pending decisions from the Illinois Appellate Court in Tims v.
Black Horse Carriers, Inc., No. 1-20-0562 and Marion v. Ring
Container Techs., LLC, No. 3-20-0184, which will address the
currently unsettled question of which statute of limitations period
applies to BIPA claims.

Because a decision from the Illinois Appellate Court may be binding
as the Illinois Supreme Court has not yet decided the applicable
statute of limitations for BIPA claims, Judge Yandle finds it
appropriate to stay the case pending the Tims and Marion decisions
-- which are both fully briefed.

C. Accrual

The parties also seek a stay based on an interlocutory appeal
pending before the Seventh Circuit that raises the question of when
a BIPA claim accrues. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit will
determine whether a private entity only violates BIPA when it first
collects an individual's biometric information or whether a private
entity violates BIPA each time it collects or discloses biometric
data in violation of 740 ILCS 15(b) or 15(d). The district court in
White Castle stayed the case because the Seventh's Circuit decision
will affect whether the plaintiff has some or no timely claims, and
the Seventh Circuit agreed that the stay was warranted. Oral
arguments are set for Sept. 14, 2021, citing Cothron v. White
Castle, Case No. 20-3202, Doc, 58 (7th Cir. June 21, 2021).

The White Castle decision will be binding on the Court and could
significantly affect the Plaintiff's claims, Judge Yandle finds.
She says, if the Seventh Circuit holds that a violation occurs only
when the entity first collects or first discloses an individual's
biometric data, the Plaintiff may have no timely BIPA claims
depending on how the Illinois Appellate Court rules in Tims and
Marion. And, even if the Plaintiff's claims survive, the White
Castle decision will affect the scope of the putative class,
discovery, and potential remedies.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Yandle granted in part and denied
in part the parties' Agreed Motion to Stay Proceedings. All
proceedings and deadlines in the case are stayed pending resolution
of Tims and Cothron. The parties are ordered to file a status
report within 14 days of each ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/f62y26r9 from Leagle.com.


SADDLEBACK LEATHER: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saddleback Leather
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Saddleback Leather Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05022
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021).

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

Saddleback Leather -- https://saddlebackleather.com/ -- designs and
build the longest lasting most durable leather backpacks,
briefcases, wallets, satchels and duffle bags for personal and
corporate gifts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAFE BOX: Gilmore Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANICE GILMORE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAFE BOX LOGISTICS, INC., FEDERAL
EXPRESS CORPORATION, FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., FEDEX
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV385234,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on September 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-06917 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to pay vacation
wages, failure to pay sick time, failure to indemnify, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all
final wages, and unfair competition.

Safe Box Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company based in
California.

FedEx Corporation, formerly known as Federal Express Corporation,
is an American multinational shipping and delivery services and
supply chain management company headquartered in Memphis,
Tennessee.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a provider of package delivery
services, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Brandy T. Cody, Esq.
         Sean T. Kingston, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 851-2424
         Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
         E-mail: bcody@fisherphillips.com
                 skingston@fisherphillips.com

                  - and –

         Sean F. Daley, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 330-4500
         Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
         E-mail: sdaley@fisherphillips.com

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Settlement in Contamination Suit Proposed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faraci Lange, LLP, Seeger Weiss LLP, and Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
announce a proposed Settlement with Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics, Honeywell, and 3M ("Settling Defendants") in a class
action lawsuit about the effects of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
contamination.

The Settlement includes all individuals who (1) for a period of at
least six months between 1996 and 2016, have ingested water
supplied by the Village Municipal Water System or from a private
well in the Village of Hoosick Falls or Town of Hoosick in which
PFOA has been detected, and underwent blood serum tests that
detected a PFOA level in their blood above 1.86 µg/L; or any
natural child who was born to a female who met the above criteria
at the time of the child's birth and whose blood serum was tested
after birth and detected a PFOA level above 1.86 µg/L ("Medical
Monitoring Settlement Class Members"); (2) are or were owners of
Residential Property that was supplied with drinking water from the
Village Municipal Water System, and who purchased that property on
or before December 16, 2015 and owned that property as of December
16, 2015 ("Municipal Water Property Settlement Class Members"); (3)
are or were owners or renters of Residential Property located in
the Village of Hoosick Falls or the Town of Hoosick that was
supplied with drinking water from a privately-owned well in which
PFOA was detected, had a point-of-entry treatment (POET) system
installed to filter water from that well, and who either owned and
occupied that property at the time PFOA in the property's private
well was discovered through a water test on or after December 16,
2015; or rented and occupied the property at the time PFOA in the
property's private well was discovered through a water test on or
after December 16, 2015 ("Nuisance Settlement Class Members"); and
(4) are or were owners of Residential Property located in the
Village of Hoosick Falls or the Town of Hoosick that was supplied
with drinking water from a private well in which PFOA was detected,
and who owned that property at the time PFOA in the property's
private well was discovered through a water test on or after
December 16, 2015 ("Private Well Water Property Settlement Class
Members").

Defendants have agreed to create a $62,250,000 Settlement Fund to
make payments to Property and Nuisance Settlement Class Members,
pay for a ten-year Medical Monitoring Program, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs, service awards, and settlement
administration. You must submit a Claim Form by January 24, 2022 to
receive Settlement benefits.

If you are included in the Settlement and do nothing, your rights
will be affected and you won't get any Settlement benefits. If you
don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude
yourself from it by December 9, 2021. If you don't exclude
yourself, you may object to the Settlement by December 9, 2021.
[GN]

SAMUEL STANLEY: Norris Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samuel L. Stanley, et
al. The case is styled as Jeanna Norris, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated v. Samuel L. Stanley, Jr., in his
official capacity as President of Michigan State University; Dianne
Byrum in her official capacity as Chair of the Board of Trustees;
Dan Kelly, in his official capacity as Vice Chair of the Board of
Trustees; Renee Jefferson, Pat O'Keefe, Brianna T. Scott, Kelly
Tebay, Rema Vassar, in their official capacities as Members of the
Board of the Trustees of Michigan State University; Unknown
Part(y)(ies), named as John and Jane Does 1-10; Case No.
1:21-cv-00756-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich., Aug. 27, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Samuel L. Stanley Jr. -- https://president.msu.edu/ -- is an
American educator, biomedical researcher and the president of
Michigan State University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harriet M. Hageman, Esq.
          HAGEMAN LAW
          222 E 21st St.
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Phone: (307) 631-3476
          Email: harriet.hageman@ncla.legal


SAUER BRANDS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sauer Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sauer
Brands, Inc. doing business as: Duke's Mayo, Case No.
1:21-cv-05021-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021).

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

Sauer Brands, Inc. Foods -- https://sauerbrands.com/ -- offers an
exceptional line of mayonnaise, pourable salad dressings,
condiments, sauces, spices, extracts and flavorings..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEASIDE INN: Building Inaccessible to Disabled, Fultz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FULTZ, Plaintiff v. SEASIDE INN OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2021CP1003995 (South Carolina 9th Jud. Cir. Ct., August
30, 2021) brings this complaint on his behalf and on behalf of all
other mobility impaired individuals similarly situated against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Plaintiff is a disabled man because of a stroke and cannot walk
without a cane or a Wheelchair.

