/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211008.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 196

                            Headlines

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
ALBERT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action in Tel Aviv Over Fees
ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Certification in Shackelford Suit Affirmed
ANAHEIM ARENA: Judgment in Amaro Wage & Hour Class Suit Reversed

ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina Files Suit in D. Utah
ANNOVIS BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline
ANNOVIS BIO: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 18 Deadline
ARROWHEAD CENTRAL: Padilla Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages
ASYSTEM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Testone Suit
CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Brown Suit
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: C$83MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2
CASSAVA SCIENCES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
COCA-COLA CO: Committed Wage Theft, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges

ESTATE OF THOMAS BRINKWORTH: Compensation Experts Launch Suit
GARDNER TRUCKING: Tate Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 19 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt EV Battery Production Resumes
GERBER PRODUCTS: Shepard Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia

GOPLUS CORP: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRAPEVINE OF NORTH: Drivers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTERIOR DEFINE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Service Fees
JUSTBRAND LIMITED: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

KASIM INTERNATIONAL: Kelly Files Suit in S.D. New York
LAFCO ENTERPRISES: Website Not Blind-accessible, says Crumwell
LUCKY FEATHER: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Final OK
NAVISTAR INC: Kalbrier Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

NEW YORK: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Teachers v. NYC DOE Suit Denied
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Kenworthy Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
NOVO NORDISK: Agrees $100M Settlement of Class Action Litigation
OREGON HEALTH: Gipson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums

OREGON: District Court Narrows Claims in Maney v. Brown Class Suit
PALO ALTO, CA: City to Appeal Decision in Gas Rates Class Action
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
PEL-STATE BULK: Bid for Distribution of Notice Partly OK'd
PENN NATIONAL: Court OK's FLSA & Rule 23 Class Certification Bid

PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Niemczyk Suit Moved to N.D. New York
QAD INC: Continues to Defend Nantahala Capital Suit
RUIXUE SHI: Wu Seeks to Certify Class in "Coachella Project" Suit
RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION: Gambrell Wins Class Certification Bid
SAGINAW CITY, MI: Taylor Seeks Certification of Class and Subclass

SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS: Lacaprucia Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
SELDAT DISTRIBUTION: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Taylor Says
SEMPRA ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Property & Business Class Suit
SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY: Myers Loses Bid for Class Certification
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline

STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extension Sought
STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
STATE FARM: Munoz Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending
STRADA SERVICES: Reyes Bid for FLSA Collective Action Status Nixed

TAMS MANAGEMENT: Bluestone Employees Get Class Certification
TENDER CORPORATION: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THAILAND: Restaurateurs File Class Action v. PM Over Lockdown
TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius AC Smell Causes Class Action Lawsuit
TRANSPORT CANADA: Travel Restrictions Leave Residents Stranded

TULARE, CA: Settlement in Criswell Suit Gets Initial Nod
UNITED STATES: Court Set to Rule in Class Action Against FBI
UNIVAR SOLUTIONS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022
UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Dragon Suit
VALVE CORPORATION: Galway, Shoss Seek Certification of Class Action

VERONIQUE GABAI: Crumwell Says Website Not Blind-accessible
VILLAGE CARE: Veras Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations
WASHINGTON: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to March 4, 2022
WEST ROAD: Calhoun Bid to Send Notice to Employees Nixed
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Nixed as Moot

WESTERN REFINING: Court Tosses Schmidtberger's Class Status Bid
WHEATLEIGH CORP: Class of Service Employees Certified in Mongue
WINSLOW TOWNSHIP: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Registration Fees
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement in CA Suit Gets Initial Nod
[*] Class Suits Seen in Mining Industry Before 2040 on Health Issue

[*] Litigation Funding Sector Growing Up in United Kingdom

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Committee Criticizes Aldrich Pump's $545M Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Agrees to Pay $270MM to Settle Claims


                            *********

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A
securities fraud class action has been filed.

Class Period: Aug. 4, 2016 - July 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 4, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ATVI
Contact An Attorney Now: ATVI@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The action challenges Defendant's repeated downplaying of
Activision Blizzard's liability stemming from certain labor and
employment matters, falsely characterizing these proceedings as
merely "routine" and "are not significant."

In truth, Defendants actively concealed that: (1) Activision
Blizzard discriminated against female and minority employees, (2)
the company fostered a "frat boy" workplace culture that continues
to thrive, (3) numerous complaints about unlawful harassment,
discrimination and retaliation were made to the company's human
resources personnel and executives that went unaddressed, and (4)
the workplace culture would seriously impair the company's
operations.

The truth emerged on July 20, 2021, when the California Department
of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") sued Activision Blizzard
after a two-year investigation into the company's labor and
employment practices. According to DFEH, the company's "frat boy"
culture is a breeding ground for harassment and discrimination
against female employees, who are subjected to constant sexual
harassment, and high-ranking executives engaged in sexual
harassment without repercussions.

