---

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

              Thursday, September 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 180

                            Headlines

AFFINITY FEDERAL: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Abramson Suit
AIR TRANSPORT: Velasquez Sues Over Failure to Show Wage Statements
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Cleary Suit Wins Class Certification
ANAPLAN INC: Sakkal Securities Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action in Illinois Still Ongoing

CDK GLOBAL: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Pending
CENTERSTATE BANK: Grant Seeks to Certify Class
CENTERSTATE BANK: Precision Roofing Files Bid for Class Status
COLLECTION BUREAU: Bid to Dismiss Roeder TCPA Class Suit Denied
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Tuel Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas

DETROIT, MI: Claims Against Beasley in Lockard v. Police Dismissed
DRIVEN BRANDS: Johnson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Hestrup Sues Over Data Breach
ENVIROTECH VEHICLES: ED Lawyer Files Bid to be Relieved as Counsel
EVERI PAYMENTS: Saavedra Sues Over Deceptive and Unlawful Practice

FARMERS GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Holmes Suit
FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Cleveland Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: $325K Class Deal in Denham Suit Has Final OK
ILES FORMULA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KINDER MORGAN: Class Cert. Briefing Sched in Barragan Suit Vacated

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bemiss Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Brooks Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Goodenough Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Thomas Files Suit in D. Kansas
KRISPY KREME: Settlement Reached in Suit Against Insomnia Cookies

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Class Certification Bid in Smith Pending
LIVE NATION: Does Not Pay Sales Reps Overtime Wages, Gupta Says
LUV AJ: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Blankenship Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
METLIFE INC: Bid to Decertify Class in Julian Labor Suit Granted

MGP INGREDIENTS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
MINDGEEK USA: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Class Action
NMCI MEDICAL: Court Enters Case Management Order in Kulik Suit
NURTURE INC: Johnson Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Toxic Metals
PARADIES SHOPS: Ramirez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia

PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Stvil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PINDUODUO INC: Dismissal of Securities Claims in Asay Suit Affirmed
REV GROUP: Dec. 9 Final Hearing to Approve $14MM Settlement
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff & Co-Lead Counsel Named in Garnett
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Related Suit Underway

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Bid to Dismiss Order Flow Litigation Pending
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Bid to Junk Mehta Putative Class Suit Pending
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fact Discovery in Pinchasov Suit Ongoing
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Service Outage Related Suit Underway
SALVADORE GODINEZ: Injunctive Relief in Howe Class Suit Entered

SAM MOON TRADING: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHAMROCK CABINET: Workers Sue Over Denied Sick Leave, Missed Breaks
SHELL OIL: Kurimski Files Bid for Class Certification
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
T-MOBILE USA: Delerme Files Suit in D. New Jersey

TRESSLER LLP: Shereshovech Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
UNICO AMERICAN: Anchors & Whales Suit vs. Crusader Underway
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Hearing on Snitko Continued to Oct. 25
UNITED STATES: Gulley Files Suit in Court of Federal of Claims
USALLIANCE FEDERAL: Asberry Files Suit in S.D. New York

VITAMIN A ENTERPRISES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Abbott Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
WASTE PRO: Seeks to Decertify Collective Action in Blandon Suit
WEALTH HARBOR: Bryant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Echard Suit Transferred to N.D. California

WESTERN MESSENGER: Asiatico Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
XTREME MANUFACTURING: Class Cert Deadlines in Gonzalez Suit Stayed
ZOE CHICCO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

AFFINITY FEDERAL: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Abramson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNY ABRAMSON, Plaintiff v. AFFINITY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-13104 (MAS) (DEA) (D.N.J.),
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part Affinity's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff Jenny Abramson's putative class action
Complaint.

Background

Ms. Abramson is a North Carolina resident who has a checking
account with Affinity, a New Jersey-based credit union. The
parties' relationship is governed by Affinity's Account Agreement.
Abramson alleges that Affinity breached the Agreement by improperly
assessing (1) overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on what Abramson refers to
as Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative ("APPSN")
transactions and (2) multiple fees, including OD Fees and
insufficient funds fees ("NSF Fees"), on the same item.

Ms. Abramson Abramson alleges that, contrary to the Agreement,
Affinity imposes a $33 OD Fee on certain debit transactions that do
"not actually overdraw checking accounts" -- APPSN transactions.

According to Abramson, an APPSN transaction occurs when (1)
Affinity authorizes a debit card transaction made by an
accountholder with sufficient funds in her account to cover that
transaction, but (2) due to intervening transactions, the initial
transaction later settles into a negative balance, which triggers a
$33 OD Fee. Abramson asserts that those OD Fees are improper
because at the point of authorization, Affinity "sequesters the
funds needed to pay" that particular transaction from the
accountholder's account. Due to the debit hold, Abramson argues, an
"account will always have sufficient funds available to cover those
transactions" yet "Affinity assesses OD Fees on them anyway."

"As examples," Abramson avers that on three occasions in September
and October of 2018, she "was assessed OD Fees on debit card
transactions" even though those "transactions had been authorized,
prior to that day, on a sufficient available balance."

Ms. Abramson Abramson alleges that although the Agreement allows
Affinity to charge only a single $33 NSF Fee when a transaction is
declined for insufficient funds, Affinity imposes an additional NSF
Fee each time that same transaction is reprocessed for payment. In
her view, the Agreement provides that the original transaction and
all subsequent attempts to reprocess that transaction constitute
the same "item."

Ms. Abramson Abramson points to one transaction as an example where
Affinity allegedly extracted multiple NSF Fees on the same item. On
Dec. 20, 2018, Affinity charged Abramson an NSF Fee for an ACH
payment that was declined for insufficient funds. The following
day, however, Affinity imposed another NSF Fee when the same item
was reprocessed for payment because Abramson's account still lacked
sufficient funds to cover the transaction. Affinity did so again
two days later for the same reason. "In sum, Affinity assessed
Abramson $99 in fees to attempt to process a single payment."
According to Abramson, the latter two NSF Fees violate the
Agreement's promise to assess a single NSF Fee "per item."

On Sept. 23, 2020, Abramson filed a two-count putative class action
Complaint against Affinity. Count One asserts a claim for breach of
contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Count Two alleges a violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-1, et seq.

On Jan. 15, 2021, Affinity moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1)2 for lack of standing and Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. Abramson opposed on Feb. 16, 2021, and
Affinity replied on March 15, 2021. Around the same time, Abramson
submitted supplemental authority in further support of her
opposition to Affinity's Motion.

Discussion

Affinity advances four arguments in support of dismissal: (1)
Abramson lacks standing to pursue the APPSN claim; (2) the
Agreement expressly authorizes Affinity to assess an NSF Fee on the
same transaction each time that transaction is reprocessed; (3)
Abramson's breach of the covenant claim fails as duplicative of her
breach of contract claim; and (4) Abramson's NJCFA claim fails for
the same reason her NSF Fee claim fails.

A. Abramson Fails to Establish Standing for the APPSN Transactions

Affinity seeks to dismiss Abramson's APPSN claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of standing. Specifically, Affinity argues that
Abramson lacks standing because she "was never charged a fee on an
APPSN transaction."

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), to
establish standing, a plaintiff must show that she "(1) suffered an
injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by
a favorable judicial decision."

In the case, Affinity challenges only the first requirement, injury
in fact. To show injury in fact, a plaintiff must allege an
invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and
particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.

Judge Shipp finds that the redacted account statements indicate
that Abramson was assessed OD Fees on certain transactions that
overdrew her account. Those statements do not, on their face,
contradict Affinity's representation that none of the disputed
transactions were APPSN transactions because they were "authorized
negative and presented and paid with an insufficient balance."
Other than conclusory statements, Abramson offered no competing
evidence or information to contest Affinity's representation.
Instead, in the second paragraph, Abramson points to the
allegations in the Complaint to support her argument for standing.

Specifically, Abramson argues that she "has standing because the
Complaint alleges that she was victimized by Affinity's conduct"
and that "she was charged numerous APPSN fees." She also notes that
the "specific examples" of transactions provided in the Complaint
were "meant to be just that: examples." But Abramson's reliance on
those allegations is misplaced, particularly because "no
presumptive truthfulness attaches to" the Complaint's allegations,
and Abramson offered nothing else to contest Affinity's 12(b)(1)
Motion. Without more, the Judge cannot find that Abramson met her
burden to establish standing. He, accordingly, grants Affinity's
Motion on this issue.

B. The Agreement Does Not Expressly Authorize the Assessment of
Multiple NSF Fees on the Same Item

Affinity argues that Abramson's breach of contract claim regarding
NSF Fees should be dismissed because Affinity's "conduct was
expressly contemplated by the Agreement and consistent with its
terms."

To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff "must allege
(1) a contract between the parties; (2) a breach of that contract;
(3) damages flowing therefrom; and (4) that the party stating the
claim performed its own contractual obligations."

In the case, Affinity posits that Abramson fails to satisfy prong
two -- breach of contract -- because the Agreement expressly allows
Affinity to assess multiple NSF Fees when transactions are
reprocessed for payment.

Judge Shipp cites Richard v. Glens Falls Nat'l Bank, No. 20-734,
2021 WL 810218, at *12 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2021) (collecting cases).
There, as in the instant case, the agreement provided that an NSF
Fee may be assessed "per item" but did not provide a standalone
definition for "item" nor a "provision making clear that a separate
NSF Fee may be charged for each presentment of the same
transaction." Consistent with the weight of authority, the court
found that the agreement was "sufficiently ambiguous for the
plaintiff's claim to survive a motion to dismiss." In doing so, the
court noted that "when analyzing similar account agreements that
allow NSF Fees to be assessed on a 'per item' basis, courts have
frequently found the term 'item' to be ambiguous in the absence of
language clearly defining it, and have denied motions to dismiss on
that basis."

Judge Shipp reaches the same conclusion and finds that the term
"item" is ambiguous regarding whether the reprocessing of a
transaction is a separate item (as Affinity argues) or is part of
the same initial transaction (as Abramson argues). The Judge,
accordingly, denies Affinity's Motion to Dismiss Abramson's breach
of contract claim as to NSF Fees.

C. Abramson's Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing is Duplicative of Her Claim for Breach of
Contract

Judge Shipp explains that a breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing must not arise out of the same conduct underlying
an alleged breach of contract action, citing TBI Unlimited, LLC v.
Clear Cut Lawn Decisions, LLC, No. 12-3355, 2013 WL 6048720, at *3
(D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2013) (citing Wade v. Kessler Inst., 798 A.2d
1251, 1261 (N.J. 2002)). In other words, "the conduct alleged to be
a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
must be distinct from the conduct alleged to constitute a breach of
contract."

In the case, Abramson's breach of the implied covenant claim fails
because it arises out of the same conduct underlying her breach of
contract claim. Joined together into a single count entitled
"breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing," Count One alleges that Affinity breached the
implied covenant by "abus[ing] the discretion it granted to itself
when it charged OD Fees on transactions that did not overdraw an
account and when it charged multiple fees on the same item" -- the
same conduct underlying her breach of contract claim. "Nearly
identical claims are regularly dismissed in similar actions." Judge
Shipp, accordingly, grants Affinity's Motion to Dismiss Abramson's
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.

D. NJCFA Claim

Affinity's argument to dismiss Abramson's NJCFA claim can be
addressed in short. Its sole argument is that Abramson's NJCFA
claim fails for the same reason that her NSF Fee claim fails: That
the "Agreement expressly permits the very conduct with respect to
multiple fees on the reprocessing of the same item." Having
concluded otherwise, Judge Shipp denies Affinity's Motion to
Dismiss Abramson's NJCFA claim.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Judge Shipp granted in part and denied
in part Affinity's Motion to Dismiss. He will enter an Order
consistent with his Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ppeyjd9 from Leagle.com.


AIR TRANSPORT: Velasquez Sues Over Failure to Show Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Velasquez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AIR TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2021-0030789 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 1, 2021),
is brought to seek penalties and other relief for the Defendants'
failure to furnish the Plaintiff and other employees with wage
statements that comply with California Labor Code Section 226(a).

Specifically, the Defendants fail to furnish the Plaintiff and
other employees with wage statements that show the Defendants'
legal name and address. Instead, wage statements simply show "AIR
TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL" without any address for the employer. The
Defendants thus violate Section 226(a), says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an aircraft mechanic.

Air Transport International, Inc. was and is a Delaware
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Simon L. Yang, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                 sly@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, California 95023
          Phone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Cleary Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CLEARY, et. al.,
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00184-O (N.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order:

   1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification; and

   2. certifying the Email Confirmation Class and Credit Card
      Class.

The Court said, "A class action is the ideal way to resolve claims
such as these, as opposed to thousands of breaches of contract
claims for less than $100, which is an undesirable and unlikely
alternative.The history and purpose of the class action is to
remedy injuries that otherwise would be impractical or uneconomical
for an individual plaintiff to bring. See Brian T. Fitzpatrick, The
Conservative Case for Class Actions 3, 28 (2019); see also In re
Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 2004) ("A
'negative value' suit is one in which class members' claims 'would
be uneconomical to litigate individually.'") (quoting Phillips
Petroleum v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 809 (1985)). Class action is the
most efficient way to resolve Cleary and Ferrigni's claims, as well
as similarly situated consumers who would likely never go through
the trouble to bring a claim on their own. Therefore, the Court
finds that both classes satisfy Rule 23(b)(3).

This case is a putative class action against American Airlines for,
allegedly, charging customers excessive baggage fees in breach of
the parties' contracts. In certain circumstances, American offers
customers one or more free checked bags when they travel.

On or around February 6, 2017, class representative William Cleary
was at his home when he purchased tickets online from American for
travel from Los Angeles, CA, to Dallas, Texas, and a return flight.
Cleary and his wife were logged into his wife's American "AA"
account when he made this transaction. When he purchased these
tickets, Cleary and American entered a contract which specified
that he could check his first bag for no additional charge.
However, when Cleary arrived at the airport on March 21, 2017, with
a bag to check, American required him to pay to check his bag, and
similarly required payment upon his return three days later. Cleary
paid the fees.

American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. It is the
world's largest airline when measured by fleet size, scheduled
passengers carried, and revenue passenger mile.

American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas -- Fort Worth metroplex. It is the
world's largest airline when measured by fleet size, scheduled
passengers carried, and revenue passenger mile.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k5ja7U at no extra charge.[CC]



ANAPLAN INC: Sakkal Securities Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FADEL SAKKAL, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANAPLAN INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05959-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order:

     a. granting with leave to amend the motion to dismiss; and

     b. granting in part and denying in part the requests for
        incorporation by reference and judicial notice.

The federal securities class action arises out of allegedly false
and misleading statements made by Anaplan, its CEO Frank Calderoni,
and its CFO David Morton to investors in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5.

Anaplan is a software-as-a-service company providing planning and
decision-making software to companies. Its platform seeks to
"fundamentally transform planning by connecting all of the people,
data, and plans needed to accelerate business value and enable
real-time planning and decision-making in rapidly changing business
environments." One of its tools, Anaplan for Sales Forecasting,
claims to obviate "delays in forecasting due to manual and siloed
processes" by "enabling accurate, real-time forecast creation in
one place while automatically surfacing actionable insights to
improve sales productivity."

Unlike many other software companies, Anaplan's direct sales team
sells subscriptions, which "create a stream of recurring revenue."
The Plaintiff indicates that under Generally Accepted Account
Practices, a focus on reported "revenue" would inadequately capture
subscription business generated within a given period, leading
investors and analysts to focus on the growth of Anaplan's
"billings." He defines "billings" as the sum of Anaplan's periodic
revenue and the change in its deferred revenue.