The Plaintiff claims that he has encountered architectural barriers
at the Defendant's hotel when he returned to the property in
November 2021 and April 2022 when he travels back to see family.
The Plaintiff asserts that the barriers at the property have
endangered his safety. Allegedly, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff by denying him access to and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of its commercial facility.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief against the Defendants
including an order to make all readily achievable alterations to
the facility, or to make such facility readily accessible to and
usable by individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of
attorney's fees, costs and litigation expenses, and other relief as
the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under Title
III of the ADA.

Seaside Inn Owners Association owns and manages a hotel commonly
called Seaside Inn located at 1004 Ocean Blvd of Palms, Charleston
County, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Brady Jr., Esq.
          1670-9 Springdale Drive
          PMB 159
          Camden, South Carolina 29020

SELECTQUOTE INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 15 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
SelectQuote Inc.. ("SelectQuote" or the "Company") (NYSE: SLQT)
from February 8, 2021 through May 11, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Act of 1934.

If you purchased SelectQuote securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit SelectQuote
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 adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
According to the Complaint, Defendants mad material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (i) that SelectQuote's
2019 cohort was underperforming; (ii) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (iii)
that as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 11, 2021, SelectQuote held a conference call discussing its
third quarter 2021 financial results. During this call, the Company
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 price of SelectQuote shares fell $5.50 per share,
or 20%, to close at $21.90 per share on May 12, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 15, 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 SelectQuote securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/selectquoteinc-slqt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-428/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.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]

SESEN BIO: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Sesen
Bio, Inc. ("Sesen Bio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SESN) securities
from December 21, 2020 through August 17, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until October 18, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Sesen Bio, a late-stage clinical company, focuses on designing,
engineering, developing, and commercializing targeted fusion
protein therapeutics ("TFPTs") for the treatment of patients with
cancer. The Company's most advanced product candidate is Vicineum,
a locally-administered targeted fusion protein developed as a
treatment of BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer
("NMIBC").

On August 13, 2021, Sesen Bio announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") declined to approve its Biologics License
Application ("BLA") for its bladder cancer treatment Vicineum in
its current form. The FDA provided certain "recommendations
specific to additional clinical/statistical data and analyses in
addition to Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls [("CMC")] issues
pertaining to a recent pre-approval inspection and product
quality." On this news, the Company's share price declined by $2.80
per share, or approximately 57%, from $4.91 per share to close at
$2.11 per share on August 13, 2021.

Then, on August 16, 2021, Sesen Bio further revealed that "it
appears that [the Company] will need to do a clinical trial to
provide the additional efficacy and safety data necessary for the
FDA to assess the benefit-risk profile, which is the basis for
approval." On this news, the Company's share price declined by
$0.89 per share, or approximately 42.2%, from $2.11 per share to
close at $1.22 per share on August 16, 2021.

Then, on August 18, 2021, before the market opened, the health and
medicine news site STAT published an article entitled "Sesen Bio
trial of cancer drug marked by misconduct and worrisome side
effects, documents show." Citing "hundreds of pages of internal
documents" and "three people familiar with the matter," the article
detailed that the clinical trial for Vicineum was "marked by
thousands of violations of study rules, damning investigator
conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity the company did not
publicly disclose."

The lawsuit alleges 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 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, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sesen Bio securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210903005451/en/ [GN]

SESEN BIO: Pomerantz Law Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sesen Bio, Inc. ("Sesen Bio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
SESN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-07309, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Sesen Bio securities between December 21, 2020
and August 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Sesen
Bio's securities during the Class Period, you have until October
18, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Sesen Bio is a late-stage clinical company that purports to advance
targeted fusion protein ("TFP") therapeutics for cancer treatments.
Its most advanced product candidate is Vicineum (VB4-845), a
locally administered TFP developed as a treatment of bacillus
Calmette-Guérin ("BCG")-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder
cancer ("NMIBC"). Sesen Bio reported preliminary efficacy data from
its ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial for Vicineum, the VISTA trial,
in August 2019.

On December 21, 2020, the Company announced that it had submitted
its Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for Vicineum for the treatment of
BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
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, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 13, 2021, Sesen Bio announced that the FDA declined to
approve its BLA for Vicineum in its current form. The FDA provided
certain "recommendations specific to additional
clinical/statistical data and analyses in addition to Chemistry,
Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) issues pertaining to a recent
pre-approval inspection and product quality."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.80, or 57%, to
close at $2.11 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on August 16, 2021, Sesen Bio further revealed that "it
appears that [the Company] will need to do a clinical trial to
provide the additional efficacy and safety data necessary for the
FDA to assess the benefit-risk profile, which is the basis for
approval." As a result, the Company expected that it could not
resubmit its BLA until 2023.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.89, or 42%, to
close at $1.22 per share on August 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on August 18, 2021, before the market opened, the health and
medicine news site STAT published an article entitled "Sesen Bio
trial of cancer drug marked by misconduct and worrisome side
effects, documents show." Citing "hundreds of pages of internal
documents" and "three people familiar with the matter," the article
detailed that the clinical trial for Vicineum was "marked by
thousands of violations of study rules, damning investigator
conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity the company did not
publicly disclose."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.20, or 13%, to
close at $1.31 per share on August 18, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]

SESEN BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 6 disclosed that the
Sesen Bio class action lawsuit charges Sesen Bio, Inc. and certain
of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Sesen Bio class action lawsuit seeks to represent
purchasers of Sesen Bio securities between December 21, 2020 and
August 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Sesen Bio
class action lawsuit was commenced on August 19, 2021 in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned
Bibb v. Sesen Bio, Inc., No. 21-cv-07025.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Sesen Bio class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Sesen Bio class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than October 18, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Sesen Bio class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Sesen Bio's clinical
trial for Vicineum had more than 2,000 violations of trial
protocol, including 215 classified as "major"; (ii) 3 of Sesen
Bio's clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious
noncompliance," including "back-dating data"; (iii) Sesen Bio had
submitted the tainted data in connection with its Biologics License
Application ("BLA") for Vicineum; (iv) 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; (v) as a result,
Sesen Bio's BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be approved; (vi)
consequently, there was a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio
would be required to conduct additional trials to support the
efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and (vii) as such, defendants'
positive statements about Sesen Bio's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On August 13, 2021, Sesen Bio announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") declined to approve its BLA for Vicineum in
its current form. The FDA provided certain "recommendations
specific to additional clinical/statistical data and analyses in
addition to Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) issues
pertaining to a recent pre-approval inspection and product
quality." On this news, Sesen Bio's share price fell approximately
57%.

Then, on August 16, 2021, Sesen Bio further revealed that "it
appears that [Sesen Bio] will need to do a clinical trial to
provide the additional efficacy and safety data necessary for the
FDA to assess the benefit-risk profile, which is the basis for
approval." As a result, Sesen Bio expected that it could not
resubmit its BLA until 2023. On this news, Sesen Bio's share price
fell an additional 42%.