Most recently, on Sept. 20, 2021, Activision Blizzard announced the
SEC issued subpoenas to the company and several current and former
employees seeking information about the company's disclosures and
employment-related conduct.

These events drove the price of Activision Blizzard shares sharply
lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants lied
about the seriousness of the company's employment practices," said
Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

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

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

                     About Hagens Berman

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

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay City News Service reports that a federal district court
magistrate judge has given preliminary approval to the settlement,
Settlement reached in Santa Rita Jail mental health care case.

RBGG's Jeff Bornstein is quoted in the article: "Attorney Jeff
Bornstein, one of the attorneys representing the jail's
incarcerated people, said significant changes need to be made and
they are underway. Already, a lot fewer people are in restrictive
housing, he said. But, he said, 'We have a long way to go.' 'We're
cautiously optimistic,' he said. The goal is to make things right
at the jail rather than simply meeting the minimum requirements for
the treatment of the incarcerated people there, Bornstein said. He
said it would be great if people with mental illness didn't have to
go to jail at all."

San Francisco, CA - August 26, 2021 - Plaintiffs and the County of
Alameda have reached a proposed settlement in Babu, et al., v.
County of Alameda, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 5:18-cv-07677. Plaintiffs'
counsel at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld (RBGG) filed a motion today
in federal court seeking preliminary approval of a Consent Decree
for Alameda County's Santa Rita Jail.

If approved by the Court, the Decree will make significant changes
to the Jail over the next two years and remain in effect for six
years, primarily in connection with the delivery of mental health
care, out of cell time, ADA accommodations for people with mental
health disabilities, classification, use-of-force, discharge
planning, coordinating emergency mental health care with John
George Psychiatric Hospital, and suicide prevention including
limiting the use of safety cells.

"The Consent Decree was the product of a cooperative process with
lawyers from Rosen Bien working closely with lawyers representing
the Sheriff and the County", said Jeffrey Bornstein, a partner at
RBGG. "The Decree requires fundamental and transformative changes
at the Jail. The hope is that the cooperative foundation we have
built with the County's lawyers will bring about the cultural
change necessary to end the use of punitive measures such as
isolation and lack of out of cell time and to ensure that there are
vigorous mental health care, educational and other treatment
program opportunities throughout the jail."

"There has been no meaningful mental health care treatment in the
Jail for many years," added Kara Janssen, senior counsel at RBGG.
"The Consent Decree mandates comprehensive mental health services
including, regular mental health rounds, electronic tracking of
referrals, prompt delivery of medication, group therapy, treatment
planning teams, creation of confidential spaces for services, and
discharge planning including coordinating with community-based
mental health services."

The Motion for Preliminary Approval is presently set for hearing on
September 22, 2021 before United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael
Cousins. If preliminarily approved, the Court will set a date for a
hearing on final approval.

If the settlement is approved, the County will be required to:

-- Ensure that people in the Jail receive adequate mental health
care, including by ensuring adequate staffing, establishing levels
of care, creating treatment plans for eligible individuals,
providing treatment services, implementing an electronic system to
track referrals, provide daily mental health rounds in Restrictive
Housing units, and implementing Therapeutic Housing Unit(s) to
provide additional mental health support to those who need it;
-- Ensure that people in the Jail are offered adequate out-of-cell
time each day, including a process for significantly increasing the
amount of out-of-cell time offered at the Jail within three months
of the effective date. The Jail will continue to increase the
amount of out-of-cell time offered until the Jail reaches the new
minimum out-of-cell times set out in the Consent Decree which
require the Jail to offer at least: 14 hours out-of-cell time per
week for people in Restrictive Housing, Recreate Alone Status (Step
1); 21 hours out-of-cell time per week for people in Restrictive
Housing, Recreate Together Status (Step 2); and 28 hours
out-of-cell time per week for people in General Population celled
housing. Individuals housed in the most restrictive setting within
the Therapeutic Housing Units will be offered at least 28 hours of
out-of-cell time per week and people housed in the less
restrictive, transitional units within the Therapeutic Housing
Units will be offered at least 35 hours of out-of-cell time per
week. The Jail will implement an electronic tracking system to
allow for comprehensive tracking of out-of-cell time within one
year.
-- Take measures to prevent suicide and self-harm in the Jails,
including severely curtailing the use of safety cells and limiting
placement in them to no more than 8 hours - to be further reduced
to no more than 4 hours after construction of suicide-resistant
cells - and implementing procedures and assessments to identify
individuals at risk upon arrival at the Jail;
-- Ensure that individuals with mental health disabilities can
access programs and services at the Jail consistent with their
classification level, and ensure that those programs are offered
throughout the Jail;
-- Implement a new classification system that limits the use and
duration of restrictive housing;
-- Coordinate care for people in distress/crises sent on
psychiatric holds to John George Psychiatric Hospital; and
-- Implement systems, including through close coordination between
Alameda County Behavioral Health Services and the Jail, to
facilitate transition to community-based services upon release.