It was reportedly well-known that Calderoni and Morton often
clashed with the sales team. The demand that salespeople meet
"unachievable" quotas exacerbated the problem. In addition to
urging overcommitment, sales managers routinely inflated these
"stages" in the billings projections. This intense focus on the
pipeline permeated the company. This intense pressure to
overcommit, the Plaintiff alleges, resulted in an artificial
inflation of Anaplan's billings, a delay and decrease in billings,
and high turnover in the sales department.

Just before the start of the Class Period, which ran from Nov. 21,
2019 through Feb. 26, 2020, analysts praised Anaplan's billings
growth as "further validation of strong sales trends." Nonetheless,
the "billings acceleration" announced at the Nov. 21, 2019 earnings
call for the fiscal third quarter of 2020 "eclipsed the market's
high expectations." Anaplan's share price went up about 8% to
$53.09 per share.

In the Amended Complaint, there are several call and other
allegedly false and misleading statements. On Dec. 9, 2019, the
Defendants filed Anaplan's Form 10-Q for the third fiscal quarter
of 2020. Item 2 requests information pursuant to Item 303 of
Regulation S-K, which requires a description of "any known trends
or uncertainties" that have had or that Anaplan reasonably expects
will have a "material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales
or revenues or income from continuing operations." The Plaintiff
alleges Anaplan improperly declined to include information related
to (a) slowing billings growth, (b) excessive turnover in the sales
department, and (c) crucial leadership changes.

On Dec. 11, 2019, Morton presented at the Barclays Global
Technology, Media, and Telecommunications Conference in Los
Angeles, California. The moderator noted Anaplan's atypical growth
after its IPO. Morton gushed about the platform saying everybody
around their table has been in some sort of executive kind of
position at a public company north of $1 billion.

On Dec. 13, 2019, Calderoni appeared on CNBC's Mad Money. There,
Calderoni boasted they've got a great platform that they can offer
great value in a reasonable amount of time for companies to
implement Anaplan and then also accelerate and that's really what's
driving our growth.

Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss

To state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act, the Plaintiff must plead specific facts showing: "(1) a
material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2)
scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or
omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon
the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation."

Judge Seeborg holds that the complaint stumbles at the threshold
because it does not plead a misrepresentation or omission. Most of
the statements, he says, plainly constitute non-actionable puffery
at best. The Plaintiff's challenges to the Defendants' statements
generally praising Anaplan's corporate culture, products, or
prospects fail to state a claim.

At the highest level of generality, the complaint seems to
insinuate that Calderoni and Morton, and therefore Anaplan, had the
requisite mental state because they were aware that the toxic
corporate culture within the sales team created the risk that
Anaplan's billings momentum was slowing. The Plaintiff relies
mostly on Confidential Witnesses and six other "additional
allegations" to make this argument.

Yet, the Judge holds, that the Plaintiff's reliance on the
Confidential Witnesses ("CWs") is misplaced. To rely on statements
of a CW to plead scienter, the allegations "must pass two hurdles":
(1) the sources "must be described with sufficient particularity to
establish their reliability and personal knowledge"; and (2) the
reported statements "must themselves be indicative of scienter."
Though the parties disagree about whether CWs must have been
employed by the company during the class period to be relied upon,
it is ultimately irrelevant because the CW reports are neither
anchored in time nor tethered to any particular allegedly false or
misleading statements.

Hence, Judge Seeborg holds that the complaint does not sufficiently
aver Defendants made any actionable false or misleading statements
or acted with the requisite mental state. It has thus not presented
a cognizable Section 10(b) violation. The Section 20(a) claim,
derivative of the requisite 10(b) showing, must also therefore be
dismissed.

B. Motion for Judicial Notice

The Defendants seeks judicial notice or to incorporate by reference
19 exhibits. A court may take judicial notice of matters of public
record but a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts
contained in such public records. A defendant may also seek to
incorporate by reference a document into the complaint "if the
plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms
the basis of the plaintiff's claim." The Plaintiff opposes the
request as to exhibits 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19.

Because the Order does not rely on or consider those exhibits, they
will not be incorporated or noticed. The request is granted as to
all other exhibits.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Judge Seeborg granted the motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. In the event the Plaintiff elects to
file an amended complaint, he must do so within 21 days of the date
of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/c68j4rma from Leagle.com.


CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action in Illinois Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop.

Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop brought suit against CDK Global, LLC on
April 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, but reserved its rights with respect to remand to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin at the
conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint to sue on behalf of
itself and a putative class of all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds.

CDK Global, LLC moved to compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims,
or in the alternative, to dismiss those claims; that motion was
denied on January 25, 2019.

CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to AutoLoop's complaint and
asserted counterclaims against AutoLoop on February 15, 2019.

AutoLoop filed an answer to CDK Global, LLC's counterclaims on
March 8, 2019.

The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions
were fully briefed as of September 28, 2020 and remain pending.

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

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CDK GLOBAL: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Pending
------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions are still
pending.

Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
brought a putative class action suit on behalf of itself and all
similarly situated automobile dealerships against CDK Global, LLC
and Reynolds. Teterboro's suit was originally filed on October 19,
2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Since that time, several more putative class actions were filed in
a number of federal district courts, with substantively similar
allegations; all of them have been consolidated with the MDL
proceeding.

On June 4, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed on
behalf of a putative class made up of all dealerships in the United
States that directly purchased DMS and/or allegedly indirectly
purchased DMS or data integration services from CDK Global, LLC or
Reynolds ("Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs").

CDK Global, LLC moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the
alternative, compel arbitration of certain of the cases while
staying the remainder pending the outcome of those arbitration
proceedings; its motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part, while its motion to compel arbitration was denied.

On February 22, 2019, CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to the
remaining claims in Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs' complaint
and asserted counterclaims against the Putative Dealership Class
Plaintiffs.

The Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
CDK Global, LLC's counterclaims; that motion was granted in part
and denied in part on September 3, 2019.

On October 23, 2018, the Putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs and
Reynolds filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement and
for conditional certification of the proposed settlement class. The
court finally approved that settlement on January 22, 2019.

The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions
were fully briefed as of September 28, 2020 and remain pending.

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

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CENTERSTATE BANK: Grant Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DENISE GRANT, on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v.
CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 8:20-cv-01920-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as follows:

      "All current and former CenterState Bank accountholders
      who, from August 18, 2015 through August 21, 2020 were
      charged two or more fees ("Multiple Fees"), including non-
      sufficient funds fees ("NSF Fees") and overdraft fees ("OD
      Fees"), on the same item.

   2. appointing him as representative of the Class;

   3. appointing the following firms as class counsel pursuant
      to Rule 23(g):

      -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
         Weiselberg Gilbert; and

      -- KalielGold PLLC.

The Plaintiff contends that CenterState made it a key
corporate-wide priority to aggressively increase fee revenue,
specifically non-sufficient funds fee ("NSF Fee") and overdraft fee
("OD Fee") revenue. CenterState improperly assesses two or more NSF
Fees and OD Fees ("Multiple Fees") on Automated Clearing House
("ACH") transactions and checks written on the accountholder's
account. It is undisputed that CenterState used form adhesion
contracts; the relevant terms were the same for all Class members
throughout the Class Period; that Florida law uniformly applied;
and that CenterState systematically assessed Multiple Fees on the
same item against accountholders' accounts.

The Plaintiff says that she satisfies all of the elements of Rule
23(a) and (b)(3). The class action mechanism is not only the best
and most efficient way to adjudicate the Class members' claims, in
this case, it is also the only viable method of doing so.

CenterState is a financial holding company, which engages in the
provision of consumer and commercial banking services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 3,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lgMTu6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:

          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15 th St. NW 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

CENTERSTATE BANK: Precision Roofing Files Bid for Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRECISION ROOFING OF N.
FLORIDA INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-BJD-JRK (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as follows:

      "All current and former CenterState Bank accountholders
      who, from April 6, 2015 through May 31, 2020, were charged
      overdraft fees (OD) Fees on APPSN Transactions.

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the Class;

   3. appointing the following firms as class counsel pursuant
      to Rule 23(g):

      -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
         Weiselberg Gilbert; and

      -- KalielGold PLLC.

The Plaintiff contends that CenterState made it a key
corporate-wide priority to aggressively increase fee revenue and
specifically OD Fee revenue in spite of consumer expectation.
CenterState programmed its systems to assesses OD Fees on debit
card transactions that were authorized into a positive available
balance and settled negative (APPSN transactions). It is undisputed
that CenterState used form adhesion contracts; the relevant terms
were the same for all Class members throughout the Class Period;
that Florida law uniformly applied; and that CenterState
systematically assessed OD Fees on APPSN transactions.

CenterState is a financial holding company, which engages in the
provision of consumer and commercial banking services.

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

The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:

          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15 th St. NW 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

COLLECTION BUREAU: Bid to Dismiss Roeder TCPA Class Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM ROEDER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF THE HUDSON
VALLEY, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ.
06200 (JCM) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
the Defendant's motion for dismissal based on lack of
jurisdiction.

Background

Plaintiff Roeder brings the class action pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.,
alleging that the Collection Bureau and/or its agents transmitted
unwanted solicitation telephone calls to the Plaintiff and the
other class members using a prerecorded voice in the four years
prior to the filing of the complaint on Aug. 6, 2020.

The Defendant is a private debt collection agency headquartered in
Newburgh, New York that conducts business throughout the United
States. As part of that business, the Defendant contacts consumers
without their consent to collect on their debts using prerecorded
voice messages. It also engages in a practice called
"skip-tracing," wherein its agents "track down consumers with
outstanding debts by calling other consumers who may assist the
Defendant in reaching these delinquent consumers."

The Plaintiff received three unwanted calls from the Defendant on
his cellular phone over the span of about five months. The first
call occurred in or around December 2019 or January 2020. Although
he did not answer it, the Plaintiff "looked up" the phone number on
the internet and identified it as belonging to the Defendant.
Therefore, he called the Defendant's main office line and told the
agent who answered that the call "was not for him."

The second call occurred on May 26, 2020, and again, the Plaintiff
did not answer it. However, this time, the Defendant left a
prerecorded message in his voicemail box requesting that the
recipient of the message contact its office about its debt
collection efforts. The Plaintiff received the final call on June
2, 2020, wherein he spoke with a live agent who identified herself
as "with the Defendant." He told her that he had already asked for
the calls to stop, and the agent apologized and advised she would
remove his phone number from the Defendant's system. The Plaintiff
never provided his cellular phone number to the Defendant or
otherwise consented to receive such calls.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of
himself and "all persons in the United States, who, from four years
prior to the filing of the Complaint through class certification,"
received calls on their cellular phones from the Defendant or its
agents "using a prerecorded voice," (1) without prior consent, or
(2) "for whom the Defendant claims it obtained the person's consent
or cellular phone number in the same manner as the Defendant claims
it obtained the Plaintiff's consent or cellular phone number."

The Defendant now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for dismissal based on lack of
jurisdiction.

Discussion

The Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
instant action pursuant to Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol. Consultants,
Inc, 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020), wherein the Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), the
subsection of the TCPA that forms the basis of the Plaintiff's
claims. The Plaintiff responds that the Court retains jurisdiction
because Barr did not invalidate the entirety of Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Rather, the court in Barr found unconstitutional
and severed an exception to Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) for
government debt collectors which is inapplicable to the lawsuit,
thus leaving the Court's jurisdiction intact.

Judge McCarthy agrees that because Barr excised the government debt
exception from Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and the Plaintiff's case
is premised on the remainder of that provision, the Court retains
jurisdiction.

The parties dispute Barr's ramifications for collectors of private
debt, who, like the Defendant, made robocalls after the 2015
Amendment but before Barr was decided. They also disagree on the
meaning and precedential value of footnote 12. The Defendant argues
that the robocall restriction is inapplicable to the calls at issue
because Barr only severed the government debt exception
prospectively. It further contends footnote 12 shields government
debt collectors from liability for calls between the 2015 Amendment
and the Barr district court's entry of final judgment, because to
do otherwise would violate their due process rights. Since such a
result unfairly favors government debt collectors over others, the
Defendant reasons, the only constitutionally appropriate
application of Barr is to absolve non-government debt collectors of
liability for calls during the same period. The Defendant summarily
dismisses as non-binding footnote 12's qualifying language
reminding non-government debt collectors of the TCPA's continued
application.

The Plaintiff, however, maintains that regardless of Barr's effect
on calls by government debt collectors, the decision necessarily
severed the government debt exception from the robocall restriction
both prospectively and retroactively. According to the Plaintiff,
this is the logical conclusion based on the law of severance and
retroactivity, as well as footnote 12's explicit imposition of
liability on "parties who made robocalls covered by the robocall
restriction." The Plaintiff also criticizes Defendant for relying
on cases that found the entirety of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
unconstitutional, when the Barr court explicitly rejected that
conclusion. Thus, the Plaintiff claims, because the severed version
of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) stands and covers the Defendant's
conduct, this lawsuit must go forward.

Judge McCarthy finds the Defendant's contention unpersuasive for
several reasons. First, she says, a number of courts have concluded
that the portion of footnote 12 on which Defendant relies is only a
"suggestion," and thus, does not constitute "clear or binding
guidance on the issue." Second, the language in footnote 12
referenced by the Defendant expressly applies to government debt
collectors and the Defendant is decidedly not a government debt
collector. Third, the Defendant's proposed solution is inconsistent
with the plurality and concurring opinions regarding severability.

Because the remainder of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) applies
retroactively, the statutory provision on which the Plaintiff's
action is based is constitutional. Therefore, Judge McCarthy
retains jurisdiction.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCarthy denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to
terminate the pending Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tmhn988w from Leagle.com.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Tuel Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Brandon Tuel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00866 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 13,
2021).

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

Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one
of America's leading collections agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com




DETROIT, MI: Claims Against Beasley in Lockard v. Police Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUGLAS LOCKARD and ADAM SANTIAGO, Plaintiffs v. CITY
OF DETROIT, MATTHEW BRAY, and REGINALD BEASLEY, Defendants, Case
No. 18-13045 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Paul D. Borman of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss.

Procedural History

The instant 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action arose as one of five
cases from a failed class action lawsuit against the City of
Detroit and individual officers that was denied class certification
by the Court. Plaintiff Douglas Lockard and his son Adam Santiago
filed this independent Section 1983 action on Sept. 28, 2018.

Plaintiff Douglas Lockard alleges that he was subject to an
unlawful search and seizure of his home without probable cause by
members of Detroit Police Department ("DPD") narcotics squad and
has brought claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
against individual officers, as well as a municipal liability claim
against the City of Detroit.

On Oct. 16, 2020, the Defendants filed a Corrected Motion for
Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 and 12(c). The Plaintiffs filed a Response on Nov. 5, 2020, and
the Defendants filed a Reply on Nov. 19, 2020.

The Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all 14th Amendment claims. On
April 22, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing Defendants
Radames Benitez, Rodger Johnson, Tiffany McCrackin, Cedric Coleman,
Damon Kimbrough, and Leo Rhodes. The remaining claims are the
Fourth Amendment claims against Officers Matthew Bray and Reginald
Beasley, and the municipal liability claim against the City of
Detroit. The issue of whether the Plaintiffs have also filed an
excessive force claim will be dealt with in a separate Order on
this date.

Analysis

I. Summary Judgment

A. Officer Matthew Bray - Unlawful Search and Seizure

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment claim against Defendant Officer Matthew Bray, the affiant
on the search warrant, arguing that Bray is entitled to qualified
immunity.

The Plaintiffs argue that the search of Lockard's home actually
occurred on Oct. 15, 2012, that Lockard was out of state on Oct.
16, 2012, and that the Oct. 17, 2012 search warrant was obtained
after the October 15th search. The Plaintiffs challenge two
critical components of Bray's 2017 warrant affidavit.