Finally, on August 18, 2021, the health and medicine news site STAT
published an article entitled "Sesen Bio trial of cancer drug
marked by misconduct and worrisome side effects, documents show."
Citing "hundreds of pages of internal documents" and "three people
familiar with the matter," the article detailed that the clinical
trial for Vicineum was "marked by thousands of violations of study
rules, damning investigator conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity
the company did not publicly disclose." On this news, Sesen Bio's
share price fell an additional 13%, further damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Sesen Bio
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Sesen Bio 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 Sesen Bio class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Sesen Bio class action lawsuit. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the Sesen Bio 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]


SHORELINE TREATMENT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Gutierrez at brownwhitelaw.com reports that on December 10,
2020, a class action lawsuit was initiated against Shoreline
Treatment Center and Rachel Levi alleging wage claims for:

(1) Failure to Pay Overtime;

(2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

(3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods;

(4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;

(5) Waiting Time Penalties;

(6) Civil Penalties Under the California Private Attorney General
Act ("PAGA"); and

(7) Unfair Competition and Unlawful Business Practices.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, and is captioned Carrie Prodromides v. Shoreline
Treatment Center, Inc., et. al. Case No: 20STCV47287. A copy of the
operative complaint can be accessed here.

In summary, the lawsuit alleges that employees of both Shoreline
Treatment Center and Rachel Levi worked, and continue to work,
shifts exceeding eight hours a day and/or forty hours a week
without overtime or double time compensation. The lawsuit also
asserts that both Shoreline Treatment Center and Rachel Levi
required some of their employees to work shifts exceeding eight
hours a day and/or forty hours a week without overtime or double
time compensation under the guise of a lawful alternative workweek
schedule, when in fact and in law, the alternative workweek
schedule was, and still is, unlawful, illegal, and invalid. In
addition, the lawsuit alleges that the employees of Shoreline
Treatment Center and Rachel Levi were prohibited or otherwise
discouraged from taking meal or rest breaks in accordance with the
California law. [GN]

SILVER SUPERSTORE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver Superstore
LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Silver Superstore LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-07519 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021).

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

Silver Superstore -- https://www.silversuperstore.com/ -- is the
online leader in discount sterling flatware and stainless flatware
since 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Court Rules Class Action Lawsuit Against Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weber at mmorpg.com reports that in the latest update from
the Class Action for Chronicles of Elyria Discord, the court has
ruled that in order to get to Xsolla, the payment processor that
took payments outside of the Kickstarter Campaign, and refused to
provide refunds, the Soulbound Studios class action lawsuit must
first conclude.

The Class Action Discord's latest announcement provided some
details related to their overall strategy, as hundreds of backers
of Chronicles of Elyria attempt to have their money returned to
them. Back in July, it was reported that the case had been
transferred to the western district of Washington. The central
district court of California granted Xsolla's motion to compel
arbitration, essentially putting the claims of the case to task to
settle the dispute. However, the court will stay arbitration until
the Soulbound Studios class action lawsuit has concluded, which
will then clear the way for the settlement of the dispute with
Xsolla.

This has also led to the potential of a requirement for more legal
fees headed to those that want to continue the fight. By September
10th, a fee agreement should be posted for backers that want to
push pressure on Xsolla through the possible influx of "hundreds of
cases to arbitrate". On the opposite end of the spectrum,
Chronicles of Elyria developer Jeromy Walsh has continued
development of Kingdoms of Elyria, an offshoot standalone
management sim title that was meant as a precursor to Chronicles of
Elyria.

In a wacky turn of events in July, Walsh made changes to the
Kingdoms of Elyria NDA so that potential players and original
backers of the game would be more at ease in trying the Alpha, by
removing verbiage related to giving up their rights related to the
ongoing legal claim. This change came amidst another of Walsh's
ideas to issue digital certificates allowing ownership for virtual
goods, including titles and items, by making them NFT's. It does
seem a little too early to tell what the master plan is for the
ongoing development of KoE/CoE, or whether some of these changes
are a further effort to limit culpability in the upcoming lawsuit.
[GN]


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc ("Spectrum" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SPPI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and
docketed under 21-cv-01612, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Spectrum securities between December 27, 2018
and August 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Spectrum securities during the Class Period, you have until
November 1, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Spectrum is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes oncology and hematology drug products. The Company's
products under development include, among others, ROLONTIS
(eflapegrastim), a novel long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating
factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

In December 2018, Spectrum submitted a Biologics License
Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for ROLONTIS as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced
neutropenia (the "ROLONTIS BLA").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ROLONTIS manufacturing
facility maintained deficient controls and/or procedures; (ii) the
foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would
approve the ROLONTIS BLA in its current form; (iii) Spectrum had
therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval
prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 6, 2021, Spectrum announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the ROLONTIS BLA.
The CRL cited deficiencies related to manufacturing and indicated
that a reinspection of the Company's manufacturing facility will be
necessary.

On this news, Spectrum's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or
21.54%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.[GN]

SPROUT FOODS: Key Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrea Key, Nahsla Black-Zetina, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sprout Foods,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-02391, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Sept. 8, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-16605 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Sprout Foods -- http://www.sproutorganicfoods.com/-- provides
premium organic foods for babies, toddlers and their families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Behmanesh, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989


ST. JOSEPH'S/CANDLER HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raisa Habersham at Savannah Morning News reports that Daniel
Elliott, a Georgia resident and patient of St. Joseph's/Candler
Hospital Health System, has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and the 1.4 million patients, professionals, and clients
whose personal, financial and health information may have been
compromised in the ransomware attack against the hospital's IT
systems.

Filed on Aug. 28, by the Savannah-based personal injury firm of
Harris Lowry Manton LLP, the lawsuit alleges that SJ/C, the
region's largest health care system, violated its privacy policy
and acted negligently when it failed to adequately secure patients'
information and take preventive measures to avoid the ransonware
attack and data breach, which was detected on June 17. Subsequent
investigations revealed that the unauthorized party gained access
to the hospital system's IT network between Dec. 18, 2020, and June
17, 2021.

According to the lawsuit, patients suffered an increased risk of
identity theft and medical identity theft, and "have been forced to
expend, and must expend in the future, to monitor their financial
accounts, health insurance accounts, and credit files as a result
of the data breach." No specific instances of identity theft were
cited in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs further allege the hospital neglected to "design, adopt,
implement, control, direct, oversee, manage, monitor and audit
appropriate data security process, controls, policies, procedures,
protocols and software and hardware systems" to protect patients'
information. That information could include, according to a letter
sent by CEO Paul Hinchey on Aug. 10, a patient's name, address,
birth date, social security and driver's license numbers, billing
accounts, health insurance plans, and medical records, among other
personal and financial details. In the letter, Hinchey said the
hospital had returned to "fully operational" status.

Emails and phone calls to the law firm that filed the suit were not
returned. St. Joseph's/Candler's spokesperson, Scott Larsen, said
that the hospital does not comment on pending litigation.

'It's evil':Ransomware attack on hospital system in Savannah is
part of a growing trend

Soumitra Bhuyan, assistant professor at the Edward J. Bloustein
School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University,
previously told the Savannah Morning News, on average it takes
about 96 days to identify the data breach. In some cases, it can
take longer.  

"There are hospitals that did not identify that a breach happened
for a year," she said.  

The health care system is offering patients a one-year membership
to Experian's IdentityWorks, which helps detect possible misuse of
personal info.  