Joint neutral experts and Class Counsel will monitor the County's
compliance with the Consent Decree. The Department of Justice will
also receive certain access to the Jail and documents in connection
with its April 22, 2021 report of investigation.

Today's court filings are available here. The proposed Consent
Decree is set out as Exhibit A of the Janssen Declaration.

Janssen Decl ISO PLAINTIFFS Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Consent Decree, 08-26-2021

Proposed Order re PLAINTIFFS Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Consent Decree, 08-26-2021

Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree,
08-26-2021 [GN]

ALBERT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action in Tel Aviv Over Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
MiddleEast.in.24 reports that the Tel Aviv District has approved
the filing of a class action lawsuit against Albert. The plaintiff
claimed that the daily rate charged by the company was calculated
contrary to the agreements and according to a calculation based on
30 days a month, when in practice there were 31 days - which should
have reduced the daily rate. [GN]

ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Certification in Shackelford Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOLLY SHACKELFORD, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 1-21-0195
(Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District,
Second Division, affirms the circuit court's order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Background

In the interlocutory appeal, the Defendant challenges the circuit
court's order granting the Plaintiff, Holly Shackelford, class
certification in an action alleging, among other things, a
violation of the Illinois judgment interest statute.

The case emanates from the Plaintiff's underlying uninsured
motorist claim against the Defendant and was previously before the
Court (Allstate, 2017 IL App (1st) 162607 ("Shackelford I").

The Plaintiff presented an uninsured motorist claim to the
Defendant for injuries she sustained while riding as a passenger in
a policyholder's vehicle. The Plaintiff's claim was submitted to
arbitration pursuant to the insured's policy, where an arbitrator
ultimately entered an award of $16,000 in her favor. The award was
subject to "all applicable setoffs and liens to be resolved by the
Parties and their Attorneys." After the Plaintiff filed suit to
enforce the arbitration award, defendant sent her a check for
$14,000, which it claimed was the award amount minus an applicable
setoff. According to the Plaintiff, however, that amount did not
include the required statutory interest due as a result of the
Defendant's late payment.

Consequently, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she
sought confirmation of the arbitration award, as well as a judgment
against the Defendant for the interest due on the award. In
addition, the Plaintiff sought to represent other individuals
similarly harmed by the Defendant's alleged nonpayment of the
required statutory interest on their arbitration award or judgment.
The circuit court, however, held that the Defendant's alleged
nonpayment of the required interest was not an adequate claim for
relief, and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. She
appealed.

In reversing the circuit court's judgment, a majority of the
Appellate Court held that the Plaintiff's complaint was improperly
dismissed as a matter of law because it stated a viable claim for
entry of judgment confirming the arbitration award. While that
holding necessitated remand, the Appellate Court, in the interest
of judicial economy, also addressed whether the Plaintiff's
complaint stated an adequate claim for interest on the arbitration
award, ultimately holding that it did. Additionally, the Appellate
Court's mandate contained the remand instructions with respect to
that claim.

The Appellate Court, however, did not consider the merits of the
Plaintiff's request for class certification in its decision issued
on Sept. 29, 2017. Nevertheless, the Defendant appealed our
decision to the Illinois Supreme Court but was unsuccessful.

On remand, the Plaintiff renewed her request for class
certification. In her motion, the Plaintiff identified 66 potential
class members who allegedly received payment from defendant on an
arbitration award or judgment in Illinois that did not include the
required statutory interest. The Plaintiff argued that whether they
were entitled to statutory interest presented a legal question
common to all class members that predominated over any questions
affecting individual members. She further argued that a class
action was appropriate given the generally small size of each
member's claim, and that she was a fair representative of that
class.

In response, the Defendant argued, in the main, that the Plaintiff
did not satisfy the requirements for class certification because
the individual circumstances of each member's claim predominated
over any commonality between them. The circuit court disagreed,
holding that the Defendant's argument contradicted the Appellate
Court's determination in Shackelford I that the right to interest
on an arbitration award dominated over individualized award and
setoff amounts.

Additionally, the circuit court held that the 66 potential members
satisfied numerosity, that the Plaintiff could fairly represent
them and that their claims could be fairly and efficiently
adjudicated in a class action.

The court therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion, certifying the
following class: All persons who made a claim arising from an
incident involving a person insured by Allstate, who received an
award or judgment in Illinois, which Allstate paid during the
period of October 13, 2010 to the present without paying statutory
interest pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1303.