First, they challenge the affidavit statement that Officer Bray
conducted surveillance on Lockard at his house on Oct. 16, 2012.
Second, they challenge the affidavit statement that Officer Bray
had received a tip from an unnamed "reliable" CI that Lockard was
illegally selling drugs, and relied on that reliable CI. The
Plaintiffs challenge the existence of that CI, contending that the
Defendants have not produced the name of that CI, or introduced any
police department record evidence, apart from Bray's testimony,
that such a CI existed.

Judge Borman, as to the first challenge, concludes that while the
Defendants' argument and records will contest the Plaintiffs'
claims at trial, Plaintiff Lockard has made the necessary
substantial preliminary showing that there are questions of
material fact that undermine the probable cause showing in Bray's
affidavit: Dalse statements regarding his surveillance of Lockard
on October 16th, and the date of the raid.

As to the second challenge, the Judge holds that excising from the
warrant affidavit Officer Bray's critical statements regarding his
purported surveillance of Lockard's alleged drug dealing on Oct.
16, 2012, a reasonable juror could determine that the warrant
affidavit did not establish probable cause and the Judge would not
have signed the warrant based on the remaining information.

For these reasons, the case will proceed to trial on the
Plaintiffs' claim against Officer Bray of a violation of their
Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from unlawful
search and seizure without probable cause. Accordingly, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amendment
claim against Officer Bray is denied.

B. Defendant Reginald Beasley

In their Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismiss, the Defendants
move to dismiss the claim against Beasley under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c), arguing there are no specific allegations against him, and
for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, arguing that police
officers who merely participate in the execution of a judicially
authorized search warrant are entitled to qualified immunity.

Judge Borman holds that dismissal of Beasley is appropriate on
either ground. First, he holds that there are no specific
allegations against Defendant Beasley in the Complaint. Because the
Judge is unable to draw an inference that Defendant Beasley is
liable for any alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment
claim against Beasley is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c). Second, the police officers are entitled to rely on a
judicially secured warrant for immunity from a Section 1983 action
for illegal search and seizure unless the warrant is so lacking in
indicia of probable cause, that official belief in the existence of
probable cause is unreasonable. In the case, Defendant Beasley was
not deposed and there is no other basis for the Court to determine
that Beasley's reliance on the judicially authorized warrant in
this case was unreasonable. Dismissal of Beasley is appropriate
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims against Beasley are dismissed.

C. Municipal Liability - Monell Claim

The Plaintiffs argue that the Monell claim against the City should
proceed to trial because there is evidence that the City knew or
should have known about corruption and theft relating to the
execution of search warrants in the narcotics department prior to
the raid on Lockard's home. The Plaintiff contends that he "intends
to proceed on his Monell claim based on the City's custom or
tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations." He points
to the testimony of former drug dealer Gary Jackson, who testified
for the Government at the criminal trial of DPD officers Hansberry
and Watson. But Hansberry and Watson are not involved in the
instant case.

Judge Borman concludes that the snippets of interviews with former
police officials regarding police misconduct do not establish the
necessary evidence relating to the case, relating to his time, that
an official with final decision-making authority ratified these
illegal actions, nor establish the existence of a policy of
inadequate training or supervision, or the tolerance or
acquiescence of federal rights violations. Hence, the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Monell claim is granted.

Conclusion

Judge Borman concludes that the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and to Dismiss is (i) denied as to the Fourth Amendment
claim against Defendant Matthew Bray; (ii) granted as to the Fourth
Amendment claim against Defendant Reginald Beasley; and (iii)
granted the Municipal Liability Monell claim against the City of
Detroit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/56vmp4pe from Leagle.com.


DRIVEN BRANDS: Johnson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harvie Johnson, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Driven Brands, Inc., and Driven Brands
Shared Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02144, (W.D. Ark.,
September 2, 2021) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fee as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own and operate car washes throughout Arkansas,
including a car wash in Van Buren called "Car Wash USA Express"
where Johnson worked as a salaried manager since April of 2018.
Defendant did not pay Johnson an overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 in any week, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      Kirkpatrick Plaza
      10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

DUPAGE MEDICAL: Hestrup Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
Rochelle Hestrup and Erin Peiss, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DUPAGE MEDICAL GROUP, LTD. d/b/a
DUPAGE MEDICAL GROUP, Case No. 2021L000937 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir.
Ct., DuPage Cty., Sept. 1, 2021), arises out of the recent targeted
cyber-attack at the Defendant's medical facilities that disrupted
DMG's computer network and--among other things--allowed a third
party to access the Defendant's computer systems and data,
resulting in the exposure of highly sensitive personal information
and medical records of nearly 600,000 patients from the Defendant's
computer network (the "Data Breach").

According to the complaint, as a result of the Data Breach,
Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses from the
loss of the value in their private and confidential information,
loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' sensitive personal information—which was entrusted to
the Defendant, its officials and agents--was compromised,
unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the Data Breach. Information
compromised in the Data Breach includes names, addresses, dates of
birth, diagnosis codes, Social Security Numbers, Current Procedural
Terminology ("CPT") codes, treatment dates, and other protected
health information as defined by the HIPAA, and additional
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") that Defendant collected and maintained.

The Plaintiffs seeks to address the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that the
Defendant collected and maintained, for failing to provide timely
and adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members that
their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party, and for failing to provide timely and adequate
notice of precisely what information was accessed and stolen. The
Defendant maintained the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' Private
Information in a reckless manner.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct asserting claims for
negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract, breach of
implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
unjust enrichment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Hestrup was and is a patient of Defendant.

DuPage Medical Group is now one of Illinois's largest
multi-specialty group practices, with nearly 600 primary care and
specialty physicians in more than 80 locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Meyer, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 741-5220
          Email: sam@kellerlenkner.com
                 ajd@kellerlenkner.com

               - and -

          Todd. S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Fax: (914) 824-1561
          Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


ENVIROTECH VEHICLES: ED Lawyer Files Bid to be Relieved as Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Electric Drivetrains'
counsel moved to be relieved as counsel, is pending

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, Edward R. Monfort, the former Chief Technology Officer
and a former director of ADOMANI, Inc. and the two underwriters of
the company's offering of common stock under Regulation A in June
2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection therewith.

The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.

Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, a third amended complaint,
and a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by
putative class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric
Drivetrains, LLC. Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a
putative class representative.

On October 27, 2020, the company answered the fourth amended
complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead
Securities (together the "Underwriters") filed a cross-complaint
against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for
the Company's initial public offering (the "Underwriting
Agreement").

On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
Underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.

Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the
Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a
cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification
under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement.

On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020, we filed an
answer to Mr. Monfort's cross-complaint, generally denying the
allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed its motion for class
certification. On March 17, 2021, the court held a case management
conference. At the case management conference, the court set a
tentative schedule for class discovery and briefing on the motion
for class certification.

On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI filed a
stipulation extending the deadline for class certification
discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class
discovery on September 28, 2021; defendants' opposition to the
motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021; plaintiff's
reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021; a case
management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for
hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification.
Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort.

The Underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains
on the primary claims in this matter.

All defendants are maintaining their cross claims against each
other. On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains' counsel moved to be
relieved as counsel. The court will hear this motion on August 23,
2021.

Envirotech said, "We believe that the purported class action
lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. a provider of purpose-built zero-emission
electric vehicles focused on reducing the total cost of vehicle
ownership and helping fleet operators unlock the benefits of green
technology. The company is based in Corona, California.

The Company was formerly known as ADOMANI, Inc. On May 26, 2021,
the Company filed a Certificate of Amendment of Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation the Company with the
Secretary of State of the State of Delaware to change its name from
ADOMANI, Inc. to Envirotech Vehicles, Inc., effective as of May 26,
2021.


EVERI PAYMENTS: Saavedra Sues Over Deceptive and Unlawful Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadie Saavedra, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. EVERI PAYMENTS, INC., a corporation; and
EVERI HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-06999-CBM-PD
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2021), arises from Everi's deceptive and
unlawful practice of systematically maximizing the number of out-of
network transaction fees incurred by retail bank account holders.

Acting as the principal merchant, Everi provides--either directly
or through its gaming establishment clients (with whom it
contracts) acting as its agents--various cash-access services at
thousands of its clients' gaming establishments across the country
– including by dispensing cash withdrawn from its proprietary
automated teller machines leased to its clients ("ATMs") and by
processing credit and debit card cash-advance transactions on
electronic terminals (also owned by Everi and leased to its
clients) located at points-of-sale ("POS") in its clients' gaming
establishments, according to the complaint.

A significant portion of Everi's revenue is from fees charged to
consumers such as Plaintiff for its cash-access and services. These
fees which are paid by banks and ultimately charged to the
cardholders are known as "interchange fees." These interchange fees
are paid by the retail banks each time a retail bank account holder
makes a cash withdrawal, funds transfer, or account balance inquiry
at one of Everi's ATMs. Retail banks deem these activities as "out
of network" if conducted at one of Everi's ATMs. When retail bank
account holders engage in activities such as cash withdrawals, fund
transfers, or account balance inquiries at an out-of-network ATM,
the card-issuing banks will typically assess an out-of-network ATM
fee for such activity.

Everi has a monetary incentive to generate as many out-of-network
transaction fees as possible. This has led Everi to concoct
deceptive screen prompts designed to mislead unsuspecting account
holders, including Plaintiff, into incurring out-of-network fees
for transactions they did not wish to conduct and that they did not
consent to. The improper conduct of Everi has resulted in retail
bank account holders, including Plaintiff, being assessed
out-of-network balance inquiry fees by their card-issuing banks,
including BofA, in circumstances the account holders reasonably
believed would not result in the assessment of a fee.

Account-holders, including Plaintiff, have been assessed fees for
requesting multiple balance inquires where the account holder did
not request or want such an inquiry, let alone multiple. Plaintiff
and members of each of the Everi Defendant Classes, as defined
below, seek to recover wrongfully obtained funds from Everi
pursuant to long-standing authority under California's Unfair
Competition Laws, which hold that portions of payments that can be
directly traced to an indirect beneficiary are recoverable when the
payments were fraudulently induced as a result of the indirect
beneficiary's deceptive conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff placed her ATM debit card into the Everi ATM machine
on August 16, 2021.

Everi provides debit and credit card cash advance transaction
services to gamblers at thousands of casino gaming and other
wagering establishments across the country and the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Habashy, Esq.
          Nicole E. Rivera, Esq.
          LEXICON LAW, PC
          633 W. 5th St., 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 223-5900
          Fax: (888) 373-2107
          Email: john@lexiconlaw.com
                 nicole@lexiconlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          2750 N. 29th Ave., Ste. 209A
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Phone: (954) 589-0588
          Fax: (954) 337-0666
          Email: scott@scottdowens.com


FARMERS GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Holmes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL M. HOLMES, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC.,
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA,
and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. CV 19-0387
JHR/SCY (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico denies Holmes' Motion
for Class Certification.

Background

Ms. Holmes had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers
Insurance Company of America ("FICA"). Holmes paid an additional
premium for "loss of use" coverage providing $50 per day up to
$1,000 while the insured vehicle is in a garage for repairs and
$1,000 if the vehicle is a total loss.

Ms. Holmes was involved in a collision on Feb. 2, 2015. She
notified FICA on Feb. 11, 2015 and FICA opened a claim. Claim
Representative Sherri Garner explained to Holmes her coverage and
set up an inspection appointment. Garner inspected Holmes' vehicle
and estimated the repair would take three days. Holmes told Garner
that she would make her claim through the other driver's insurance
instead. Garner sent a letter to Holmes confirming closure of the
claim with FICA, and the third-party insurer handled Holmes' repair
from that point forward, including payment for 17 days car rental.

Ms. Holmes ultimately settled with the third-party insurer for the
policy limit of $10,000. She then made an underinsured motorist
claim ("UIM") with FICA, which she settled for $15,000. As a
condition of her UIM settlement, Holmes executed a release of
claims against FICA.

Subsequently, Holmes commenced the case on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated persons claiming entitlement to unpaid
loss of use coverage. She listed four causes of action: breach of
contract, violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act,
violation of the New Mexico Insurance Code, and unjust enrichment.

After discovery, Holmes filed the Motion for Class Certification
currently before the Court, specifying that the Defendant
misconstrues controlling contract provisions and fails to properly
evaluate loss of use claims. She also contends that the Defendant
improperly applies restrictions on rental reimbursement to deny the
independent coverage for loss of use.

Ms. Holmes seeks to certify the following class: All individuals:
(1) who have or had an automobile covered by an insurance contract
with FICA underwritten in New Mexico which included Loss of Use
Coverage; (2) who suffered a collision or loss after Feb. 1, 2013
related to an automobile covered by that insurance contract, that
(a) exceeds the applicable deductible amount under Part IV of the
insurance contract, and (b) resulted in either (i) a total loss of
the vehicle, or (ii) the vehicle being in the custody of a garage
for repair; (3) for whom a collision or comprehensive claim was
opened by Farmers related to such loss or collision; (4) for whom
an estimate was documented in the claim file and (5) who received
no Loss of Use Coverage benefits.

In short, and subject to contract interpretation and application,
Holmes' proposed definition appears to describe a group of insureds
with a plausible claim for unpaid benefits. The Defendant responded
to the motion for class certification on Oct. 8, 2021, Holmes
replied on Nov. 9, 2020, and the Court held a motion hearing on
June 3, 2021.

Discussion

To merit class certification, the movant must first demonstrate
that the proposed class satisfies all Rule 23(a) requirements.
Second, the proposed class must satisfy at least one of the three
requirements listed in Rule 23(b).

Rule 23(a) requires a showing that (1) the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate
compliance with Rule 23 and that certification is proper.
Certification is only available if the trial court is satisfied,
after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a)
have been satisfied.

Judge Ritter opines that Holmes has not proven that the proposed
class satisfies all requirements of Rule 23(a). First, Holmes fails
to meet her burden to show a class so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.

Second, the Judge finds that it is Holmes' burden to show that
common questions of law or fact, material to her claims, actually
exist; a statement of issues that may exist is not sufficient. The
best that she has done is to elicit, in this briefing, a statement
by the Defendant that, had she not apparently abandoned her own
claim for loss of use coverage, and had she not possibly waived it
in exchange for settlement of her underinsured motorist claim, she
still would not qualify because her other recoveries for this
collision were applied to reduce her qualifying "loss." That
statement supports Holmes' individual claim that she and the
Defendant interpret the loss of use endorsement differently but
does not substantiate a common claim shared by any other members of
the proposed class.

Third, assuming for argument's sake that Holmes had demonstrated
that the class shares her four claims in common, it is clear that
her own claim will have to run an affirmative defense gauntlet that
is atypical to the class. Fourth, because of the dispositive nature
of the affirmative defenses against Holmes, due to the unique facts
of her individual case, the Judge finds that Holmes is not typical
of the class and her service as representative Plaintiff would
delay the case and divert class resources to the detriment of the
class.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Ritter denies certification. The parties
and their counsel are ordered to meet and confer within 14 days and
then submit a joint status report clarifying how they wish to
proceed in light of the Court's rulings, within 30 days of entry of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2h4y9krp from
Leagle.com.


FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Cleveland Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nikiesha Cleveland, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Foundations Health Solutions,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01713 (N.D. Ohio, September 2,
2021), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime premiums,
liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and any
other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Foundations Health operates facilities that offer skilled nursing,
physical therapy, occupational therapy, respite care and hospice
care. Cleveland worked as a State Tested Nursing Assistant at one
of its facilities located in Ohio. Cleveland claims to have
regularly worked a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part
of her job duties but was never compensated Plaintiff for this time
worked.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 230-2955
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: $325K Class Deal in Denham Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN GARY DENHAM, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a AMERICA'S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR
SERVICE; GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, INC.; LEAD DRIVER, LLC;
EMPLOYEE RETENTION SERVICES, LLC; NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE DOOR
SERVICES, INC.; PETER JAMES STEPHENS, JR.; JASON ROMSZEWSKI; and
KYOUNG LEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Larry A. Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of the Fair Labor
Standards Act Settlement.