The plaintiff's in the class-action lawsuit are seeking a jury
trial, unspecified amount of monetary relief for punitive damages,
restitution and disgorgement, and payment of attorney fees.

Savannah Morning News reporter Nancy Guan contributed to this
report.

Raisa is a Watchdog and Investigative Reporter for The Savannah
Morning News. Contact her at rhabersham@gannett.com. [GN]

STEPHEN HERETICK: Dockery Loses Amended Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dockery v. Heretick, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04114-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F.
Kenney entered an order denying the Plaintiff's amended motion for
class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lem2P6 at no extra charge.[CC]





STERLING BANCORP: Sept. 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final approval
hearing of the settlement in Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, is scheduled to be held before the court on
September 16, 2021.

The Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors and other parties were named as defendants in a
shareholder class action captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, filed on February 26, 2020 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2020, seeking
damages and reimbursement of fees and expenses. This action alleges
violations of the federal securities laws, primarily with respect
to disclosures concerning the Bank's residential lending practices
that were made in the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for its initial public offering, in subsequent press
releases, in periodic and other filings with the SEC and during
earnings calls.

On September 22, 2020, the Company filed with the court a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

In February 2021, the Company, each individual defendant and the
plaintiff reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action lawsuit. On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff,
the Company and each of the other defendants entered into the final
settlement agreement and submitted it to the court. Preliminary
approval was granted by the court on April 28, 2021, and a final
approval hearing is scheduled to be held before the court on
September 16, 2021.

The final agreement provides for a single $12,500 cash payment in
exchange for the release of all of the defendants from all alleged
claims therein and remains subject to final documentation, court
approval and other conditions.

This $12,500 liability has been accrued for as of June 30, 2021 and
December 31, 2020.

Sterling said, "The full amount of the settlement will be paid by
the Company's insurance carriers under applicable insurance
policies and has been recorded as a receivable in other assets in
the condensed consolidated balance sheet. In the event final court
approval is not received, or the settlement is not finalized for
any other reason, the Company intends to vigorously defend this
action."

Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is a unitary thrift holding company. Its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Sterling Bank and Trust, FSB, has primary
branch operations in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, New
York City and Bellevue, Washington. Sterling offers a range of loan
products to the residential and commercial markets, as well as
retail and business banking services. Sterling also has an
operations center and a branch in Southfield, Michigan.


STONEMOR INC: Fried Putative Class Action Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Stonemor Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Fried v. Axelrod, et al., C.A. No.
2020-1065-SG, remains stayed.

Fried v. Axelrod, et al., C.A. No. 2020-1065-SG, pending in the
Chancery Court of the State of Delaware and filed on December 16,
2020.  

The plaintiff in this case brought an action he seeks to have
certified as a class action that asserts claims against Axar,
Andrew M. Axelrod and the other individuals who were directors at
the time of the transactions in question and against the Company as
a nominal defendant.

The complaint includes direct claims against all individual
defendants and derivative claims against the individual defendants
other than Mr. Axelrod for breach of fiduciary duty in approving
certain transactions in connection with the Company's sale of
preferred and common stock to Axar and certain accounts managed by
Axar.

The complaint also includes derivative claims against Axar for
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with
those same transactions as well as direct claims against both Axar
and Mr. Axelrod for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to those
transactions.

Finally, the complaint includes a derivative claim against all
individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the approval of a related-party investment disclosed by the
Company. The plaintiff seeks rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the Axar Stock Purchase and the related-party
investment and/or an award of damages as well as attorneys' fees
and costs.  

On January 6, 2021, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on
behalf of the Company and the individual defendants other than Mr.
Axelrod and on January 11, 2021, a motion to dismiss the complaint
was filed on behalf of Axar and Mr. Axelrod.

On April 2, 2021, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint,
which included additional factual background regarding the
plaintiff's claims and alleged demand futility, but did not add
additional defendants, claims or relief sought.

Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendants filed a joint stipulation
to stay the Fried litigation pending the resolution of a separate
pending action described below, which the court granted on April
28, 2021.  

Stonemor Inc. provides consumer services. The Company offers
cemeteries and funeral homes. Stonemor serves customers inn the
United States. The company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.


SYMANTEC CORP: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Approval of $70MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Jackson, writing for Reuters, reports that the lead
plaintiff in a securities class action against Symantec Corp., now
known as NortonLifeLock Inc, will ask U.S. District Judge William
Alsup in San Francisco to approve a proposed $70 million
settlement. The settlement would resolve claims that the Norton
Antivirus software owner reported misleading and false financial
statements, damaging the company's share price and shareholders.
The company has denied wrongdoing.

The case is WHA Felix v. Symantec Corporation et al, U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:18-cv-02902.
For the lead plaintiff: Jeroen van Kwawegen, Jeremy Robinson,
Rebecca Boon and Jonathan Uslaner of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann. For Symantec: Caz Hashemi, Jerome Birn Jr. and Jessica
Snorgrass of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

10 a.m. - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Investor
Advisory Committee will host a panel called "Reimagining Investor
Protection in a Digital World: the Behavioral Design of Online
Trading Platforms." The panel will be moderated by Elissa Germaine
of the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University and Paul
Sommerstad of financial management company Cerity Partners.
Speakers include Stephen Hall of financial reform-focused
non-profit Better Markets; Daniel Egan of investment app
Betterment; Punam Anand Keller of Dartmouth College's Tuck School
of Business; and Steve Shu of behavioral economics consulting firm
Digital Nudging Tech.

The committee will also discuss its recommendations that the
regulatory agency enforce stricter disclosure rules for special
purpose acquisition companies. Also on the agenda is a discussion
about how the SEC can improve Rule 10b5-1, which establishes
trading plans to allow insiders at public companies to sell their
stock. For more information on the meeting, click here.

11 a.m. - HP Inc will ask U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San
Francisco to dismiss its shareholders'proposed class action
accusing the company of misleading investors into believing the
financial performance of its printing supply business was
improving. The shareholders are suing to recoup losses they
suffered when HP's share price dropped by $10.5 billion after the
company disclosed the printing supplies unit's corrected financial
information. HP has denied wrongdoing.

The case is In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:20-cv-01260.
For lead plaintiffs: Jennifer Joost, Eli Greenstein and Stacey
Kaplan of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Jonathan Uslaner of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. For HP: Brian Lutz and Lissa
Percopo of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; and Sara Brody of Sidley
Austin. [GN]

SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Faces Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Synergetic
Communication and Palisades Acquisition withheld critical
information from a debt collection letter, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Omer Karakas claims the debt collectors failed to
properly convey information about whether their debt was increasing
or remaining static, putting them in violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

Karakas wants to represent a New Jersey Class of consumers who have
received a collection letter from Synergetic Communications on
behalf of Palisades Acquisition that failed to state whether
interest was continuing to accrue.

Karakas says they received a debt collection letter from Synergetic
Communications in September of last year that had a higher balance
owed than the original judgement.

The letter from the defendant is required to but did not state
whether or not the balance was continuing to increase or only
increased in the past, according to the class action lawsuit.

Karakas claims this information is critical, since they could pay
the balance and still end up owing money in interest from the time
after the letter was sent but before they paid the balance.