The circuit court's order granting class certification was entered
on Jan. 25, 2021.

The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for leave to appeal
pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8) (eff. Oct. 1,
2020), which a majority of this court granted on March 19, 2021.
The interlocutory appeal followed.

Analysis

Initially, the Appellate Court notes that the Defendant has not
included a transcript or report of proceedings from the circuit
court's class certification hearing, or an appropriate alternative
under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c), (d), such as a such as a
bystander's report or an agreed statement of facts. As the
Appellant, the Defendant bears the burden of presenting a
sufficiently complete record of the proceedings below to support
its claims of error, and any doubts arising from the record's
inadequacy are resolved against it. Furthermore, in the absence of
a complete record, the Appellate Court must presume that the
circuit court acted in conformity with the law and had a sufficient
factual basis for its ruling.

The Appellate Court finds that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in granting the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification where she satisfied the numerosity, commonality,
adequacy of representation and appropriateness requirements needed
to maintain a class action.

As to numerosity, the Appellate Court holds that the Plaintiff was
not required to demonstrate a precise figure for the class size so
long as it was sufficiently numerous to make joinder of all members
impracticable. Because she identified 66 potential class members
with sufficient evidence, the Appellate Court concludes that the
numerosity requirement was satisfied.

Turning to commonality, the Appellate Court finds that because the
Plaintiff's claim presented a legal question common to all class
members, the successful adjudication of that claim would
necessarily establish a right of recovery for them. Accordingly, it
need not address the Defendant's arguments as to that issue.

With respect to adequacy of representation, the Appellate Court
finds that because the Defendant has offered nothing further to
support its contention that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the
adequacy of representation requirement, it cannot say that she
failed to meet it.

Finally, the Defendant's argument regarding appropriateness rests
on a finding that the individual circumstances predominated over
commonality in the case, and the Appellate Court has already
determined that they didn't. And because the Plaintiff has
satisfied the first three requirements for class certification, it
concludes that it was reasonable for the circuit court to find that
she had also met the appropriateness requirement.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court concludes that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, it affirms
the circuit court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ky5whumu from Leagle.com.


ANAHEIM ARENA: Judgment in Amaro Wage & Hour Class Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IREAN AMARO, Plaintiff and Respondent v. ANAHEIM ARENA
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant and Respondent; RHIANNON ALLER,
Intervener and Appellant, Case No. G058371 (Cal. App.), the Court
of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division Three,
reverses the trial court's judgment due to the overbreadth of
release and remands with directions.

Plaintiff Irean Amaro filed the wage and hour class action and
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit against Defendant
Anaheim Arena Management (AAM) in 2017. At the time, there were
already two existing class actions asserting the same claims. One
had been filed in 2014 and the other in 2016. About a month after
filing her lawsuit, Amaro and AAM reached a global settlement that
covered the claims asserted in the two prior class actions.

AAM operates the Honda Center, a large indoor arena in Anaheim that
hosts sporting competitions, concerts, and other large events. In
December 2014, interveners Manuel Navarro-Cabrera and Rhiannon
Aller filed a PAGA and wage and hour class action against AAM in
Orange County Superior Court (the Navarro/Aller action). Generally,
the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller action alleged AAM was not
paying its nonexempt employees for all the hours they worked.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller
action asserted claims based on multiple violations of the Labor
Code, including (a) failure to pay minimum wages (Sections 1194,
1194.2, 1197), (b) failure to pay wages (Sections 201, 202), (c)
failure to pay overtime (Sections 510, 1194), (d) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements (Section 226), (e)
failure to provide meal periods (Sections 226.7, 512), (f) failure
to permit rest breaks (Sections 226.7, 512), and (g) waiting time
penalties (Section 203). They also asserted claims under PAGA
(Section 2698 et seq.) and Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq. based on these Labor Code violations.

After conducting some initial discovery, the plaintiffs in the
Navarro/Aller action and AAM engaged in a mediation in November
2015. The mediation was unsuccessful, so the plaintiffs continued
their discovery efforts.

Meanwhile, in February 2016, intervener Denise Cassaro filed a
substantially similar wage and hour class action against AAM in
Orange County Superior Court. Cassaro and AAM mediated the claims
in June 2016, without involving the plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller
action. During negotiations, however, AAM indicated to Cassaro that
it wanted a settlement that would also cover the Navarro/Aller
claims. After the parties failed to settle, Cassaro's counsel
contacted counsel for the plaintiffs from the Navarro/Aller action.
They agreed it was in the best interest of the class to consolidate
the two cases and litigate them together. The court granted their
motion to consolidate in February 2017.