I. Fairness of the Settlement

FLSA claims can be settled only with the supervision and approval
of the United States Department of Labor or a federal district
court. A settlement warrants approval if it reflects a reasonable
compromise of disputed issues.

The first step in Judge Burns' analysis is determining whether
there is a bona fide dispute over the Defendant's liability to the
Plaintiffs under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs point to several disputed
factual and legal questions: (1) whether the statute of limitations
has run as to some Plaintiffs, including whether the longer
limitations period applicable to "willful" violations applies; (2)
whether all Plaintiffs worked overtime; (3) whether Plaintiffs'
compensation was sufficiently clear of the federal minimum wage
that any overtime worked didn't reduce their effective compensation
below that wage; and (4) whether the California Plaintiffs released
their claims via class settlement in a related case. Judge Burns
holds that each of these appears to be genuinely disputed.

The Judge next considers whether the compromise is reasonable. The
Plaintiffs estimate their total damages at approximately $728,238,
not accounting for any statutory award of fees and costs. The gross
settlement amount of $325,000 represents just under 45% of that
amount. Discovery proceeded sufficiently to inform each of the
opt-in plaintiffs of their likelihood of success at trial, and the
Court finds that a settlement amounting to 45% of the Plaintiffs'
damages is reasonable and provides meaningful relief given the
risks inherent in continued litigation over the issues disputed in
this action. Judge Burns finds, too, that the scope of the
Plaintiffs' release of claims is appropriately limited to claims
that were asserted in the Complaint or reasonably could have arisen
out of the same facts alleged in the Complaint.

II. Attorneys' Fees and Costs

The counsel nominally seeks a fee award of 34% of the total
settlement amount, or $110,500, plus costs of $90,000. However,
$60,000 of the purported costs are, in fact, attorneys' fees
incurred by a second firm in a related action. Accounting for this
misclassification, the requested fee amounts to 52.5% of the common
fund, with costs proposed to consume another 9.2%. Judge Burns
finds the separate state court litigation not reasonably necessary
to protect the Plaintiffs' interests in the action, and so he
declines to award any fees or costs associated with the state
action. But even after removing those fees and costs, the remaining
requested amounts are unreasonable.

Judge Burns finds no showing that the counsel's expenditures in
challenging the class settlement benefitted the Plaintiffs, so he
can't find those fees and costs reasonably incurred in prosecution
of the action. They won't be included in any award. Moreover,
lacking any special circumstances, the Judge applies the 25%
benchmark rate to the $325,000 common fund, resulting in fees of
$81,250. He finds this amount reasonable considering the degree of
success and the benefit to the Plaintiffs relative to their damages
estimate of $728,238, and so he awards $81,250 in fees, to be paid
to Collective Action Counsel out of the common fund. Lastly,
subtracting the $381.43 difference from the other costs, which are
reasonable, the Judge awards $14,383.93 in costs, including $8,000
in settlement administration costs.

III. Service Awards

The parties' settlement agreement permits Plaintiffs Denham,
Cisneros, Patterson to apply for awards of up to $10,000 for Denham
and $5,000 each for Cisneros and Patterson. These three seek the
maximum amounts contemplated by the settlement, arguing that such
awards are "consistent with the amount of awards given in
comparable cases." But they offer little to show that each of the
three can be compared fairly to anyone receiving an award in those
purportedly comparable cases.

Judge Burns holds there aren't enough to warrant an extraordinary
award. Nevertheless, courts treat a $5,000 payment to the named
plaintiff as "presumptively reasonable," so the Judge awards Denham
that amount as incentive and compensation for his services.

IV. Continuing Jurisdiction

The parties have filed a form "Notice, Consent, and Reference of a
Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge" that consents "to have a United
States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the case
including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial
proceedings." By its terms and under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), this
consent doesn't require the Court to refer all proceedings to a
magistrate judge, so Judge Burns reads it as giving effect to the
parties' Aug. 6, 2021 Notice of Intent stating that "the parties
agree that Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin will retain
jurisdiction to resolve all disputes arising out of the settlement
agreement, including interpretation and enforcement of the terms of
the agreement."

Judge Burns, therefore, orders that Magistrate Judge Mitchell D.
Dembin, or another assigned Magistrate Judge sitting in the
District in the event of Judge Dembin's unavailability, will retain
jurisdiction over all disputes arising out of the settlement
agreement, including interpretation and enforcement of the terms of
the agreement.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Burns finds that the proposed
Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement executed by
the Parties is a reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute. He
finds that the uncertainty and delay of litigation support the
adequacy of the proposed Settlement Amount. The Settlement
Agreement is approved.

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin will retain continuing
jurisdiction over all disputes arising out of the settlement
agreement, including interpretation and enforcement of the terms of
the agreement.

Judge Burns awards Collective Action Counsel $81,250 in attorneys'
fees, plus $14,383.93 for costs and expenses, subject to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement. He awards Plaintiff Ryan Gary Denham a
Service Award in the amount of $5,000 subject to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Burns enters final judgment in the case. He dismissed the
action with prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys'
fees and costs, except as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9e3nednt from Leagle.com.


ILES FORMULA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iles Formula, Inc.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Iles Formula, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07606 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021).

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

Iles Formula -- https://ilesformula.com/ -- is the luxury hair care
brand created by celebrity hairstylist Wendy Iles.[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


KINDER MORGAN: Class Cert. Briefing Sched in Barragan Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY BARRAGAN and FRANK
CALANDRINO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees, v. KINDER MORGAN, INC.; KINDER MORGAN
TERMINALS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-02955-PA-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson
entered an order granting the request to vacate the class
certification briefing schedule as Plaintiffs will file their
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement
agreement following execution of a written settlement agreement by
no later than October 12, 2021.

Kinder Morgan is one of the largest energy infrastructure companies
in North America. The company specializes in owning and controlling
oil and gas pipelines and terminals. Kinder Morgan owns an interest
in or operates approximately 85,000 miles of pipelines and 152
terminals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k0IM5P at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Smith, Esq.
          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN
          A LAW CORPORATION
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938-3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9139
          E-mail: js@gslaw.org
                  jyoung@gslaw.org)

               - and -

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
          128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
          E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
                  cdai@hadsellstormer.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Kinder Morgan, Inc. and Kinder Morgan
Terminals, Inc., are:

          Christopher C. Hoffman, Esq.
          Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
          Phillip G. Simpler, Esq.
          Cameron J. Davila, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com
                  aolsen@fisherphillips.com
                  psimpler@fisherphillips.com
                  psimpler@fisherphillips.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bemiss Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY BEMISS, QUINTON
GOODALL, MAURICE JOSEPH, LAWRENCE ALLEN, LYDIA GRIDLEY, ROBERT
KELLEY, SHARON WALLACE, JOSEPH SIRIANNI, and DANIEL LINCOLN, and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04173-WJE  (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following
classes:

   a. Nationwide Class

      "All person in the United States who, from the beginning
      of any applicable limitations period through June 14,
      2021, purchased or leased one of the Recalled Devices for
      personal, individual, or home use, a CPAP, Bi-Level PAP,
      or Mechanical Ventilator device that was manufactured by
      Philips before April 26, 2021, and recalled by Philips on
      June 14, 2021;" and

   b. State Subclasses

      "All persons who were or are citizens of Missouri,
      Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey,
      Nevada, Ohio, or Pennsylvania who purchased or used for
      personal, individual, or home use, a CPAP, Bi-Level PAP,
      or Mechanical Ventilator device that was manufactured by
      Philips before April 26, 2021, and recalled by Philips on
      June 14, 2021."

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and a
proposed class of purchasers and users of Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure
(Bi-Level PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators manufactured by
Philips, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement
foam ("PE-PUR Foam).

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a Dutch multinational conglomerate
corporation that was founded in Eindhoven in 1891. Since 1997, it
has been mostly headquartered in Amsterdam, though the Benelux
headquarters is still in Eindhoven.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Sept. 3,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XgCExG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Inez. J Ross, Esq.
          James G. Onder, Esq.
          ONDERLAW, LLC
          110 E. Lockwood
          St. Louis, Mo 63119
          Telephone: (314) 963-9000
          Facsimile: (314)963-1700
          E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com
                  iross@onderlaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Brooks Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Marion Edward Brooks, 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. 5:21-cv-00318-TES (M.D. Ga., Aug. 30, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Chad Nuce, Esq.
          300 W GORDON ST
          PO DRAWER 1168
          THOMASTON, GA 30286
          Phone: (706) 646-3200
          Fax: (706) 646-2147
          Email: cnuce@pnlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Andrea Barient, Esq.
          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN
          24110 EDEN ST
          PLAQUEMINE, LA 70765
          Phone: (225) 975-0150
          Email: abarient@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          John M. Deakle, Esq.
          Ronald Johnson, IV, Esq.
          PO BOX 2072
          HATTIESBURG, MS 39403
          Phone: (601) 544-0631
          Fax: (601) 544-0666
          Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
                 rjohnson4141@gmail.com

               - and -

          Richard H. Bishoff, Esq.
          1269 WOODLAND RD
          PO BOX 1269
          THOMASTON, GA 30286
          Phone: (404) 272-1901
          Fax: (706) 646-2147

               - and -

          Russell Lamar Johnson, Esq.
          802 N MAIN ST
          HATTIESBURG, MS 39403
          Phone: (601) 544-0631
          Email: rljohnson@djlawms.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Goodenough Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Mark Goodenough, ROY HARDCASTLE,
PHILIP ROACHE, TERESA SPENCER, KENNETH ARCHULETA, FRANK PRETE,
RANDY PARIS, CHERRY MERRELL, LISA GREEN, BRIAN KENDALL, STEVEN
CLARK, TOM KNAPKE, PAUL BAUDOIN, SUSAN MARTIN, RONALD ROMAS, MARY
GODEAUX, BONIFACE J. MILLS, SABRINA MALONE, IAN LEVINE, STEVE
ADKINS, JANICE CAMPBELL, LINDA ZICCARDI, EDWIN MATZKIN, JEFF KEMP,
PATRICIA RAGLAND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC,
Philips RS North America LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01214-MRH (W.D. Pa.,
Sept. 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Thomas Files Suit in D. Kansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Marty Thomas, M.D., on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02396 (D. Kan., Sept. 9, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com


KRISPY KREME: Settlement Reached in Suit Against Insomnia Cookies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that the parties in the class
action suit against Insomnia Cookies, Holdings, LLC have executed a
memorandum of understanding memorializing the key settlement terms
and are in the process of finalizing long form settlement documents
and seeking preliminary court approval of the settlement.

Insomnia Cookies is currently a party to a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of unfair competition, unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, meal and rest period violations and unpaid
premiums, failure to reimburse for business expenses, untimely paid
wages, and violation of the California Private Attorneys General
Act. Insomnia Cookies vigorously disputes these claims.

On March 11, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation and
reached a class wide settlement and release of claims in principle
for $0.4 million, expected to be paid during the quarter ended
October 3, 2021.

The parties have executed a memorandum of understanding
memorializing the key settlement terms and are in the process of
finalizing long form settlement documents and seeking preliminary
court approval of the settlement.

Krispy Kreme, Inc. is one of the most beloved and well-known sweet
treat brands in the world. The company's iconic Original Glazed(R)
doughnut is universally recognized for its hot-off-the-line,
melt-in-your-mouth experience. Krispy Kreme operates in 30
countries through its unique network of fresh Doughnut Shops,
partnerships with leading retailers, and a rapidly growing
Ecommerce and delivery business. The company is based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Class Certification Bid in Smith Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that motion for class
certification filed in Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No.
3:18-cv-a35, is pending.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification. On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a
stipulation with the Court agreeing to transfer the case to the
Federal District Court for Utah.

On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Utah. As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiffs' amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the former Chief Executive
Officer remains a defendant in the case).

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim,
alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its
products and is attempting to use those patents in an
anti-competitive manner. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
amended complaint on November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response
to the Company's Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the
Company filed a reply brief on January 10, 2019.

The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three
of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim,
unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of
unregistered securities.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment.

LifeVantage filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 28, 2020, and with the Motion fully briefed by the
parties as of March 17, 2020, the Court decided the matter on the
parties' briefs only on November 25, 2020. In its decision, the
Court dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' Section 12(1) claim
(sale of an unregistered security), because the Court concluded the
claim is time barred.

The Court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust
enrichment against LifeVantage without prejudice, and the
Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint following the Court's
order to re-plead unjust enrichment.

The court found that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled their
claim under Section 12(2) (offer to sell a security that misstates
or omits a material fact by means of a prospectus or oral
communication). LifeVantage filed its Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint on December 23, 2020, responding to the Plaintiffs'
remaining securities claims.

On February 2, 2021, the Court issued an amended scheduling order
that reflects the parties' agreement on a schedule for discovery
and other litigation matters. Initial discovery has begun and will
continue per the amended scheduling order.

On June 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, and on July 13, 2021, the defendants, including
LifeVantage Corporation, filed their opposition brief that opposed
class certification.

The court has not set a hearing for the motion for class
certification and it is unknown when the court may rule.

LifeVantage SAID, "The Company has not established a loss
contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is
not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution
of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition."

LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skincare products. The company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.


LIVE NATION: Does Not Pay Sales Reps Overtime Wages, Gupta Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anil Gupta, Colin Gharrity, and Morgan Katz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Live
Nation Worldwide, Inc., Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, Case No. 21-cv-07081, (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2021),
seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Gupta, Gharrity and Katz are current and former employees of Live
Nation whose primary duty is and was to sell, cross-sell, and
upsell Live Nation's products and services as inside sales
representatives. Live Nation allegedly misclassified them as exempt
and failed to pay them overtime compensation for the overtime hours
they work beyond forty in a workweek. Live Nation allegedly failed
to keep accurate payroll records of wages and hours worked and did
not maintain any system to track and record employees' actual time
worked each day during their terms of employment. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      Ginger Grimes, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 763-9800
      Fax: (510) 835-1417
      Email: lho@gbdhlegal.com
             ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com

             - and -

      Helen U. Kim, Esq.
      Frank H. Kim, Esq.
      HELEN KIM LAW, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2700
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Tel: (323) 487-9151
      Fax: (866) 652-7819
      Email: helen@helenkimlaw.com
             frank@helenkimlaw.com


LUV AJ: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luv AJ Inc. The case
is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Luv AJ Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07607
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021).

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

Luv AJ Inc. -- https://www.luvaj.com/ -- manufactures jewelry and
accessories.[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


MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Blankenship Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Haden Travis Blankenship, individually and as
the next friend of minor; Z D. B. B., and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McKinsey and Company, Inc., McKinsey and
Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey and Company, Inc.,
Washington, D. C., Case No. 1:21-cv-00465, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Sept. 10, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-07026-CRB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


METLIFE INC: Bid to Decertify Class in Julian Labor Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Julian, et al., Plaintiffs v. MetLife, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-957 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order:

   a. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the survey
      responses;

   b. granting Metlife's motion for decertification;

   c. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for certification;

   d. granting the Plaintiff's motion to strike Metlife's Reply;

   e. granting in part and denying in part Metlife's motion for
      summary judgment; and

   f. granting Metlife's motion to seal certain documents
      submitted in support of the Plaintiffs' motions.

Background

Current and former long-term disability claim specialists bring
claims against Metlife for failure to pay overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. Plaintiffs Debra
Julian, Tonya Gill, Stephanie McKinney, and Kimberly Harris sued
Defendant Metlife, on behalf of themselves and other current and
former employees who worked as Long-Term Disability Claim
Specialists. The Plaintiffs allege that Metlife improperly
classified them as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and state labor laws and improperly denied them due overtime.

The Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and for court-approved
distribution of notice. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion in
a Memorandum Opinion & Order after determining that the Plaintiffs
had met their burden of showing that they are similarly situated to
the proposed class of "all people employed by Metlife as Claim
Specialists and Senior Claim Specialists who worked on long term
disability insurance claims at any time since Feb. 8, 2014." A
court-approved notice was sent to 470 Metlife Claim Specialists
across the United States. To date there are 78 members in the
collective in addition to the named Plaintiffs.

Following lengthy discovery, Metlife filed a motion to decertify
the FLSA collective. Metlife also filed a motion for summary
judgment as to eight Plaintiffs, including named Plaintiff
Stephanie McKinney, for whom Metlife argues there is no genuine
dispute of material fact that these Plaintiffs are exempt from
overtime under the FLSA's administrative exemption (and, for
Plaintiff McKinney, the administrative exemption of the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act).

After the summary judgment motion was fully briefed, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion to strike Metlife's reply to their opposition to
Metlife's Rule 56.1 statement filed in support of the motion for
summary judgment. They also filed a motion for class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the Plaintiffs'
overtime claims under New York, Connecticut, and Illinois labor
laws. All motions are fully briefed.

Discussion

I. Motion to Strike or for the Court to Disregard Metlife's
Employees' Survey Responses

After the lawsuit commenced, Metlife provided a voluntary survey to
employees asking them about their job duties. In support of their
motion for decertification, Metlife cited some of these surveys, in
addition to other evidence, to demonstrate the disparate nature of
the Plaintiffs' experiences. The Plaintiffs move to strike these
survey responses from the record on the grounds that they are
inappropriate communications with potential class members.

In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs submit the testimony of
three Plaintiffs who took the survey. Those Plaintiffs attest that,
although Metlife did not expressly require them to take the survey,
they subjectively felt that they had to take the survey and
experienced anxiety regarding the event.

Judge Nathan holds that it is insufficient to demonstrate that
Metlife engaged in any serious abuses. She says, there is no
evidence that Metlife misled any employee with respect to the
survey, forced or manipulated any employee into taking it, used the
survey to pressure employees not to join the action, or any kind
other kind of misleading or coercive behavior. The Plaintiffs'
motion is therefore denied.

II. Motion to Decertify the Collective Action

Metlife moves for decertification of Plaintiffs' FLSA collective.
The Court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective
action in a Memorandum Opinion & Order on March 22, 2018 pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). In that decision, the Court explained
that the Plaintiffs had met their low burden of making a modest
factual showing that they are similarly situated to the proposed
class because they presented some evidence demonstrating that they
had similar job duties and were subject to the same policy
reclassifying them as exempt in November 2013. The Court noted that
Metlife's evidence submitted in opposition to the motion showed
that Metlife disputed not what kind of duties Claim Specialists
perform, but rather how much discretion they used in performing
those duties. It explained that how much discretion Claim
Specialists used is a "fact intensive question" that was not
appropriate at that stage.

Metlife's motion for decertification is granted and the opt-in
Plaintiffs claims are dismissed without prejudice to filing their
own FLSA actions. Judge Nathan finds that the disposition of each
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims will depend on evidence that is not common
to the collective, i.e., the Plaintiffs' testimony and other
evidence regarding their individual circumstances and how they
completed their day-to-day tasks at Metlife. That inquiry will also
require credibility assessments of the Plaintiff's testimony. As a
result, a factfinder would be unable to determine that all the
Plaintiffs in the collective are either exempt or non-exempt in one
swoop. Therefore, while Plaintiffs may still share various factual
similarities, those facts are not "material to the disposition of
their FLSA claims" in this case and they therefore are not
"similarly situated" for the purposes of Section 216(b) of the
FSLA.

Metlife's motion for decertification is granted and the opt-in
Plaintiffs claims are dismissed without prejudice to filing their
own FLSA actions.

III. Motion for Rule 23 Certification

In addition to opposing Metlife's motion for decertification of the
FLSA collective, the Plaintiffs move to certify a class action
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 for the Plaintiffs' state
law claims. Under Rule 23, any proposed class action class action
must (1) be sufficiently numerous, (2) involve questions of law or
fact common to the class, (3) involve class plaintiffs whose claims
are typical of those of the class, and (4) involve a class
representative or representatives who adequately represent the
interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Further, a party
attempting to certify a class must show that "questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class litigation is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy" (or satisfy one of the other two
criteria of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b), which the Plaintiffs do not
raise).

Judge Nathan opines that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification fails for the same reason that the FLSA collective
must be decertified, i.e., that "a determination of exempt status
requires an inquiry into the specifics of the Plaintiffs job and a
similarly individualized inquiry into the specifics of each
allegedly misclassified employee whom the Plaintiff is seeking to
join." The Judge finds that the evidence regarding Metlife's
policies, procedures, and training of Claim Specialists cannot
serve as common proof of a lack of discretion or independent
judgment on behalf of Claim Specialists. Whether or not each Claim
Specialist can successfully bring a claim depends on if that
particular Claim Specialist was managed or supervised in a way so
as to prevent them from exercising discretion and using independent
judgment. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify is denied.

IV. Motion for Summary Judgment

Metlife moves for summary judgment as to named Plaintiff Stephanie
McKinney, and opt-in Plaintiffs Pamela Wolber, Jennifer Dubois,
Claudette Leveille, Michael Hensel, Mia Cornelius, Krystal
Hrobowski and Sandhya Patel's overtime claims under the FLSA and as
to Plaintiff McKinney's overtime claims under the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act. Metlife argues that their claims are barred under
the "administrative exemptions" of both statutes.

As discussed, all the opt-in Plaintiffs' claims in the action are
dismissed without prejudice because they are not "similarly
situated" for the purposes of Section 216(b). Therefore, only
Plaintiff McKinney's claims remain for the purposes of this summary
judgment motion.

A. The Parties' Rule 56.1 Statements and Plaintiffs' Motion to
Strike Metlife's Reply

The Defendant filed a reply in support of their Rule 56.1 Statement
without first seeking leave. Rule 56.1 "does not provide for a
reply" but also "does not prohibit such replies."

Because the Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to file a
sur-reply, Judge Nathan will decline to consider the Defendant's
reply to alleviate any potential unfairness. The Plaintiffs' motion
to strike this document from the record is granted. The Judge will
of course apply the longstanding principles described above in
determining whether facts are meaningfully disputed as it considers
both parties' Rule 56.1 statements and responses. She will
"disregard" any assertions that are not supported by the record,
responses that are unresponsive to the asserted fact, and any
improper argumentation.

B. Undisputed Material Facts

While the parties nominally dispute virtually all of each other's
factual assertions, the majority of the parties' disagreements go
to the phrasing, weight, or impact of a fact instead of "actually
disputing the fact itself." Judge Nathan determines that there are
material facts are not genuinely disputed. Among other things, she
finds that Plaintiff Stephanie McKinney worked as Claim Specialist
and received a fixed weekly salary of over $684 a week. As a Claim
Specialist, Plaintiff McKinney was required to follow the Metlife
policies and training described. After consulting the various
resources at her disposal and gathering different sources of
information, Plaintiff McKinney provided recommendations on whether
to approve, deny, modify, or terminate a claim for hundreds of
claims while working at Metlife.

C. The FLSA Claims

Metlife bears the burden to demonstrate that there is no genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether the administrative
exception applies to Plaintiff McKinney. The Plaintiffs do not
contest the first element of this definition, i.e., that Plaintiff
McKinney and all Claims Specialists received a salary of not less
than $684 per week. The Plaintiffs do contest, however, that
Plaintiff McKinney and the other Claim Specialists at Metlife meet
the other two requirements of the administrative exception: That
their "primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work
directly related to the management or general business operations
of the employer or the employer's customers" and "includes the
exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to
matters of significance."

Judge Nathan holds that the undisputed facts in the record
demonstrate that Metlife Claim Specialists' "primary duty is the
performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the
management or general business operations of the employer or the
employer's customers" and "includes the exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance." She
says, the undisputed facts also demonstrate that Plaintiff McKinney
was no exception. Metlife has therefore met its burden of
demonstrating that no genuine dispute of fact as to whether
Plaintiff McKinney is exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA and
the Court grants summary judgment for Metlife as to her FLSA
claims.

D. Connecticut Wage Law Claims

In addition to certain the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, Metlife moves
for summary judgment on Plaintiff McKinney's Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act (CMWA). Similar to the FLSA, the CMWA exempts individuals
"employed in a bona fide administrative capacity," Conn. Gen. Stat.
Ann. Section 31-58(e), as defined by state regulations. Although
similar, the CMWA definition of an administrative employee has
additional requirements not present in the FLSA. One additional
requirement is that the employee cannot "devote more than 20% of
his hours worked in the workweek to activities which are not
directly and closely related to the performance of" administrative
work. The Defendant likewise bears the burden of demonstrating that
each element of the CMWA exemption applies.

Judge Nathan holds that Metlife has not shown that no dispute of
material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff McKinney spent less
than 20% of her time on tasks that were not directly related to
administrative work. Metlife argues in its brief that McKinney did
not spend any time on tasks that were not directly related to
administrative work, but Metlife's Rule 56.1 statement does not
address the amount of time that Plaintiff McKinney spent on
particular kinds of tasks or otherwise speak to this issue.
Therefore, Metlife has not met its burden of demonstrating that
there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to this issue and
the Court will not grant summary judgment on the CMWA claims.

V. Motion to Seal

The Defendants move to keep certain documents submitted in support
of the Plaintiffs' motions under seal. They argue that these
documents contain confidential and proprietary information related
to Metlife's business, including sample contracts and information
about Metlife's pricing structures and business strategies. The
Plaintiffs do not oppose these requests.

While is a presumption of access to judicial documents, Courts may
permit narrowly tailored requests for sealing when there are
important privacy and other competing interests at stake. Judge
Nathan determines that Metlife's proposed sealing requests are
narrowly tailored and justified by the need to protect their
proprietary or otherwise sensitive business information. Metlife's
unopposed motion is therefore granted.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Nathan (i) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike or for the Court to disregard Metlife's employees'
survey responses, (ii) granted Metlife's motion to decertify the
collective, (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule
23 class, (iv) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to strike Metlife's
Reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to Metlife's Rule 56.1 Statement,
(v) granted Metlife's motion for partial summary judgment, and (vi)
granted Metlife's unopposed motion to seal certain exhibits. The
Judge denied as moot the parties' motions for oral argument. This
resolves Dkt. Nos. 228, 244, 248, 257, 264, 265, 271, 277, 280,
290, 298, 309, and 338

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


MGP INGREDIENTS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE MGP INGREDIENTS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 20-2090-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum
and Order:

   a. granting the Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice;

   b. granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and

   c. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against
      the Defendants.

Background

The matter is a consolidated action filed against a publicly-traded
company and two of its former executive officers. The Plaintiff
alleges that the company violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and related regulations from the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In May 2020, the court consolidated two cases into one
because the Court agreed with the parties that each case involved
substantially similar allegations against essentially the same
Defendants. The Defendants didn't oppose consolidation, agreeing
the consolidation is appropriate.

Lead plaintiff the City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust ("Miami Fire & Police") filed its
Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 22, 2020. The Amended
Complaint names three Defendants: (1) MGP Ingredients, Inc., (2)
MGP's former CEO, Augustus C. Griffin, and (3) the company's former
CFO, Thomas K. Piggott.

Plaintiff Miami Fire & Police "provides retirement and disability
benefits to over 4,300 Miami-based firefighters, police officers,
and survivors of fallen public safety officers." As of Sept. 30,
2019, Miami Fire & Police managed approximately $1.69 billion in
assets." The Plaintiff purchased stock in MGP Ingredients, and the
Amended Complaint alleges it "suffered damages as a result of the
violations of the federal securities laws alleged therein."

MGP Ingredients is a publicly traded corporation that produces and
supplies "distilled spirits and food ingredient products." "The
majority of MGP's business is the production of distilled spirits."
MGP incorporated in Kansas. As of April 25, 2019, MGP had over 17
million shares of stock outstanding, owned by at least thousands of
investors.

Liquor is the lion's share of MGP's business. A "majority of its
distillery sales are made directly, or through distributors, to
manufacturers and processors of finished packaged goods." The
allegations in this lawsuit center around MGP's production of
so-called "brown goods" -- i.e., the company's bourbon and rye
whiskeys.

As MGP rolled out its own branded whiskey, the market response was
dispiriting. At the close of the first quarter during the relevant
period, "the Company disclosed disappointing financial results
stemming from lower volumes of aged whiskey sales." When MGP
announced results at the end of the third quarter, the news
"disappointed the market once again." Finally, on Feb. 26, 2020,
MGP announced its devastating financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2019, disappointing the market yet again."

Overall for 2019, MGP's distillery products experienced a 5.4%
decline in sales, "primarily due to lower new distillate and aged
whiskey sales." And according to the Amended Complaint, all of
these shortfalls produced a catastrophic consequence: The
"Defendants' misleading statements wiped out over $1 billion in
shareholder value."

The Amended Complaint alleges that these market missteps were more
than just a half-cooked growth strategy. According to the
Plaintiff, it was a "fraudulent scheme." Specifically, it alleges
that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of that law, plus SEC Rule 10b-5.

Section 10(b) liability arises when a person "uses or employs, in
connection with the purchase or sale of any security any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of
such rules and regulations as the SEC may prescribe as necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors." SEC Rule 10b-5 tracks a similar path. It forbids "any
untrue statement of a material fact or omission of a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in
connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Last,
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act creates so-called
"control person liability," meaning that "a person who controls a
party that commits a violation of the securities law may be held
jointly and severally liable with the primary violator."

In early September 2020, the Defendants filed two related motions.
The first is a Motion to Dismiss which argues for dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The second is an unopposed Motion for
Judicial Notice asking the Court to consider several attachments to
the motion under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

Analysis

A. Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice

The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of three sets
of papers comprised of 15 total exhibits, all of them "attached to
the Declaration of J. Emmett Logan." These papers are: (1) a
collection of MGP's SEC Filings for the years 2015-2019, (2)
conference call transcripts from MGP's third quarter 2018 and
second quarter 2019 earnings calls, and (3) materials from a June
7, 2018 presentation to analysts and investors.

Judge Crabtree explains that under Fed. R. Evid. 201, the court can
take judicial notice of these materials without converting the
motion to dismiss into one seeking summary judgment so long as the
moving party "supplies the necessary information." In the case, the
Motion for Judicial Notice is unopposed, which itself lends a
reason to grant the request. Still, the Judge must decide whether
the Defendants have supplied the "necessary information" required
by Rule 201(c)(2).

1. MGP's SEC Filings

Exhibits 1 through 10, plus Exhibits 14 and 15, attach MGP's SEC
Filings for the years 2015-2019. According to the Defendants, the
Court may take judicial notice of these attachments because "these
documents are SEC filings" and as such they're "matters of public
record not subject to reasonable dispute." Judge Crabtree holds
that the Defendants are right. The documents are publicly available
records. So, he will take judicial notice of them.

2. Conference Call Transcripts

Exhibits 11 and 12 are transcripts of MGP conference calls. The
Defendants again rely on Hastey for the proposition that "these
documents are matters of public record" and therefore aren't
"subject to reasonable dispute." Also, the Defendants note, these
transcripts are referenced in the Amended Complaint. Judge Crabtree
finds them right again. For both reasons cited by the Defendants,
the Judge will take judicial notice of these transcripts.