"Defendant's actions created an appreciable risk to Plaintiff of
being unable to properly respond or handle Defendant's debt
collection," states the class action lawsuit.

The FDCPA legally protects consumers from being misled or treated
unfairly by debt collectors, who must make any communication easily
understandable to the "least sophisticated" consumer.

"If a debt collector's communication is 'reasonably susceptible to
an inaccurate reading' by the least sophisticated consumer, it
violates the FDCPA," states the class action lawsuit.

Karakas claims that because the collection letter was misleading
and confused them, they were unable to properly respond and instead
spent elsewhere the funds they could have used to pay off the debt.


Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and seeking relief in the form
of statutory and actual damages for themselves and all Class
Members.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed last month by a consumer
in Texas who claimed a debt collection letter sent by I.C. System,
Inc. was unclear and violated federal law.

Have you been confused by a letter you received from a debt
collector? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Uri Horowitz, Esq. of Horowitz Law,
PLLC.

The FDCPA Class Action Lawsuit is Karakas v. Synergetic
Communication, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-16557, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN]

T-MOBILE US: Customers File Data Breach Class Actions in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martha DeGrasse, writing for Mobile World Live, reports that
T-Mobile US customers filed a series of class action lawsuits
accusing the company of negligence after hackers exposed personal
data belonging to millions of its current, former and prospective
users.

At least three lawsuits have been filed so far in a district court,
all demanding jury trials.

Two of the complaints accuse T-Mobile of violating the US Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which prohibits companies from engaging
in "unfair or deceptive" activities, including failure to maintain
appropriate security measures to safeguard customer information.

In one of the filings, the plaintiff noted the FTC provided
cybersecurity guidelines for businesses advising them not to
maintain personally identifiable information "longer than is needed
for authorisation of a transaction".

T-Mobile last month revealed hackers accessed the names, social
security numbers, birth dates and driver licence numbers of
approximately 48 million people in total, 40 million of which had
previously applied for credit and so may fall under the remit of
the FTC law.

Another class action suit accuses T-Mobile of violating the
California Consumer Privacy Act, which assigns specific penalties
to companies which allow unauthorised access to their customers'
data.

Penalties are set at $100 to $750 per consumer or incident, or
actual damages, whichever is found to be larger.

In a blog following the data breach, T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert
explained it is working with law enforcement agencies to
investigate the incident, which he stated was perpetrated by one
individual.

A 21-year-old hacker named John Brinns claimed responsibility for
the attack, but T-Mobile did not confirm this. [GN]

T-MOBILE USA: Christie Files Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Raymond Christie, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons and on behalf of the general
public v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-16181-ZNQ-DEA
(D.N.J., Aug. 27, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Other
Contract.

T-Mobile US, Inc., doing business under the global brand name
T-Mobile -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless
network operator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 CHALLENGER ROAD, 6TH FLOOR
          RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 07660
          Phone: (973) 639-9100
          Fax: (973) 639-9393
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Mag. Judge to Look Into Approval of Lackawanna Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LACKAWANNA CHIROPRACTIC P.C., a New York professional
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIVITY HEALTH SUPPORT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-649-LJV-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York referred back the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah
J. McCarthy for further consideration of its remaining arguments.

On June 7, 2018, Plaintiff Lackawanna commenced the putative class
action alleging that Tivity violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). On Jan. 23, 2019,
the case was referred to Judge McCarthy for all proceedings under
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B).

On March 6, 2020, the Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a
modified class action settlement. On July 7, 2020, after
supplemental briefing and oral argument on the issue of standing,
Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding
that the Plaintiff's motion should be denied.

Both sides now have objected to the R&R. They argue that contrary
to the premise underlying the R&R, Lackawanna sufficiently
established Article III standing for all the members of the
proposed settlement class by alleging that all members were
actually harmed by Tivity's actions.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or
recommendations of a magistrate judge. The Court must review de
novo those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which
a party objects.

Discussion

Class actions are subject to rules and requirements that do not
apply to most federal litigation -- for example, court
certification of a class and approval of a class action
settlement.

In the case, Lackawanna has moved for preliminary approval of a
modified class action settlement with a proposed settlement class
consisting of: "All individuals and entities within the United
States who were sent a Tivity Fax2 by or on behalf of Tivity
recruiting a provider offering chiropractic services, physical
therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, acupuncture,
massage, and/or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)
services to join a Tivity network."

But before the Court can grant that motion, it must determine that
it likely will be able to approve the settlement under the
requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) and to certify the proposed class
under Rule 23. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B).

The R&R recommends denying preliminary approval because the parties
have not shown that each member of the settlement class was harmed
by Tivity's actions. It reasons that because there is no mechanism
to weed out class members who consented to receive a Tivity Fax,
"approval of the proposed settlement would exceed the court's
jurisdiction by authorizing payments to those who have not been
injured" -- i.e., by authorizing payments to those who lack
standing. Respectfully, this reasoning conflates two overlapping
and related -- but distinct -- issues: standing and the merits of
the case.

Judge Vilardo finds that standing is a basic jurisdictional
requirement for the exercise of a court's authority. To establish
standing, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in
fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii)
that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that
the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.

The "threshold question" of whether a plaintiff has Article III
standing -- that is, whether the plaintiff has adequately "alleged
an 'injury-in-fact' that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct and redressable by a favorable judicial decision" -- must
remain "distinct" from "the question of whether the Plaintiff has a
valid claim on the merits. In other words, "the standing question
is distinct from whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action."
Otherwise, the "standing inquiry" would "essentially collapse into
the merits."

Judge Vilardo has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the R&R, the
record in the case, the objection, and the materials submitted to
Judge McCarthy. Based on that de novo review, the Judge
respectfully rejects the R&R's recommendation, finds that the
Plaintiff has adequately alleged Article III standing. He holds
that Lackawanna has established that all proposed class members
received a Tivity Fax and has sufficiently alleged that no class
member implicitly or explicitly consented to receive the fax. He
thus finds that the proposed settlement class has Article III
standing. Because Judge McCarthy proceeded no further after
concluding that the proposed settlement class lacked standing, the
Plaintiff's motion is referred back to him for consideration of its
remaining arguments.

Conclusion

The Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is referred back to
Judge McCarthy for further consideration consistent with the
decision and the referral order of Jan. 23, 2019.

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


TRULIEVE INC: Settles FCRA Lawsuit After Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn at esrcheck.com reports that on August 13, 2021, the
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida certified
an "Adverse Action Class" in the class action lawsuit LYTTLE v.
TRULIEVE, INC. that claimed a cannabis company took adverse action
against employees and applicants based on background checks in a
way that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The
cannabis company settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount,
according to court filings.

Plaintiff Lyttle applied for employment with defendant Trulieve and
received a conditional job offer. Trulieve then rescinded the job
offer based on the contents of his "consumer report," a term that
the FCRA uses to define a background check. Before rescinding the
job offer, Trulieve allegedly did not provide Lyttle with notice of
its intent to rescind the employment offer, a copy of his
background check, or a summary of his rights under the FCRA.