Plaintiff Amaro filed the PAGA and wage and hour class action
against AAM on April 28, 2017, which largely asserted the same
Labor Code violations and claims as the Navarro/Aller and Cassaro
actions. Like those actions, Amaro alleged AAM's timekeeping system
improperly shaved employees' time and that employees were not
compensated for time spent on shuttles or waiting in line for
security checks or to clock in. Similarly, she alleged employees
either missed or had their meal and rest breaks cut short. Unlike
the other two actions, Amaro also alleged AAM violated section 2802
by failing to reimburse employees for certain job-related
expenses.

After conducting the investigation but prior to filing the
complaint, Amaro and AAM mediated the dispute with the Honorable
Nancy Wieben Stock (Ret.). The parties were unable to settle at the
mediation. Amaro rejected AAM's proposed terms and then filed this
lawsuit. Judge Stock continued to work with the parties over
several weeks, and she eventually made a proposal accepted by both
sides.

In June 2017, AAM filed a case management statement in the
Navarro/Aller action, which indicated this action had settled and
that its release would cover the claims asserted in the
Navarro/Aller, Cassaro, and Gomez actions (the Maryarski action had
not yet been filed).

The settlement covered all nonexempt employees that worked for AAM
between Dec. 1, 2010 until the date the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. AAM agreed to pay a gross amount of
$1.75 million, with $40,000 of this sum allocated to Amaro's PAGA
claim. The settling parties agreed to deduct various expenses from
the gross amount, which were subject to court approval: $583,333 in
attorney fees, which was one-third of the gross amount, and up to
$15,000 in costs to Amaro's counsel, $30,000 in penalties to the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) as required by
section 2699, subdivision (i), $10,000 as an enhancement to Amaro,
and up to $50,000 in administrative costs to a nonparty settlement
administrator. Court approval of these deductions would have left
$1,061,667 to split among the estimated 5,133 class members (as of
April 2017), resulting in average payments of about $207 per
member.

In addition to the monetary component of the settlement, AAM agreed
to make certain policy changes. It agreed to replace its
timekeeping rounding system with one that paid employees based on
their exact clock-in times. It also agreed to automatically add
five minutes of paid time to each employee's shift to compensate
them for any time spent waiting in lines for security checks or to
clock in. Amaro's counsel estimated these policy changes would
generate approximately $510,000 a year in extra wages to
employees.

The plaintiffs in the Navarro/Aller and Cassaro actions
(collectively, the interveners) filed a motion to intervene in this
lawsuit, which was granted. Following extensive briefing by the
settling parties and the interveners, the court denied Amaro's
motion for preliminary approval in June 2018.

After the court denied preliminary approval of the initial
settlement, Amaro's counsel engaged in further informal discovery.
The settling parties then reconvened settlement negotiations with
the assistance of Judge Stock. They eventually agreed to an amended
version of the settlement in September 2018, and filed a new motion
for preliminary approval.

Similar to the initial settlement, the amended settlement covered
nonexempt AAM employees that worked from Dec. 5, 2010 to the date
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. AAM
agreed to pay a gross amount of $2,212,500, a $462,500 or 26.4%
increase from the initial settlement. The proposed deductions for
attorney fees and costs, administrative costs, and Amaro's
enhancement remained the same. But the amended settlement allocated
$240,000 to the PAGA claim, with 75 percent of this sum ($180,000)
going to the LWDA and 25 percent ($60,000) going to the class per
section 2699, subdivision (i). It also contained an escalator
clause, which provided for an increase in the gross amount
proportionate to any increase in the class size between the date of
the settlement and the date of preliminary approval (there were an
estimated 6,037 class members as of the settlement date). The
policy changes to which AAM had previously agreed were included in
the amended settlement and had already been implemented by AAM.

The court granted preliminary approval of the amended settlement in
December 2018 over the interveners' opposition. Based on the number
of participating class members, the settlement administrator
determined the smallest class member payment would be $1.68 (for
people that worked only one shift during the class period), the
average payment would be $231.67, and the largest payment would be
$3,662.12.

When Amaro moved for final approval of the settlement in March
2019, the gross amount of the settlement had increased by $41,780
to $2,254,280, which appears to be the result of the escalator
clause. The court granted final approval over Aller's objection and
issued a detailed minute order addressing the arguments. In
connection with the motion, the court granted Amaro's counsel
$583,333 in fees and $10,266.87 in costs. Amaro was awarded a
$5,000 enhancement, and the settlement administrator was allowed
$43,500 in costs.

The court subsequently entered judgment in accordance with the
settlement. Intervener Aller appeals on grounds the court erred in
approving the settlement. First, she argues the scope of the
release was impermissibly overbroad. Next, she asserts the
settlement was the product of a collusive reverse auction. Finally,
she contends the court erred by denying her request to take
discovery as to whether the settlement was collusive.