3. Presentation Materials

Exhibit 13 is an MGP presentation from an Analyst/Investor Day on
June 7, 2018, found on MGP's public website. Citing to Hastey
again, the Defendants contend this exhibit "is a matter of public
record available on the corporation's website," meaning that
judicial notice is appropriate. Judge Crabtree agrees." The Judge
will take judicial notice of these presentation materials because
they are a matter of public record and aren't subject to any
reasonable dispute.

B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Judge Crabtree holds that the Plaintiff could prevail against the
pending Motion to Dismiss only by satisfying a two-step pleading
process. First, the Amended Complaint must proffer particularized
factual allegations identifying the specific statements it claims
are false or misleading. He says, the Amended Complaint's theory of
fraud relies centrally on market fluctuation, namely that
competition increased and stymied MGP's growth plan. But the
Amended Complaint's factual allegations say nothing about
competition relative to market share, aside form conclusory
assertions. And the Amended Complaint does allege that demand for
American whiskey was booming all the while. The Plaintiff's central
theory -- as a matter of fact -- can hold water only if the market
either stagnated or shrunk at the same time competition and demand
boomed. But, the Amended Complaint doesn't make that particularized
allegation. And so, it too can't withstand the Motion to Dismiss.

There's a second and independent reason to grant the Motion to
Dismiss, Judge Crabtree finds. He says, the Plaintiff's scienter
allegations don't pass muster. The barrier to entry is even higher.
The Plaintiff's scienter allegations lack any compelling,
articularized details. And while the Judge could strain to infer
that defendants knowingly or recklessly engaged in a scheme to
defraud, he says, that inference is not as immediately available as
the competing, nonculpable inferences posited by the Defendants.

Judge Crabtree concludes that in the case, the most compelling
inference is straight-forward. Corporations often take gambles on
new strategies. Sometimes, they hit the jackpot. Other times, they
don't. But a gamble gone wrong does not a fraud make. And that's
the problem with the Plaintiff's allegations in the case, and the
primary reason the Amended Complaint's allegations fall short of
providing a strong inference of scienter. Ultimately, the Judge
finds that the facts the Plaintiff alleges may constitute 'a
brushstroke' or two, but they fail to paint a 'portrait that
satisfies the requirement for a strong inference of scienter under
the PSLRA.'

Order

For these reasons, Judge Crabtree granted the Defendants' Motion
for Judicial Notice and their Motion to Dismiss. The Judge
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the
Defendants.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for the Defendants
and close the case. The Judge also directed the Clerk of Court to
close the companion case in the matter, No. 2:20-cv-02180-DDC-JPO.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26sw6dc7 from Leagle.com.


MINDGEEK USA: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE v. MINDGEEK USA
INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00338-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by 22 January 26, 2023. Discovery motions must
      be filed and heard prior to this date.

   2. The parties shall have until March 27, 2023 to file and
      have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings.

   3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, May 22, 2023
      at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
      required.

   4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at
      08:30 AM.

   5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 -- Private
      Mediation. The parties shall have until February 9, 2023
      to conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file
      with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five
      days 4 after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the
      Court of their settlement efforts and status.

   6. The Plaintiff shall have until August 29, 2022 to file
      and have heard any class certification motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C14sFd at no extra charge.[CC]

NMCI MEDICAL: Court Enters Case Management Order in Kulik Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA KULIK, et al., v.
NMCI MEDICAL CLINIC INC, Case No. 5:21-cv-03495-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered case management order
order as follows:

   1. The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case
      unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

   2. The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or
      other amendments to the pleadings, is 60 days after entry
      of this order unless stated otherwise below.

   3. The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
      stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
      Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
      disclosure deadlines, is September 17, 2021.

   4. All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
      referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

   5. Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall
      meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on
      an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order.
      Within that same time frame, the parties shall either (1)
      file the form entitled "Stipulation and (Proposed) order
      Selecting ADR Process" if an agreement is reached, or (2)
      file the form entitled "Notice of Need of ADR Phone
      Conference".

   6.  The parties shall comply with the Court's standing
      orders, which are available on the Court's website and in
      the Clerk's Office.

NMCI Medical Clinic is a multidisciplinary center providing care
for patients all throughout Northern California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lkga6T at no extra charge.[CC]

NURTURE INC: Johnson Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Toxic Metals
------------------------------------------------------------
Ahkilah Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NURTURE, INC., d/b/a Happy Family Brands, Case No.
1:21-cv-07283-UA (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2021), is brought for damages
and injunctive relief, and to seek refunds and all other economic
losses suffered for purchasers of Baby Food Products that the
Defendants marketed and sold without disclosing that they were
tainted with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury at levels above
what is considered safe for babies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant tours on its website its
commitments to exceeding USDA organic standards stating "what your
little one eats in the first few years of life is crucial—it's
important their diet provides the nutrients and vitamins needed for
proper development." The Defendant, however, in no way lists heavy
metals as an ingredient on the Products' label nor does it warn of
the potential presence of heavy metals in its Products.

Unbeknown to the Plaintiff and contrary to the representations on
the products label, the products contain heavy metals in high
concentrations, including inorganic arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and
lead, which if disclosed to the Plaintiff prior to purchase, would
have caused the Plaintiff not to purchase or consume the Products.
As a result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products between July 2020 and
February 2021.

Nurture manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes and
sells baby food products under Happy Family Brands throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                 memert@kgglaw.com


PARADIES SHOPS: Ramirez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Paradies Shops,
LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Ramirez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Paradies Shops, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03758-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sept. 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

The Paradies Shops -- https://www.paradieslagardere.com/ -- offers
retail and concessionaire services. The Company operates stores and
establishments located in airports and hotels offering from
traditional newsstand to specialized gift shops.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Artell Bess, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN ATLANTA PLLC
          191 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30306
          Phone: (404) 965-8811
          Email: dbess@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 577-4722
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 rmaxey@forthepeople.com


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Stvil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Israel Eclesias
Stvil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-23145-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2021).

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

Synergetic Communication, Inc. -- https://www.syncomcorp.net/ -- is
a third party collection agency in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


PINDUODUO INC: Dismissal of Securities Claims in Asay Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kerry Asay, Johan Johan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Jiaxiang Wei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, Yoen Hung, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff v. Pinduoduo
Inc., Zheng Huan, Lei Chen, Zhenwei Zheng, Junyun Xiao, Haifeng
Lin, Defendants-Appellees, Tian Xu, Zhen Zhang, Nanpeng Shen,
Jianming Yu, Defendants, Case No. 20-1423 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the March 30, 2020 Order
and Opinion and March 31, 2020 judgment.

The Order and Judgment were issued by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York dismissing Plaintiffs-Appellants
Kerry Asay and Johan Johan's federal securities claims pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant-Appellee Pinduoduo is a Chinese company that operates an
e-commerce platform selling consumer products, and the individual
defendants-appellees are certain of its executives. The Plaintiffs
allege that Pinduoduo's Registration and Prospectus ("Offering
Documents"), for its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on July 26,
2018, included material misrepresentations and omissions related to
the Company's anti-counterfeiting measures and marketing expenses
that violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15
U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934), Sections 78j(b), 78t(a).

On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenge the district court's
conclusions that these federal securities claims failed to state a
claim because: (1) Pinduoduo had sufficiently warned investors of
the risks related to the sale of counterfeit goods on its platform;
(2) the Company did not violate the securities laws in not
disclosing interim financial data related to marketing and
advertising expenses; and (3) to the extent that the Plaintiffs'
claims were subject to heightened pleading standards, they had
failed to allege scienter.

Discussion

Although the parties dispute whether the Section 11 claims also
should be evaluated under the heightened pleading standard, the
Second Circuit declines to address that issue because it finds that
those claims were properly dismissed by the district court even
utilizing the traditional pleading standard under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a). The federal securities claims in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint allege two categories of
materially misleading statements and omissions in the Offering
Documents -- namely, those regarding Pinduoduo's
anti-counterfeiting measures and those related to its marketing
expenses.

I. Anti-Counterfeiting Measures

The first category of allegedly misleading statements relates to
Pinduoduo's statements in the Offering Documents about its
anti-counterfeiting measures designed to control the sale of
counterfeit goods on its e-commerce platform. The Plaintiffs allege
that, although Pinduoduo touted its "strict" anti-counterfeiting
measures in the Offering Documents, the Company did not actually
implement them. Instead, according to the Plaintiffs, as the
Chinese government increased efforts to crackdown on the sale of
counterfeit goods, Pinduoduo merely paid lip-service to
anti-counterfeiting and became "the counterfeiters' forum of
choice." The question is whether the Offering Documents
misrepresented its anti-counterfeiting efforts.

The Second Circuit holds that Pinduoduo's statements "suggest
caution (rather than confidence) regarding the extent of their
compliance." It holds that a reasonable investor, based on the
specificity of the contemporaneous examples of anti-counterfeiting
failures and risks, would have understood that Pinduoduo's
anti-counterfeiting measures were not, at the time of the offering,
successfully "preventing substantial violations of Chinese
regulations" and international laws. Pinduoduo's statements,
particularly those related to the specific legal and regulatory
action taken against them, reflect the Company's "uncertainty as to
the very possibility of maintaining adequate compliance mechanisms
in light of complex and shifting government regulations."

Moreover, to the extent the Plaintiffs rely on Pinduoduo's use of
the term "strict" to describe its anti-counterfeiting measures to
establish an actionable misstatement, the Second Circuit holds that
such vague and generalized language is a mere statement of
non-actionable puffery. It also finds unpersuasive the Plaintiffs'
contention that it should reverse the district court's dismissal of
their anti-counterfeiting claims on the "entirely separate ground"
that "Pinduoduo did not meaningfully follow the measures it boasted
it had implemented."

In short, the Second Circuit holds that to the extent that the
Registration Statement generally describes measures implemented by
Pinduoduo to combat the sale of counterfeit goods, none of these
allegations regarding deficiencies in those measures contradicted
the statements in the Offering Documents or rendered them
materially misleading, especially in view of the disclosures
regarding the historical and ongoing problems and risks associated
with its anti-counterfeiting measures. Accordingly, the district
court properly dismissed the claims to the extent they were based
upon statements in the Offering Documents regarding
anti-counterfeiting measures.

II. Marketing Expenses

The second category of allegedly misleading statements relates to
Pinduoduo's statements regarding its marketing expenses, and its
purported failure to disclose interim marketing and expense data
from the second quarter of 2018 ("Q2 2018 data"). The Complaint
alleges that the Offering Documents were materially misleading in
this regard because Pinduoduo "avoided mentioning or reporting the
Q2 financial results in the Registration Statement" and did not
"even warn in the Registration Statement that its sales and
marketing expenses and net loss had soared in Q2 2018."

The Second Circuit disagrees and concludes that the district court
correctly held that the interim data was not material given the
disclosures on expenses that had already been made. It finds that
the Offering Documents clearly disclosed substantial increases in
marketing expenses, and further cautioned investors that such
increases could continue into the future and materially and
adversely affect the Company's operating results.

In sum, given the disclosures regarding the significant increase in
marketing costs in prior reporting periods, the doubling of user
acquisition costs in the second quarter of 2018 would not have
significantly altered the "total mix" of information. Accordingly,
the Second Circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claims related to the nondisclosure of the Q2 2018
data.

III. Additional Claims

Because it concludes the district court properly dismissed the
claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and the Complaint thus failed to plausibly allege
primary violations of the securities laws, the Second Circuit holds
that the district court also correctly dismissed the claims under
Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit has considered all of the Plaintiffs' remaining
arguments and finds them to be without merit. For the foregoing
reasons, it affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fz8rmax8 from Leagle.com.

STEPHEN J. ODDO, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA (Gregory E. Del Gaizo,
Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA; Ex Kano S. Sams II --
esams@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Laurence Rosen, Phillip Kim, Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., New York, NY, on the brief). For
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

ROBERT A. FUMERTON -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- (Scott D.
Musoff -- scottmusoff@skadden.com -- New York, NY, Chi Tsun Steve
Kwow, Hong Kong, on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, New York, NY, For Defendants-Appellees.


REV GROUP: Dec. 9 Final Hearing to Approve $14MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that a hearing to consider
final approval of a class action settlement is scheduled for
December 9, 2021.

A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a
consolidated state putative securities class action are pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of
putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or
traceable to its January 2017 initial public offering, purchasers
in its secondary offering of common stock in October 2017, and
purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018.

The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the
Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants.

The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate
actions pending before the Company, the first of which was filed on
June 8, 2018.

The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

"Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative
classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs," REV Group said.

The consolidated state action is currently stayed in favor of the
consolidated federal action. On August 24, 2021, the court
preliminarily approved the class action settlement proposed by the
parties, and set the hearing for final approval on December 9,
2021. The settlement payment is expected to be fully covered by the
Company's insurers.

McCord Pagan, writing for Law360, reported that the deal is for
$14.3 million.  Law360 says investors alleged the Company reported
inaccurate information about earnings targets following its IPO.
District Judge Lynn Adelman in Wisconsin presides over the case.

The Company said the payable under the proposed settlement and the
related insurance proceeds are recorded in other current
liabilities and other current assets, respectively, in the
Company's Condensed Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
July 31, 2021.

REV Group companies are designers and manufacturers of specialty
vehicles and related aftermarket parts and services.


RLX TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff & Co-Lead Counsel Named in Garnett
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX GARNETT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. RLX TECHNOLOGY INC., YING (KATE)
WANG, LONG (DAVID) JIANG, YILONG WEN, YUEDUO (RACHEL) ZHANG,
COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., and CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 5125 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants the Prospective Lead Plaintiffs' joint motion
seeking appointment as co-lead plaintiffs and appointment of their
respective attorneys as co-lead counsel.

Overview

On June 9, 2021, Plaintiff Garnett filed the action under the
federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of RLX securities
in connection to the company's initial public stock offering
("IPO"). Garnett claimed, inter alia, that RLX and its
co-defendants had made untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted material facts necessary to make their statements not
misleading. These statements and omissions tended to conceal the
facts -- as alleged, known to RLX -- of forthcoming regulations in
China that would constrain RLX's plan to sell vaping products and
thereby tend to harm the company's financial prospects.

Mr. Garnett alleged that, as a result of RLX's actionable
statements and omissions, he and the putative class bought RLX
securities at a premium, unaware of the looming regulatory threat
to RLX's prospects. He further alleges that, when the adverse
regulation later became public, RLX's share value dropped
substantially, damaging him and members of the putative class.

RLX manufactures and sells vaping products in China. In January
2021, RLX undertook an IPO in New York. Its American Depository
Shares ("ADS") are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "RLX."

On Jan. 19, 2021, RLX filed its final registration statement, and
on Jan. 22, 2021, a final prospectus (together with the
registration statement, the "Offering Documents") in connection
with the impending IPO. RLX issued and sold approximately 116.5
million ADS through the IPO, yielding gross proceeds of
approximately $1.4 billion.

Challenged in the First Amended Complaint are two related sets of
false and/or misleading statements by RLX -- first, regarding its
product's prospects for being regulated under China's tobacco
licensing regime, and second, regarding RLX's financial prospects,
given such future regulation. First, RLX represented that its
products would not fall under China's tobacco monopoly system.
Second, RLX stated that it had been, and expected to continue,
profiting from China's rapidly growing vaping market.

On June 2, 2021, RLX published its first quarter 2021 financial
results and disclosed that it had increased its net revenues 48%
quarter over quarter, and that its second quarter gross margin
would remain constant. On June 4, 2021, RLX's shares declined
again, to $9.90 per ADS, down from its previous close of $10.87.