Under FCRA Sec 1681b(b)(3)(A), when using a consumer report for
employment purposes, before taking adverse action based in whole or
in part on the report, the person intending to take adverse action
shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a
copy of the report; and (ii) a copy of the document "A Summary of
Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act" prescribed by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Trulieve allegedly admitted they had mistakenly denied employment
to Lyttle based on his consumer report. If Trulieve had provided
him with a pre-adverse action notice, a copy of his consumer
report, and a summary of rights, Lyttle claimed he could have
clarified any confusion, but he was not given an opportunity to
address any concerns with his consumer report or state his case. So
Lyttle brought a claim against Trulieve under the FCRA.

The proposed "Adverse Action Class" consisted of: All Trulieve
applicants and employees in the United States against whom adverse
employment action was taken, based, in whole or in part, on
information contained in a consumer report obtained within five
years preceding the filing of this action through the date of final
judgment, who were not provided notice, a copy of their report or
summary of rights pursuant to Sec 1681b(b)(3)(A).

However, the Court certified the following Class: All Trulieve
applicants and employees in the United States against whom adverse
employment action was taken, based, in whole or in part, on
information contained in a consumer report obtained within two
years preceding the filing of this action through the date of final
judgment, who were not provided notice, a copy of their report or a
summary of rights pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec 1681b(b)(3)(A).

The FCRA 15 U.S.C. Sec 1681 was enacted by Congress in 1970 to
promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs),
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their consumer reports, and regulate the
collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information,
including consumer credit information.

Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) - a leading global
background check firm ranked the #1 screening provider by HRO Today
in 2020 - offers a Cannabis Industry Background Screening Solution
since cannabis businesses have an interest in protecting their
product from theft and are concerned about providing a safe
workplace for their employees and the public. To learn more about
ESR, visit www.esrcheck.com.

NOTE: Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) does not provide or
offer legal services or legal advice of any kind or nature. Any
information on this website is for educational purposes only.

(c) 2021 Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) - Making copies of
or using any part of the ESR News Blog or ESR website for any
purpose other than your own personal use is prohibited unless
written authorization is first obtained from ESR.[GN]

TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)
between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the September 30, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Tyson securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than September 30, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have
known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading
throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient
safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as
a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus
within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson
would face negative impact to its production, including complete
shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect
its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its
lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor

      New York, NY 10016

      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827

      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

U.S. ANESTHESIA PARTNERS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. ANESTHESIA PARTNERS, INC. as Administrator of U.S. ANESTHESIA
PARTNERS, INC. WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN as successor in interest to
U.S. ANESTHESIA PARTNERS OF COLORADO WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; and UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02380 (D. Colo., Sept.
2, 2021) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Defendants UHC Group and its
subsidiaries have engaged in a campaign of unilaterally terminating
or refusing to renew provider network agreements to force providers
into the murky world of out of network reimbursement, which is
unpredictable, inconsistent, and expensive for providers.

Allegedly, UHC Group and its subsidiaries also engage in the
confusing "hide the ball" system of excluding certain providers who
are part of larger, in network health systems. Ordinary consumers
look to the system as in network, and only after the fact do they
learn that a particular provider or office is not in fact in
network.

Perhaps worst of all, UHC Group and its subsidiaries tell benefits
plans and their beneficiaries that they will reimburse emergency
ambulance services at an "in network" rate but still treat the
claim as out of network in calculating fees, says the suit.

Not content to make money off of the strong-arming of providers,
UHC Group, through its subsidiary United Healthcare Services
("UHC") created a "Shared Savings" program. This program is really
a way for UHC to generate more income by moving revenue in a "left
pocket to right pocket" scheme. Under the Shared Savings plan, when
UHC is able to pay certain providers less than billed charges for
out of network claims, it takes a 35% fee on the difference between
billed charges and what was ultimately paid (the "Shared Savings
fee"). This slight-of-hand trickery has earned UHC billions of
dollars.

The Plaintiff delegated a number of fiduciary duties to UHC by
virtue of its service agreement. As fiduciary, UHC owes the Plan a
duty of loyalty, including the obligation to act in the Plan's best
interest. When UHC affiliates (a) cancel, refuse to renew, or
deliberately exclude providers, or (b) engage in misleading
contract and reimbursement arrangements that give the Plan and its
beneficiaries the belief their care is being handled in network
when it is not, UHC costs the Plan more money in Shared Savings
fees. Defendants should be stopped from harming benefits plans,
including stopping the Shared Savings plan and disgorging the
Shared Savings fees that were only generated as a result of UHC
Group's self-interested conduct.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated owns and manages organized health
systems. The Company provides employers products and resources to
plan and administer employee benefit programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vance O. Knapp, Esq.
          Amy M. Pauli, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (720) 200-0676
          Facsimile: (720) 200-0679
          E-mail: vknapp@atllp.com
                  apauli@atllp.com

VISTA AUTO: Fails to Properly Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISTA AUTO RETAIL, INC., dba NORM REEVES
HONDA SUPERSTORE VISTA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2021-00038145-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.,
September 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide all wages earned
and owed upon separation of employment, failure to provide accurate
itemized statements, failure to provide a day's rest in seven, and
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as a salesperson from
October 2019 until August 2020.

Vista Auto Retail, Inc., doing business as Norm Reeves Honda
Superstore Vista, is a company that owns and operates a Honda car
dealership in Vista, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Gregory Mauro, Esq.
         Michael Calvo, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387-7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
         E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Awarded Costs in Takata Airbag Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Stopford at carexpert.com.au reports that the New South
Wales Supreme Court has dismissed a class-action airbag lawsuit
against Volkswagen Group Australia, awarding costs to the company.

The Court found back June the lead plaintiff, Professor Phillip
Dwyer, couldn't establish he had suffered any damage as a result of
the installation of a Takata airbag in his vehicle, and that he
couldn't establish the vehicle wasn't of acceptable quality when he
purchased it.

It has now ruled the funder of the litigation is "jointly and
severally liable" for costs to Volkswagen Group Australia.

Professor Dwyer purchased his Volkswagen Passat in 2013, and
Volkswagen replaced the Takata airbag in his vehicle in 2019, free
of charge.

The recall notice had specified owners of affected vehicles needed
to have the airbag replaced before the car reached six years of
age.

In the court case, the plaintiff contended the phase-stabilised
ammonium nitrate (PSAN) in his Passat's airbag had a propensity to
degrade over time when exposed to moisture and temperature
fluctuations, and could rupture in a life-threatening way.

Professor Dwyer therefore contended his car was not safe to drive,
and that he was entitled to recover damages: the difference between
the price he paid, and the vehicle's "true value". That was
approximately $15,000.

Justice Stevenson found he had suffered no loss, noting the
plaintiff and his wife had continued to drive the car without
incident after receiving the recall notice.

Evidence was also heard Volkswagen AG had started an Empirical
Analysis Program of Takata airbag inflators in 2016, recovering
20,000 inflators from all over the world that had been used in
Volkswagen products.

This investigation didn't find any relevant anomalies or
manufacturing faults, and no European regulator has required a
recall of Volkswagens fitted with Takata airbags.

The company had installed Takata front airbag inflators containing
PSAN in around 20 million vehicles worldwide.