Discussion

The Court of Appeals agrees the release was overbroad but is not
persuaded by the other arguments.

Ms. Aller appeals, claiming the court's approval of the settlement
was erroneous for two reasons. First, she argues the class members'
release in the settlement is improper because it extends to claims
outside the scope of Amaro's complaint, waives class members' (from
all class actions) claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
without obtaining their written consent, and releases PAGA claims
beyond the limitations period of Amaro's own PAGA claim. We agree
the release is overbroad. It covers "potential claims in any way
relating to the" facts pled in the complaint. The "in any way
relating" language causes the release to unreasonably extend to
claims that may only be tangentially related to the allegations in
Amaro's complaint, rendering it overbroad.  
However, the Court of Appeals rejects Aller's other contentions.
The FLSA's written consent requirement does not apply to a release
in a class settlement of state wage and hour claims. Further,
nothing in the PAGA statute prevents Amaro from releasing claims
outside the limitations period of her own claim.

Next, Aller contends the court abused its discretion in finding the
settlement was not the product of a collusive reverse auction. Such
an event occurs when a defendant sued in multiple class actions
picks the most ineffectual class counsel to negotiate a weak
settlement that precludes all the other class action claims. Aller
primarily relies on the fact that AAM attempted to separately
negotiate settlements with the plaintiffs in the two prior
lawsuits. After those settlement discussions failed, AAM bypassed
those plaintiffs and undercut their claims by negotiating a
settlement with Amaro that extinguished the other class actions.

The Court of Appeals finds there is nothing inherently wrong with
this process. When such a settlement occurs, the objecting party
must also show, at the very least, some evidence of unfairness to
the class or misconduct to support a collusive reverse auction
finding. Aller has not done so. Nor has she presented sufficient
evidence to warrant discovery into whether the settlement was
collusive.

Conclusion

Because of the overbreadth of the release, the COurt of Appeals
reverses the judgment of the trial court. On remand, the court is
directed to hold proceedings to determine whether the settling
parties can amend the release to conform with the Opinion. The
parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zuu6u8vm from Leagle.com.

Donahoo & Associates, Richard E. Donahoo; Gleason & Favarote, Torey
J. Favarote -- tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com; Law Offices of Joseph
R. Becerra, Joseph R. Becerra -- jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com; and
Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner, Holly N. Boyer for
Intervener and Appellant Rhiannon Aller.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Jason A. Weiss --
jweiss@sheppardmullin.com -- Matthew M. Sonne --
msonne@sheppardmullin.com -- Frances M.K. Hernandez --
fhernandez@sheppardmullin.com -- and Tyler Z. Bernstein --
tbernstein@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendant and Respondent
Anaheim Arena Management, LLC.

Capstone Law, Ryan H. Wu -- Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Liana
Carter -- Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Eduardo Santos --
Eduardo.Santos@CapstoneLawyers.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent
Irean Amaro.


ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ann Marie McIff
Allen, et al. The case is styled as Dawn Hepikiya Medina, Justin
Horton, Madelaine Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Anne Marie McIff Allen, Jeremiah Humes, The
Honorable, in their official capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN
(D. Utah, Oct. 4, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Ann Marie McIff Allen is a judge for the 5th District Court in
Southern Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karra J. Porter, Esq.
          Anna Pitcher Christiansen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC
          257 E 200 S., STE. 1100
          SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 323-5000
          Fax: (801) 355-3472
          Email: karra.porter@chrisjen.com
                 anna.christiansen@chrisjen.com


ANNOVIS BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

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

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

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

                      About ClaimsFiler

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

ANNOVIS BIO: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that
purchasers of Annovis Bio, Inc. ("Annovis" or the "Company") (NYSE:
ANVS) between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021(the "Class Period")
have until October 18, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally administrated drug
which purportedly inhibited the synthesis of neurotoxic proteins
that are the main cause of neurodegeneration, did not show
statistically significant results across two patient populations as
to factors such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and
(2) as a result, defendants' statements about Annovis business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Annovis class-action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit.  An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Annovis class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.

If you would like to join the action regarding Annovis as lead
plaintiff and are interested in learning more about the
investigation, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by
email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone
number.

                   About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]

ARROWHEAD CENTRAL: Padilla Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Liliana Macias Padilla, on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Arrowhead Central Credit Union, Defendant,
Case No. 21STCV35347, (Cal. Super., September 24, 2021), seeks
unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime
and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods;
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment; injunctive relief and other equitable
relief; and reasonable attorney's fees and costs and interest
pursuant to the California labor Code, the Unfair Business
Practices provision of the California Business and Professions Code
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Padilla worked for Arrowhead Central Credit Union in San Bernardino
County, California as a bank representative. She claims to have
typically worked in excess of 8 hours in a single workday yet
denied pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages and
overtime wages), denied uninterrupted meal periods and
uninterrupted rest periods, unreimbursed for necessary business
expenses, not paid all final wages owed upon termination of her
employment, and not furnished accurate wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
      Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
              Lilit.Tunyan@moonyanglaw.com


ASYSTEM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asystem, Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Asystem, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05483 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2021).