After Garnett filed suit, eight movants ultimately not including
Garnett -- sought appointment as lead plaintiff. Consensus among
these movants as the proper lead plaintiff(s), however, has since
been reached. Pending now is a joint motion from the Prospective
Lead Plaintiffs, Chien-Lung Tseng, Billy Sung, and Jerry Yue,
seeking appointment as co-lead plaintiffs and appointment of their
respective attorneys as co-lead counsel.

Of the eight movants who initially sought appointment as lead
plaintiffs, only Tseng, Sung, and Yue still seek such appointment.
They represent that together they had the largest financial
interest of the movants and contend that they are adequate and
typical to represent the putative class, as Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 requires. The other movants have since filed notices
of withdrawal or of non-opposition to Prospective Lead Plaintiffs'
motion.

Discussion

I. Selecting the Lead Plaintiff: The PSLRA Requirements

A. Financial Interest

The Prospective Lead Plaintiffs represent that they collectively
suffered $4,294,081.60 in losses, comprised of $1,986,596 by Sung
and Yue, Dkt. 37 at 6, and $2,307,485.60 by Tseng. No other
individual or entity has represented that it has a greater
financial interest in the relief sought by the class; indeed, other
movants withdrew their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff,
or filed motions of non-opposition to the Prospective Lead
Plaintiffs motions, because they experienced smaller losses.

To ascertain whether a lead plaintiff group is appropriate, courts
generally consider three factors: "(1) the size of the group; (2)
the relationship between the parties; and (3) any evidence that the
group was formed in bad faith."

By those standards, Judge Engelmayer holds that the Prospective
Lead Plaintiffs group is qualified for appointment. First, he says,
the group is "relatively small and therefore presumptively
cohesive." Second, although Tseng originally filed separately from
Sung and Yue to be lead plaintiffs, the three have since coalesced
and demonstrated their ability to work cooperatively. Third and
finally, there is no indication that the group was formed in bad
faith. In sum, all considerations favor the Prospective Lead
Plaintiffs, the group of individuals with, by far, the largest
losses.

B. Rule 23 Requirements

The PSLRA's final requirement is that the proposed lead plaintiffs
satisfy Rule 23's requirements for class certification: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy. At this early stage of
litigation, however, "only the last two factors -- typicality and
adequacy -- are pertinent."

Lead plaintiffs' claims are typical where "each class member's
claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member
makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability."
A lead plaintiff is adequate where it "does not have interests that
are antagonistic to the class that he seeks to represent and has
retained counsel that is capable and qualified to vigorously
represent the interests of the class that he seeks to represent."

Judge Engelmayer holds that the claims of the Prospective Lead
Plaintiffs are typical of the class because their claims and
injuries arise from the same conduct from which the other class
members' claims and injuries arise. He says no party or movant has
contested the Prospective Lead Plaintiffs' typicality. And no party
or movant has claimed that they "will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class" or is subject to "unique
defenses" that render the Prospective Lead Plaintiffs incapable of
adequately representing the class. Because the group consisting of
Tseng, Sung, and Yue satisfies all PSLRA requirements as of this
early stage, the Judge appoints them co-lead plaintiffs.

II. Appointing Lead Counsel

The most adequate plaintiff may retain counsel to represent the
class, subject to the Court's approval. The Prospective Lead
Plaintiffs have selected the law firms of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as co-lead
counsel.

Having reviewed the firms' submissions as to their pertinent
background and experience, including their experience litigating
securities class actions, Judge Engelmayer finds the two firms
qualified to serve as co-lead counsel. Accordingly, he appoints
them as co-lead counsel. As similarly situated courts have noted,
this joint appointment "is done with the understanding that there
will be no duplication of attorneys' services," and that counsel
"will work together to maximize recovery for the proposed class."

Conclusion

For the reasons set out, Judge Engelmayer, grants Tseng, Sung, and
Yue's motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, and appoints
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Scott+Scott Attorneys
at Law LLP as the Co-Lead Counsel.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions pending at docket entries 22, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 39.

Judge Engelmayer directs the parties to meet and confer and to file
a joint letter setting out an efficient proposed schedule for next
steps in the case, including proposed dates for the filing of (1) a
consolidated amended complaint and (2) the Defendants' response. If
the Defendants anticipate that their response will take the form of
a motion to dismiss, the parties will include proposed dates for
the opposition and reply briefs as well.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pzvxp9sw from Leagle.com.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Related Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re:
January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case No.
21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres.

Beginning on January 28, 2021, due to increased deposit
requirements imposed on Robinhood Securities, LLC (RHS) by the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) in response to
unprecedented market volatility, particularly in certain
securities, RHS temporarily restricted or limited its customers'
purchase of certain securities, including GameStop Corp. and AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc., on the company's platform (the "Early
2021 Trading Restrictions").

The company had become aware of approximately 50 putative class
actions and four individual actions that have been filed against
one or more of the company (RHM), Robinhood Financial LLC (RHF) and
RHS in various federal and state courts relating to the Early 2021
Trading Restrictions.

On April 1, 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the federal cases identified in a
motion filed by certain plaintiffs to transfer and coordinate or
consolidate the actions filed in connection with the Early 2021
Trading Restrictions in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida captioned In re: January 2021 Short
Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case No. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
(the "MDL").

In May 2021, the court appointed interim lead plaintiffs' counsel
for certain claims.

n July 26, 2021, interim lead plaintiffs' counsel filed two
consolidated complaints: the first complaint asserts a federal
antitrust claim; the second complaint asserts negligence and breach
of fiduciary duty claims.

The consolidated complaints seek monetary damages. Other plaintiffs
have filed federal securities claims, which are governed by the
procedures under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, and will proceed separately.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for pioneering
commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a
mobile app introduced in March 2015.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Bid to Dismiss Order Flow Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and a motion
to deny class certification, in the consolidated putative class
action suit entitled, In re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In May 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of
Enforcement (SEC's Enforcement Division) commenced an investigation
into Robinhood Financial LLC's (RHF's) best execution and payment
for order flow ("PFOF") practices, as well as statements concerning
its sources of revenue, including the fact that, in FAQs on the
company's website describing how it made money, and in certain
communications with customers addressing the same issue, RHF had
omitted PFOF when it described its revenue sources.

On December 17, 2020, RHF, on a neither admit nor deny basis,
consented to the entry of an SEC order (i) requiring RHF to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
and Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-4 thereunder;
(ii) censuring RHF; and (iii) requiring RHF to pay a $65 million
civil penalty in December 2020. RHF paid the $65 million penalty in
cash and also agreed to engage an independent compliance
consultant.

Beginning on December 23, 2020, six putative securities fraud class
action lawsuits were filed against the company (RHM), RHF and/or
Robinhood Securities, LLC (RHS).

The lawsuits generally allege that the company violated the duty of
best execution and misled putative class members by publishing
misleading statements and omissions in customer communications
relating to the execution of trades and revenue sources (including
PFOF).

Five of the complaints asserted claims for violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act. All of the complaints asserted state law
claims under California or New York law, and sought damages,
restitution, disgorgement and other relief. One of the cases was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

The five remaining actions have been consolidated under the caption
In re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On June 29, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint and a motion to deny class certification.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for pioneering
commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a
mobile app introduced in March 2015.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Bid to Junk Mehta Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative class action suit initiated by Siddharth
Mehta, is pending.

On January 8, 2021, a putative class action was filed in California
Superior Court (Santa Clara County) against Robinhood Financial LLC
(RHF) and Robinhood Securities, LLC (RHS) by Siddharth Mehta,
purportedly on behalf of approximately 2,000 Robinhood customers
whose accounts were allegedly accessed by unauthorized users.

RHF and RHS removed this action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs generally
allege that RHF and RHS breached commitments made and duties owed
to customers to safeguard customer data and assets and seek
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In March 2021, RHF and RHS filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part in May
2021.

A second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20,
2021, which RHF and RHS moved to dismiss on June 3, 2021.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for pioneering
commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a
mobile app introduced in March 2015.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fact Discovery in Pinchasov Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that fact discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action initiated by Shterna Pinchasov
against Robinhood Financial LLC (RHF).

On November 5, 2020, plaintiff Shterna Pinchasov filed a putative
class action in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of
Florida in and for Miami-Dade County asserting claims of negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations that Robinhood
Financial LLC (RHF) failed to prevent customers from using its
interface for stocks that were subject to a "T1 Halt," and seeking
damages.

Securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange and the
Nasdaq Stock Market, have the authority to halt and delay trading
in a security, and a "T1 Halt" (or regulatory halt) may occur
pending the release of material news about a company.

RHF removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The case is now in the fact discovery stage,
which is currently scheduled to close in December 2021.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for pioneering
commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a
mobile app introduced in March 2015.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Service Outage Related Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company together
with its subsidiaries continues to defend a consolidated putative
class action suit entitled, In re Robinhood Outage Litigation.

Beginning on March 4, 2020, 15 putative class actions and one
individual action were filed against the company (RHM), Robinhood
Financial LLC (RHF), and Robinhood Securities, LLC (RHS) in state
and federal district courts relating to service outages on the
company's stock trading platform on March 2-3, 2020 and March 9,
2020 (the "March 2020 Outages").

One of the putative class actions and the individual action were
voluntarily dismissed following settlements between the parties.

Thirteen of the remaining putative class actions have been
consolidated as In re Robinhood Outage Litigation in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The one remaining putative class action, Withouski v. Robinhood
Financial LLC, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo, has been stayed by agreement of
the parties.

The lawsuits generally allege that putative class members were
unable to execute trades during the March 2020 Outages because our
platform was inadequately designed to handle customer demand and
RHM, RHF and RHS failed to implement appropriate backup systems.

The lawsuits include, among other things, claims for breach of
contract, negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment and violations of certain California consumer
protection statutes.

The lawsuits generally seek damages, restitution, and/or
disgorgement, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Fact discovery has been completed and expert discovery is currently
scheduled to be completed in August 2021.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California, known for pioneering
commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via a
mobile app introduced in March 2015.


SALVADORE GODINEZ: Injunctive Relief in Howe Class Suit Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES G. HOWE, TIMOTHY
CHARLES, JACOB KALLAL, and GEORGE NEEDS, v. SALVADORE GODINEZ, et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00844-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Staci
M. Yandle entered a permanent injunctive
relief order as follows:

   1. Beginning no later than 30 days from the entry of this
      Order, Plaintiffs shall receive a minimum of 7.5 hours of
      core group therapy per week -- each core group therapy
      session shall last no less than 90 minutes;

   2. All offense specific and didactic groups that are
      currently suspended shall be reinstated and permanently
      maintained beginning no later than 30 days from the entry
      of this Order;

   3. Within 6 months from the entry of this Order,
      recovery/release evaluations shall be conducted of the
      plaintiffs herein by independent psychologists or
      psychiatrists (not employed by IDOC or Wexford). No later
      than 30 days from the entry of this Order, Defendants
      shall provide Plaintiffs and the Court with a list of
      proposed independent psychologists/psychiatrists to
      conduct said evaluations. Plaintiffs shall file any
      objections to the proposed providers within 30 days
      thereafter.

The Defendants are further ordered to file a status report under
seal regarding their compliance with the instant Order within 60
days of its entry.

The Plaintiffs are civil detainees classified as "sexually
dangerous persons" under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act
("SDPA"). The Act permits the State to involuntarily commit and
indefinitely onfine individuals who have not been convicted of a
crime, but who have been determined likely to commit acts of sexual
violence in the future.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 and allege that Defendants are violating their
constitutional rights.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k4O93Q at no extra charge.[CC]

SAM MOON TRADING: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sam Moon Trading
Enterprises, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Sam
Moon Trading Enterprises, Ltd., Moon Brothers Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-07560 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2021).

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

Sam Moon -- https://sammoon.com/ -- is an online shop for on-trend
women's fashion and accessories.[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


SHAMROCK CABINET: Workers Sue Over Denied Sick Leave, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Millett, William Morgan and Brandon Mendoza, on their own
behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Shamrock Cabinet & Fixture Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00635 (W.D. Mo., September 2, 2021), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation and related penalties, costs and attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law, Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the Emergency Paid
Sick Leave Act, the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Brandon worked as a woodworker for Shamrock. His individual claims
arise in connection with Shamrock's wrongful and unlawful
termination of his employment on January 4, 2021, after his
COVID-related absence from work.
Millett claims to be with a disability and requested intermittent
leaves from work on account of mental health issues. Shamrock
allegedly failed to accommodate his need for intermittent leave and
now seeks an award of back pay and benefits. William claims that,
despite not taking a lunch break, his paycheck would nonetheless
reflect a thirty minute deduction. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
     Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
     HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
     1501 Westport Road
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Tel: (816) 875-9339
     Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
            bthoenen@hkm.com


SHELL OIL: Kurimski Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBEKAH KURIMSKI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SHELL OIL
COMPANY and SUN GAS 2100 LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-80727-DMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying this case as a class action under Rules 23(b)
      (3) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All persons who paid for Shell-branded gasoline with a
      debit card in the State of Florida between February 5,
      2017 and the present and were charged a "credit" price
      that was higher than the "cash" price.

   b. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Class; and

   c. appointing her counsel, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
      Grossman, LLP and Robert C. Gindel, Jr., P.A. as Class
      Counsel.

Because consumer purchasing behavior related to gasoline is
undoubtedly driven by pricing, wholesalers and retailers of
gasoline have every incentive to create pricing structures which
drive their own sales. Knowing this, Shell uniformly employ a
deceptive split pricing scheme which is designed to mislead Florida
consumers in order to increase their own profits, the suit says.

Ms. Kurimski is a Florida resident who purchased gasoline at Sun
Gas. Shed purchased gas from Sun Gas based on the representations
that non-credit gasoline purchases would be charged a lower price
per gallon. Despite having access to a credit card, Plaintiff
elected to purchase her gas using a debit card, which she
reasonably believed would be classified as a "cash" transaction.

The Defendant Shell is a distributor of gasoline which is sold to
consumers through its network of Shell-branded dealer gas stations.
Defendant Sun Gas is one of more than 400 Shell dealer stations
located in the state of Florida. Shell provides its dealer gas
stations with significant business support akin to a franchising
relationship, which is designed to boost revenue, increase margins,
and reduce operational costs. As part of this business
relationship, Shell provides dealers, including Sun Gas, with
signage and other advertising and marketing materials which
advertise, inter alia, split-pricing for gasoline.

Split-pricing is a pricing scheme designed by Shell for use by its
dealers which offers disparate pricing for gasoline based on the
consumers’ method of payment.

According to a 2019 study conducted by GasBuddy.com, more than half
of U.S. customers surveyed used a debit card as their primary
method of payment for fuel, despite the fact that the vast majority
owned at least one credit card. One of the primary reasons cited by
respondents for using a debit card for fuel was the fact that they
received a discount over the credit price for fuel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C6DrjO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Plaintiff and class, are:

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

               - and -

          Robert C. Gindel Jr., Esq.
          ROBERT C. GINDEL, JR., P.A.
          1500 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 220
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 649-2344
          Facsimile: (561) 965-8550
          E-mail: robertgindel@robertgindel.com
                  shannon@robertgindel.com



SPECIALIZED LOAN: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC T. MITCHELL, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10455-SB-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the following proposed classes for purposes of pursuing
his claims in his First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Specialized
Loan Servicing:

   -- The Class

      "All borrowers in the United States with loans accounts
      serviced by Defendant, who entered into a Forbearance
      Agreement with Defendant subsequent to March 27, 2020, and
      who have had account data reported to any third-party
      credit report agency (Transunion, Equifax, Experian) by
      Defendant during their agreed forbearance period;" and

   -- California Subclass:

      "All borrowers in the State of California with loans
      accounts serviced by Defendant, who entered into a
      Forbearance Agreement with Defendant subsequent to March
      27, 2020, and who have had account data reported to any
      third-party credit report agency (Transunion, Equifax,
      Experian) by Defendant during their agreed forbearance
      period.