"It is not, of course, for VW to show that the airbags are safe. It
is for the plaintiff to show that they are unsafe. The results of
the Empirical Analysis Program suggest that the airbags are safe,"
said Justice Stevenson in June.

"I do not accept the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff
that "the tests that Volkswagen carried out where undertaken to
support, not truly to test" whether the airbag inflators were
unsafe.

"There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Empirical
Analysis Program was not a genuine attempt by VW AG to ascertain
whether there was any problem with Takata airbags installed in
Volkswagens." [GN]

WATERBURY BUILDING: Faces Lawsuit After Deadly Mass Shelter Fiasco
------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in Jefferson Parish paints a grim picture of what
happened inside an ill-fated makeshift shelter where several
nursing homes packed more than 800 residents, seven of whom have
since died, in horrific conditions while they rode out Hurricane
Ida.

The class action suit, filed by family members of a resident who
was evacuated to the shelter, is seeking damages from Baton Rouge
businessman and nursing homeowner Bob Dean Jr. The documents allege
Dean and his companies crammed about 850 people into the Waterbury
Building, which has a capacity of about 200 to 400.

The state health department has since pulled the licenses of the
seven nursing homes that evacuated there. The Louisiana Attorney
General's Office is also heading an investigation looking into what
happened.

Families also claim mattresses were placed on the floor, toe-to-toe
and side-by-side, with no regard for social distancing and that
those beds began to float when the warehouse took on water during
the storm.

"Generators failed and due to water intrusion, a number of
residents were on mattresses that began to float in the water,"
according to the suit.

There were also insufficient beds, meaning some residents had to
sleep in wheelchairs, and some so-called "corporate nurses"
reserved as many as three mattresses for themselves, according to
the suit.

The lawsuit claims, "evacuating the residents to the Waterbury
Building was not done pursuant to any established hurricane
evacuation plan put into place at any of the Bob Dean Jr. Nursing
Homes, and in fact conflicted with the written policies and
procedures that were in place, as well as with relevant Louisiana
laws."

The warehouse was also reportedly equipped with only four sinks and
no more than a dozen showers to accommodate all residents and
staff. Once the power went out, temperatures began to rise, and
documents say some staff members and residents would uncontrollably
vomit because of the stench coming from the "putrid" port-a-lets.

"There were some experienced nurses there, some that were still
trying to care for the residents under their care that were ill,
nauseated and vomiting from the stench of over 840 human beings in
the heat and unclean in an unsanitary situation," Blair Constant,
an attorney representing those on the class action lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also claims that Dean personally refused to let state
workers inspect the facility and demanded they leave the property
just days before the state evacuated the building.

In wake of a massive rescue effort that saw state health employees
removing more than 800 residents from the warehouse in the span of
about 24 hours, many of those victims have been moved to different
facilities around the state. The family that filed the suit claims
they and many others still have not been able to locate their loved
ones. The family's attorney is calling on others affected to join
the suit.

"These people were treated less than animals," Constant said.
"There's no way else to say it. Absolutely, they will have their
day in court and will have their ability to tell their story."

Multiple attempts to reach Dean have been unsuccessful. [GN]

WESTAMERICA BANK: Appeal From Costs Order in Reddish Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNIE REDDISH, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
WESTAMERICA BANK, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A161079 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First District,
Division Five, dismissed an appeal from the trial court's order
directing the parties to share equally the costs of certain
depositions.

The Plaintiffs represent a certified class of current and former
employees of Westamerica Bank who allege that Westamerica violated
the Labor Code, including rules governing compensation for
overtime, meals, and rest breaks. In their trial plan, the
Plaintiffs proposed, and Westamerica agreed, that the parties would
depose 30 class members as part of a pilot study to determine how
many additional depositions are needed for a valid random sample of
the class generally. Over Westamerica's objection, the trial court
ordered that the parties share the deposition costs equally.

The Court of Appeals must answer a threshold question -- whether
the order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.

Civil cases in California are governed by the "one final judgment"
rule, which "prohibits review of intermediate rulings by appeal
until final resolution of the case." The rule is a bedrock
principle of appellate practice, codified in Code of Civil
Procedure, section 904.1. The rationale for the rule "is that
piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals in a single action would
be oppressive and costly, and that a review of intermediate rulings
should await the final disposition of the case." Courts should not
recognize exceptions to the one final judgment rule unless "clearly
mandated."

Westamerica relies on a common law exception to the one final
judgment rule, the collateral order doctrine, under which some
interim orders are deemed appealable "judgments" because they are
essentially the same as a final judgment. To be appealable, a
collateral order must satisfy three elements: The order must (1)
finally determine (2) a matter collateral to the litigation and (3)
require the payment of money or performance of an act.

The Court of Appeals holds that the matter is not final. It holds
that whether Westamerica ultimately pays for these depositions
remains an open question. At the end of the case, the prevailing
party may recover its costs, including deposition costs, under
section 1032.

As Westamerica notes, other courts have permitted appeals of
interim cost orders under the collateral order doctrine. But those
cases do not consider whether a final cost allocation could make
the interim order moot. The Court of Appeals therefore declines to
follow them.

At oral argument, Westamerica suggested that some unusual
deposition-related costs may not be recoverable under section 1032
(although it was unwilling to concede the point). This simply
underscores the fact that Westamerica's liability for these costs
is unknown at this stage, the Court of Appeals states. In a final
cost allocation, the parties can argue which costs should be
recovered, and the court may be required to exercise its discretion
on some items. Because the outcome remains uncertain, the matter
has not been finally determined for purposes of the collateral
order doctrine.

The Court of Appeals summarily rejects Westamerica's one-sentence
request to treat the appeal as a petition for an extraordinary
writ. Therefore, Westamerica's appeal is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fsja8dt5 from Leagle.com.

Lawyers for Justice, PC, Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@calljustice.com --
Arby Aiwazian -- arby@calljustice.com -- Joanna Ghosh --
joanna@calljustice.com -- and Charles T. Sweeny --
charles@calljustice.com; Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP,
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell and David C. Leimbach, for the Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Arent Fox LLP, Paul R. Lynd -- paul.lynd@arentfox.com -- and Lynn
R. Fiorentino -- lynn.fiorentino@arentfox.com -- for the Defendant
and Appellant.


WESTRIDGE MARKETING: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westridge Marketing
Corp. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Westridge Marketing Corp. doing business as: Luggage Pros, Case No.
1:21-cv-05025 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021).

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

Westridge Marketing Corp. doing business as Luggage Pros --
https://www.luggagepros.com/ -- is a specialty online retailer of
all things luggage including: suitcases, backpacks, handbags,
travel accessories and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XL FLEET: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suh & Kumar Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
XL Fleet Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend the "Suh and Kumar consolidated suit".

On March 8, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
federal district court for the Southern District of New York (Suh
v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02002) against the
Company and certain of its current officers and directors.

On March 12, 2021, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in federal district court for the Southern District of New
York (Kumar v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02171)
against the Company and certain of its current officers and
directors.

Those cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed in
June 2021, and an amended complaint filed on July 20, 2021 alleging
that certain public statements made by the defendants between
October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company believes that the allegations asserted in the amended
complaint are without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company will be successful.