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

Asystem, Inc. -- https://www.asystem.com/ -- manufactures and sells
nutritional supplements and skincare products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Testone Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL TESTONE, COLLIN SHANKS, and LAMARTINE PIERRE,
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, Plaintiffs v. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC OILS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-169 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L.
Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California:

    (i) grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
        to Strike the Testimony of Sarah Butler; and

   (ii) grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Background

The Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendant has manufactured,
distributed, marketed, and sold various Barlean's brand coconut oil
Products beginning in or around May 2008." The Defendant sells its
coconut oil products nationally at major retailers. The Plaintiffs
contend that Defendant "misleadingly markets its coconut oil
Products as inherently healthy, and a healthy alternative to butter
and various cooking oils, despite that coconut oil is actually
inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy option to these
alternatives."

Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that coconut oil is high in
saturated fat, which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease
and other morbidities. In fact, one serving of the Defendant's
coconut oil contains twelve grams of saturated fat, which is over
half of the daily recommended value of saturated fat. Three of the
Defendant's products are challenged in the putative class action:
its "Organic Virgin Coconut Oil," "Organic Culinary Coconut Oil,"
and "Organic Butter Flavored Coconut Oil." The Plaintiffs contend
that the Defendant "has employed a strategic marketing campaign
intended to convince consumers that the Barlean's Coconut Oil
products are healthy." They claim this is done both through
statements on the Defendant's website as well as statements made
directly on the labels of the Coconut Oils.

The Plaintiffs take exception to several of the statements on the
labels of the Defendant's Products. As to Defendant's the Organic
Virgin Coconut Oil, the Plaintiffs question, among others, the
following statements: "Nature's Most Versatile Superfood"; "RAW
WHOLE FOOD"; "Harvested at the Peak of Flavor and
Nutrition/nutritional value"; "COCONUT OIL: A SMART FAT";
"NON-HYDROGENATED"; and various statements concerning the presence
of medium chain triglycerides. As to the Defendant's Organic
Culinary Coconut Oil, the Plaintiffs identify as misleading the
following label statements: "The ultimate cooking oil for
health-conscious gourmets.

As versatile as it is delicious, Barlean's Organic Culinary Coconut
Oil is ideal for sauteing, stir-frying and baking, or as a
dairy-free butter substitute"; and "NO TRANS FAT." Finally, as to
vDefendant's Organic Butter Flavored Coconut Oil, the Plaintiffs
suggest that the following statements, among others, are
misleading: "THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF COCONUT OIL, THE RICH TASTE OF
BUTTER"; "SUB 1:1 FOR BUTTER"; "HEALTHY ALTERNATIVE TO BUTTER"; and
"All the health benefits of coconut oil, now with the rich flavor
of butter." The Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant
intentionally omits from its Products' labeling and marketing the
negative health effects of its coconut oils. In addition, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Products are misbranded.

Plaintiff Testone alleges he would purchase the Defendant's Organic
Virgin Coconut Oil on a regular basis, relying on some of the
challenged label claims in believing the product was healthy.
Plaintiff Shanks alleges similar injury from purchasing both the
Defendant's Organic Virgin Coconut Oil and its Butter Flavored
Coconut Oil. Lastly, Plaintiff Pierre claims he was injured in a
similar manner by purchasing the Defendant's Organic Virgin Coconut
Oil.

The Plaintiffs propose a class of California consumers and a class
of New York consumers. As to the California class, the Plaintiffs
allege violations of California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq. ("UCL"), California Business & Professions
Code Sections 17500 et seq. ("FAL"), and California Civil Code
Sections 1750 et seq. ("CLRA"); breach of express warranty pursuant
to California Commercial Code Section 2313(1); and breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to California
Commercial Code Section 2314. As to the New York class, the
Plaintiffs allege violations of New York General Business Law
Sections 349 ("UDBP") and 350 ("NY FAL"), as well as breach of
express warranty pursuant to New York Uniform Commercial Code
Section 2-313.

On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC. The
Defendant answered on Sept. 10, 2019. The Defendant subsequently
filed its Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Named Plaintiffs as
Class Representatives on May 18, 2020. Shortly thereafter, it also
filed an ex parte motion to stay, which, following briefing, the
Court granted. On Jan. 4, 2021, the Court denied the Defendant's
motion to disqualify as premature.