The Class Period starts on the earliest date of the statute of
limitations for each claim asserted from the date of filing of the
original complaint and continues through the present and date of
the judgment.

Specifically excluded from the proposed classes are: (a) any
Defendant, person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or
other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest or which is related to or affiliated with any Defendant,
and any current employee of any Defendant; (b) all persons who make
a timely election to be excluded from the proposed classes; (c) the
judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family
members thereof; and (d) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors-in-interest or assigns of any excluded party.

The Plaintiff moves for the following person to be named class
representative under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1): Eric T. Mitchell.

The Plaintiff also moves for the following counsel to be appointed
class counsel under 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1): Caleb Marker and
Hart Robinovitch of Zimmerman Reed LLP.

Alternatively, Plaintiff moves for hybrid certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) with respect to injunctive and
declaratory relief, and 23(b)(3) with respect to any monetary
relief sought in the form of statutory damages.

This case challenges Specialized Loan Servicing's conduct failing
to report the mortgage account data of borrowers subject to
Forbearance Agreements to third-party credit report agencies
("CRAs") for inclusion on credit reports as "current" when it was
required pursuant to standard agreements and law.

When the Covid-19 pandemic emerged in March 2020, SLS entered into
forbearance agreements with thousands of borrowers, expressly
agreeing to defer their mortgage payments without penalty and to
continue to report their accounts to CRA's as "current" during the
forbearance period. The Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
expressly requires furnishers of mortgage account data like SLS
from reporting the account data of any borrower protected by a
forbearance agreement from the COVID-19 emergency as anything but
"current."

Plaintiff Mitchell is a borrower who at all relevant times in 2020
had two mortgages on his primary residence in California. The first
mortgage is serviced by non-party United Wholesale Mortgage, while
the second mortgage is serviced by SLS.

SLS is a national loan servicing company that furnishes credit
information to credit reporting agencies.

Covid-19 Emergency Led Congress to Pass the Cares Act, Which
Amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On January 30, 2020, the WHO
declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March
13, 2020, the Trump Administration declared the outbreak of the
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a national emergency.

On April 7, 2020, facing economic hardship and uncertainty from the
economic shutdown, Plaintiff sought forbearance relief from both
SLS and United Wholesale, the servicers of his residential loans.

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

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative class are:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Arielle M. Canepa, Esq.
          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com
                  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

T-MOBILE USA: Delerme Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA Inc. The
case is styled as Ivette Delerme, Thomas Macnish, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-16299-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J., Aug. 31, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: 973/994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


TRESSLER LLP: Shereshovech Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Monica K. Shereshovech, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Tressler LLP, ASSOCIATIONREADY, LLC
d/b/a "ReadyCOLLECT,", Case No. 2021CH03824 was removed from the
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 10,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04818 to the
proceeding.

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

Tressler LLP -- https://www.tresslerllp.com/ -- is a national law
firm headquartered in Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Martin R. Martos, II, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          321 N. Clark St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 517-9291
          Email: MMartos@foxrothschild.com


UNICO AMERICAN: Anchors & Whales Suit vs. Crusader Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Crusader Insurance
Company, a company subsidiary is facing a putative class action
suit initiated by Anchors & Whales LLC et al.

On March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued Crusader in a putative
class action entitled Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v. Crusader
Insurance Company, Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999).

The action alleges that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business
interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to the
COVID-19 pandemic and related government orders that limited or
halted operations of bars and restaurants.

The action further alleges that Crusader acted unreasonably in
denying the claims, and it seeks as damages the amounts allegedly
due as contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys'
fees and costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages.

The lawsuit alleges a putative class of all bars and restaurants in
California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business
income, who made such a claim as a result of "one or more
Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the
property," and whose claim was denied by Crusader.

The Company intends to contest the allegations and to contest
certification of any class. The Company has filed responsive
pleadings and the litigation is proceeding.

Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company.
Currently, the Company's subsidiary Crusader Insurance Company
underwrites commercial property and casualty insurance, the
Company's subsidiaries Unifax Insurance Systems, Inc. and American
Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) provide marketing and various
underwriting support services related to property, casualty, health
and life insurance, the Company's subsidiary American Acceptance
Company (AAC) provides insurance premium financing, and the
Company's subsidiary Insurance Club, Inc., dba AAQHC, an
Administrator provides membership association services. The company
is based in Calabasas, California.


UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Hearing on Snitko Continued to Oct. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SNITKO, JENNIFER
SNITKO, JOSEPH RUIZ, TYLER GOTHIER, JENI VERDON-PEARSONS, MICHAEL
STORC, AND TRAVIS MAY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Case No.
2:21-cv-04405-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner
entered an order that:

   1. The hearing on the motion for class certification is
      continued from September 27, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. to October
      25, 2021, at 9:00 6 a.m.

   2. The government shall file its response to the motion for
      class certification by October 4, 2021.

   3. Plaintiffs shall file any reply in  support of their
      motion for class certification by October 18, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BZ6vJG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants United States of America and Tracy
L. Wilkison and Kristi Koons Johnson in their official capacity
only, are:

          Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq.
          Scott M. Garringer, Esq.
          Andrew Brown, Esq.
          Victor A. Rodgers, Esq.
          Maxwell Coll, Esq.
          MAJOR FRAUDS/ASSET FORFEITURE/
          GENERAL CRIMES SECTIONS
          1100/1400/1200 United States Courthouse
          312 North Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-0102/2569/1785
          Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0142/0141
          E-mail: Andrew.Brown@usdoj.gov
                  Victor.Rodgers@usdoj.gov
                  Maxwell.Coll@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Gulley Files Suit in Court of Federal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States.
The case is styled as Richard Gulley, Jennifer Walters, on behalf
of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated v. USA,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01825-MCW (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., Sept. 9, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Military Pay - Back Pay.

United States of America -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of
50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in
the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick Joseph Hughes, Esq.
          PATRIOTS LAW GROUP OF LYONS & HUGHES
          5819 Allentown Road
          Suitland, MD 20746
          Phone: (301) 952-9000
          Email: patrickhughes@patriotslaw.com


USALLIANCE FEDERAL: Asberry Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USAlliance Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Shyneece Asberry, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. USAlliance Federal Credit
Union doing business as: USAlliance Financial, Case No.
7:21-cv-07582 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

USALLIANCE Financial -- https://www.usalliance.org/ -- is a
full-service Federal Credit Union that offers checking, credit
cards, lending, top CD rates and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


VITAMIN A ENTERPRISES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitamin A
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Vitamin A
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07562 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9,
2021).

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

Vitamin A Swim -- https://www.vitaminaswim.com/ -- offers
sustainably produced luxury bikinis, swimsuits and beachwear
designed and made locally in California.[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


WALMART INC: Abbott Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case
is styled as Rebecca Abbott, Meagan Albert, Sophia Alfaro, Krystal
Leigh Anderson, Megan Ashley, Kimberly Azeneth Avila, Alyssa Megan
Barb, Miriah Barbero, Lindsay Barr, Grisel Barreto, Ashley Baxter,
Julie Blakeley, Kelsey Blankenship, Melissa Bloomquist-Smith,
Cristen Boles, Olivia Boyer, Crystal Brinig, Nicole Brisky,
Cheyenne Browning, Celia Bruno, Ana Butkus, Maria Calderon, Jordan
Cantafio, Serenitey Carlin, Samantha Clark, Victoria Coker, Jen
Comeau, Kimberly Conway, Adrianne Cooper, Angela Cox, Brandy Davis,
Kaley Deford, Chelzy Desvigne, Brittany Distaso, Jessica Durrett,
Natalya Dzyuba, Theresa Fintonis, Ayame Tatiana Galassini, Marcela
Garcia, Shelby Geraci, Christina Gordon, Gabrielle Harrison, Debbie
Hawkins, Shannon Herrington, Amanda Hill, Lillian Hinkle, Nicole
Holling, Amanda Hobbs-Rogers, Sammi Hobdy, Shaylan Isaacs, Olivia
Johnson, Rebecca Keeton, Rachel Knudson, Rachael Kruup, Deana
Linegar, April Lockhart, Traci Marie Lussier, Brittany Martin, Kali
McGlinch, Lori-Ann McKenzie-Henry, Janice Taina Mercado Guadalupe,
Renee Milline, Andrea Mozo, Tabitha Mullinax, Santequia Ngwu,
Stephanie Norgaard, Leah Ostapchenko, Melinda Pass, Krishna Patel,
Jo-Ellen Paterno, Sheetal Pattni, Mia Pelletier, Tina Marie Perez,
Ali Pliler-Lopez, Janinne Price, Sarah Ridings, Kassandra Romero,
Christina Salyers, Lea Santos, Kirthi Sasikumar, Julie Secrist,
Cheryl Elaine Smith, Kinder Smith, Emily Soderbloom-Cathey, Kirsten
South, Lakrisha Spikes, Christine Steele, Ashley Swenningson, Kyla
Talley, Margo Tezeno, Katrina Thomas, Rhianna Thornton, Emma
Trolinder, Megan Troyer, Sonja Renee Twiggs, Brittany Wallace
Dutton, Beverly Watkins, Jennifer Kay Watts, Acacia Wilson, Amber
Wright, Retrena Younge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00188-BSM
(E.D. Ark., Sept. 9, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          ZIGLER LAW GORUP, LLC
          308 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 333
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: (312) 673-8427

               - and -

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West Seventh Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Fax: (501) 315-8505
          Email: hbates@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Steve Telken, Esq.
          Troy E. Walton, Esq.
          WALTON TELKEN, LLC
          241 North Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 307-9880


WASTE PRO: Seeks to Decertify Collective Action in Blandon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DODD BLANDON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WASTE PRO USA,
INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-02420-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order decertifying the collective and
dismissing the collective members' claims without prejudice,
leaving only the individual claims of Mr. Blandon.

The Middle District of Florida Court conditionally certified a
collective consisting of:

   "drivers employed by subsidiaries of the Defendant in
   different states who received a day rate, largely based upon
   nearly identical declarations that uniformly alleged several
   pay policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
   (FLSA).

The declarations supporting certification alleged in lockstep that
Defendant violated the FLSA by uniformly: (1) paying less than the
full day rate if less than a certain number of hours were worked in
a day ("Half Day Rate Claim"); (2) requiring off-the-clock work
("Off-the-Clock Claim"); (3) automatically deducting 30 minute
breaks that were not taken ("Lunch Deduction Claim"); and (4)
paying workweek bonuses which allegedly invalidate the day rate
compensation method ("Bonus Invalidation Claim").

The Defendant contends that Mr. Blandon himself confirmed that he
did not suffer from 2 of the 4 claimed violations. Indeed, not a
single member of the collective has suffered from every one of the
purported violations, the Defendant adds.

Mr. Blandon worked as a Residential Driver in the Brookhaven
division in Mississippi from a date before to the limitations
period to February 2017. On December 23, 2019, Blandon filed the
instant action, alleging that Defendant violated the FLSA.

First, Blandon alleges that he was not paid a "true day rate for
any and all hours worked in a given day, but placed limitations on
the number of hours before the 'day rate' was paid."

Second, he alleges that he was deprived of hours actually worked
through alleged uniform policies to "encourage and require them to
perform pre-shift and post-shift duties while not clocked in" ("Off
the Clock Claim") and by "automatically deduct[ing] 30 minutes for
lunch breaks that thr Defendant knew Plaintiff, and others
similarly situated, regularly worked through."

Finally, he alleges that Defendant impermissibly "coupled the day
rate with other forms of compensation" for services, namely "helper
pay," "safety bonuses," "bonus pay," "incentive pay," "extra pay,"
and"miscellaneous pay" ("Bonus Invalidation Claim").

Waste Pro is a privately owned solid waste collection, recycling,
processing and disposal company.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cb1XjP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
          pbotros@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

The Counsel for the Defendant are:

          Amy S. Tingley, Esq.
          Matthew J. Pearce, Esq.
          Jennifer Belbeck Swadel, Esq.
          STOVASH, CASE & TINGLEY, P. A.
          The VUE at Lake Eola
          220 N. Rosalind Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 316-0393
          Facsimile: (407) 316-8969
          E-mail: atingley@sctlaw.com
                  mpearce@sctlaw.com
                  jswadel@sctlaw.com

WEALTH HARBOR: Bryant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wealth Harbor
Financial Insurance Solutions. The case is styled as John Bryant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wealth Harbor Financial Insurance Solutions, Case No.
5:21-cv-01487-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2021).

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

Wealth Harbor Financial -- http://wealthharborfinancial.com/-- is
the premier solution for the handling of complex questions
regarding insurance and retirement planning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th St.
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


WELLS FARGO: Echard Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Echard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo &
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00112, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 9,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-06984-JSC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an
American multinational financial services company with corporate
headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters
in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States
and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alyssa Lee Koepfgen, Esq.
          Eric D Lowney, Esq.
          Marc Zemel, Esq.
          Meredith A Crafton, Esq.
          Savannah Rose, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC
          2317 E JOHN ST
          SEATTLE, WA 98112
          Phone: (206) 860-2883
          Fax: (206) 860-4187
          Email: alyssa@smithandlowney.com
                 knoll@smithandlowney.com
                 marc@smithandlowney.com
                 meredith@smithandlowney.com
                 savannah@smithandlowney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason E Manning, Esq.
          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          222 Central PArk Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Phone: (757) 687-7500
          Email: Jason.Manning@troutman.com
                 john.lynch@troutman.com

               - and -

          Mark A Wilner, Esq.
          Franklin Dennis Cordell, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          600 UNIVERSITY STREET, STE 2915
          SEATTLE, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 467-6477
          Fax: (206) 467-6292
          Email: mwilner@gordontilden.com
                 fcordell@gordontilden.com


WESTERN MESSENGER: Asiatico Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Messenger
Services Inc. The case is styled as Don Asiatico, George Luis,and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Western Messenger
Services Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00307297-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."

Western Messenger Service, Inc. -- http://www.westernmessenger.com/
-- is a shipping service in San Francisco, California who provides
courier services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
          1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Phone: 310-277-0614
          Fax: 310-277-0635
          Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


XTREME MANUFACTURING: Class Cert Deadlines in Gonzalez Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDY GONZALEZ, an
individual, v. XTREME MANUFACTURING, LLC, a limited-liability
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-01704-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto
entered an order:

   1. All court dates and deadlines associated with the above-
      referenced action are stayed until after the Parties
      complete their November 23, 2021, mediation;

   2. The statute of limitations for claims of unnamed
      collective action members who worked for Defendant from
      December 4, 2017 forward and who earned commissions, non-
      discretionary bonuses and/or other items of compensation
      during a workweek when he/she also worked more than 40
      hours on at least one occasion after December 4, 2017, as
      outlined in 12 29 U.S.C. sections 255-256, is hereby
      equitably tolled from May 6, 2021 until sixty (60)
      calendar days after the scheduled November 23, 2021
      mediation;

   3. In the event the case is not resolved, the Parties shall
      file a status report updating the 15 Court on the outcome
      of the mediation and the status of the case by no later
      than November 30, 16 2021. The dates and deadlines
      relating to class certification in the Scheduling Order
      shall 17 remain as set absent a court-approved
      stipulation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C23qJ2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

           Evan r. Moses, Esq.
           Michael J. Nader, Esq.
           Rabia Z. Reed, 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: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                    michael.nader@ogletree.com
                    rabia.reed@ogletree.com

ZOE CHICCO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoe Chicco, Inc. The
case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Zoe Chicco, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07563 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2021).

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

Zoe Chicco -- https://zoechicco.com/ -- has found the perfect
alchemy of style and femininity women are looking for today in
their Delicate and modern, sexy but elegant jewelry.[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



                            *********

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 ***