XL Fleet said, "At this time, the Company is unable to estimate
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."

XL Fleet Corp. is a leading provider of fleet electrification
solutions for commercial vehicles in North America, with over 4,30
electrified powertrain systems sold and driven over 140 million
miles by over 200 fleets as of December 31, 2020. The company's
vision is to become the world leader in fleet electrification
solutions, with a mission of accelerating the adoption of fleet
electrification systems through cost-effective, customer-tailored
and comprehensive solutions. The company is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


YALLA GROUP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Yalla Group Limited (NYSE:YALA)

Class Period: September 30, 2020 - August 9, 2021

Deadline: October 12, 2021

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

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Yalla and
its CEO made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business and financial metrics. Specifically,
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.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. (NYSE:PHG)

Class Period: February 25, 2020 - June 11, 2021

Deadline: October 15, 2021

For more info:www.bgandg.com/phg.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (2) as a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP
devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (3) accordingly, the Company's sales revenues
from the foregoing products were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing
also subjected the Company to a substantial risk of a product
recall, in addition to potential legal and/or regulatory action;
and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp.
II (NYSE:ATIP; FAII)

Class Period: April 1, 2021 - July 23, 2021

Deadline: October 15, 2021

For more info:www.bgandg.com/atip.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that ATI was experiencing attrition among its physical
therapists; (2) that ATI faced increasing competition for
clinicians in the labor market; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company faced difficulties retaining therapists and
incurred increased labor costs; (4) that, as a result of the labor
shortage, the Company would open fewer new clinics; and (5) that,
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.

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

YALLA GROUP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 12, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Yalla Group Limited ("Yalla" or the "Company")
(NYSE: YALA) American Depository Shares ("ADSs" or "shares")
between September 30, 2020 and August 9, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Yalla 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/yalla-group-limited/. 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 to learn
more about your rights.

On May 19, 2021, Swan Street Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Yalla inflated its financial metrics,
including its user data and its revenue, and characterized Yalla's
financial statements as "not credible."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.31, or 7%, to close
at $17.01 per share on May 19, 2021.

Then, on May 20, 2021, The Bear Cave published a report and Gotham
City Research tweeted that it was shorting Yalla.

On this news, the Company's share price fell 6% to close at $15.96
per share on May 20, 2021.

Then, on August 9, 2021, after the market closed, Yalla announced
its second quarter 2021 financial results, reporting revenue of
$66.62 million, which fell below analysts' expectations.

On this news, the Company's share price fell approximately 19% to
close at $10.99 per share on August 10, 2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the Company overstated its user metrics and revenue; and
(2) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Yalla ADSs during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than October 12, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action 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 action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, 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]

YALLA GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Sept. 6 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of Yalla Group Limited from
September 30, 2020 through August 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of Yalla Group Limited.,
you may, no later than October 12, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADRs of Yalla Group Limited.

Yalla Group Limited provides software solutions. The Company offers
a platform for online social networking and entertainment
activities, primarily serving customers in the United Arab
Emirates.

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 Yale's financial statements as "not credible."

On this news, the Company's share price declined by $1.31 per
share, or approximately 7.15%, from $18.32 per share to close at
$17.01 per share on May 19, 2021.

Subsequently, on 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 shares. On this
news, the Company's share price declined by $1.05 per share, or
approximately 6.17%, from $17.01 per share to close at $15.96 per
share on May 20, 2021.

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, disclosing that Yalla had
quarterly revenue of $66.62 million, which did not meet analysts'
expectations. On this news, the Company's share price declined by
$2.56 per share, or approximately 19%, from $13.55 per share to
close at $10.99 per share on August 10, 2021.

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

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

Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com

Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
URL: http://www.whafh.com[GN]

YIELDSTREET INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 2020, the YieldStreet class action lawsuit was
filed against YieldStreet Inc. and related companies (collectively,
"YieldStreet"). The claims in this suit were amended and now
include claims under New York common law and violations under
Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The most recent complaint was refiled on August 4, 2021, in
the Southern District of New York and is captioned Tecku vs.
Yieldstreet Inc. et al, No. 20-civ-07327-VM. The YieldStreet class
action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of certain YieldStreet
securities - specifically, all persons who purchased a Borrower
Payment Dependent Note issued by YS ALTNOTES I or YS ALTNOTES II in
connection with the following offerings: Vessel Deconstruction I;
Short Term Vessel Refinancing Fund; Vessel Deconstruction Fund III;
Vessel Deconstruction Fund IV; Vessel Deconstruction Fund VI; and
Louisiana Oil & Gas, inclusive ("YieldStreet Securities").

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court, from attorneys
Joe Peiffer or Dan Centner of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane & Conway
("Peiffer Wolf") by e-mail at jpeiffer@PeifferWolf.com or
dcentner@PeifferWolf.com, or from attorney Jeff Sonn of Sonn Law
Group PA (SLG) by email at jsonn@SonnLaw.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially misleading
statements and/or omitted material information concerning
YieldStreet's business, operations, and prospects when making its
offerings to investors who purchased YieldStreet Securities.
Plaintiffs allege that YieldStreet misled investors by claiming
that it had no principal loss in any prior YieldStreet deals, and
by touting its multi-stage "due diligence" process as a means of
screening the products offered on its platform, without disclosing
that its credit committee had no experience whatsoever vetting or
structuring deals in the niche industries in which YieldStreet
products are offered to investors. Plaintiffs further alleged that
YieldStreet tried to deflect its investment team's lack of
experience by falsely claiming reliance on "asset class experts" to
help originate, structure, and service YieldStreet's deals.
Plaintiffs further alleged that upon information and belief,
YieldStreet's president, Michael Weisz, based credit decisions in
part on what would maximize YieldStreet's management fee receipts,
without regard to the potential loss of investor funds.

Not later than 60 days after the date on which this notice is
published, any member of the purported class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.

The Law firms Peiffer Wolf and Sonn Law Group concentrate on
representing investors in securities, consumer class actions, and
individual cases around the country. Please visit
https://www.peifferwolf.com/ and https://www.sonnlaw.com/ for more
information.

Attorney advertising. Responsible Attorneys, Joe Peiffer and Jeff
Sonn. Peiffer Wolf maintains offices in Louisiana, New York, Ohio,
Missouri, Illinois, California, and Texas. Joe Peiffer is licensed
to practice law in Louisiana. Sonn Law Group maintains offices in
Florida, Georgia, and Texas. Jeff Sonn is licensed to practice law
in Florida. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our
offices. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.[GN]

ZIPRECRUITER INC: Former Employee's Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRecruiter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by a former
employee.

In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in the Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act as well as owed certain compensation to employees.

In January 2020, the former employee filed a related representative
action in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the Private Attorney
General Act alleging similar claims regarding compensation owed to
employees.

In January 2021, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which was granted in
part and denied in part.

ZipRecruiter said, "At the date these condensed consolidated
financial statements were issued, it is reasonably possible that a
loss may be incurred; however, a loss or range of losses is not
currently estimable."

ZipRecruiter, Inc. is a two-sided marketplace for work. The company
generates substantially all of its revenue from fees paid by
employers to post jobs and access other features in its
marketplace. The company is based in Santa Monica, California.



                            *********

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 ***