Presently before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification ("Motion") and Motion to Strike the Testimony of
Sarah Butler ("MTS"). Also before the Court are the Defendant's
Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion, the Plaintiffs' Reply in
Support of the Motion, the Defendant's Evidentiary Objections to
the Reply Declarations of Colin B. Weir and J. Michael Dennis,
Ph.D., the Defendant's Opposition to the MTS ("MTS Opp'n"), the
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the MTS ("MTS Reply"), and the
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections ("Evid.
Resp."). The Court heard oral argument on June 28, 2021.

Discussion

I. Motion to Strike and Evidentiary Objections

The Plaintiffs move to strike the testimony of the Defendant's
expert, Sarah Butler. The Defendant, meanwhile, submitted
evidentiary objections to portions of two declarations submitted by
Pthe laintiffs to support their Reply, one by Mr. Colin B. Weir and
one by Dr. J. Michael Dennis, Reply Declaration of Colin B. Weir.

A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike

The Plaintiffs challenge the admissibility of the testimony of the
Defendant's expert, Ms. Butler, on the grounds that (1) her
testimony is irrelevant because the Plaintiffs' claims do not
require absent class members to have seen, relied on, or found
material the at-issue claims on the Products' labels; (2) her
testimony is irrelevant because the germane question at this stage
is whether common questions predominate, not whether the Plaintiffs
have proven materiality, which is a merits issue (3) her questions
and testimony concerning how consumers first learned about coconut
oil are unreliable and irrelevant; (4) her criticisms of Dr.
Dennis' survey population are based on a mistake of fact; and (5)
she is not qualified to offer testimony about supply-side issues.

1. Relevancy and Reliability

a. General Relevance to Plaintiffs' Claims and Class Certification

The Plaintiffs claim that Ms. Butler's entire report is irrelevant
and should be stricken because her opinions concern issues that are
irrelevant as a matter of law. They further argue that the Butler
Report goes to the merits of whether the reasonable consumer would
find the Products' labels material and/or deceptive, issues
irrelevant at the class certification stage. The Defendant argues
that, if the alleged misrepresentations are not material to all
class members, then the reliance of individual class members is at
issue and the class should not be certified.

Judge Sammartino holds that Ms. Butler's survey effectively amounts
to an argument that consumers purchase the Defendant's Products for
a variety of reasons. However, this "is a merits dispute as to
materiality, and is therefore a dispute that can be resolved
classwide." Indeed, the Judge says, it is an error of law for a
court to inquire into the motives of each individual class member
at the class certification stage. And, in any event, "it is clear
under California law that materiality to a reasonable consumer does
not mean it has to be material to every consumer." However, Ms.
Butler's survey may be probative of materiality at later stages in
this litigation, as it may show the alleged misstatements would not
be material to a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Judge denies
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike on this ground.

b. How Consumers First Learned About Coconut Oil

Relying on the same arguments made supra, the Plaintiffs also claim
that how consumers first learned about coconut oil has no bearing
on whether the Products' labels are objectively material or
misleading. Further, they argue that these questions are
fundamentally unreliable, as consumers are unlikely to accurately
recall how they first learned of a product they likely first
purchased years ago. The Defendant responds that these survey
questions and their responses are probative to the issue of
materiality, because, when viewed in conjunction with the other
survey responses, they show that consumers do not rely on the
claims on coconut oil labels in deciding whether to make a
purchase.

For the reasons she provided, Judge Sammartino holds that this
again effectively amounts to "a merits dispute as to materiality,
and is therefore a dispute that can be resolved classwide." And,
again, portions of Ms. Butler's survey may be probative of
materiality at later stages in this litigation. Finally, while she
appreciates the "recall bias" issue raised by the Defendant, the
Judge is not prepared to say that this issue renders the questions
at issue so fundamentally flawed that they are completely
unreliable and must be stricken. Accordingly, she denies the Motion
to Strike on this ground as well.

c. Criticisms of Dr. Dennis's Survey Population

The Plaintiffs also contend that the portions of the Butler Report
opining that Dr. Dennis' survey improperly restricts the relevant
population to consumers who purchased coconut oil at health food
stores should be stricken, as Dr. Dennis' proposed survey is not
limited to such a sub-population of purchasers. In its Opposition,
the "Defendant disagrees that Butler misread Dennis' declaration
but does not dispute that Dennis has clarified the scope of his
survey universe in his reply declaration." Nonetheless, it contends
that Dr. Dennis' subsequent clarification does not mean that Ms.
Butler's criticism of the original declaration should be stricken.

Judge Sammartino holds that a reading of the paragraph at issue in
Dr. Dennis' report supports the Plaintiffs' position that Dr.
Dennis' survey population was never limited to consumers who
purchased coconut oil from health food stores. Instead, he is clear
that "his survey will target a population of non-institutionalized
adults age 18 and over, who have purchased coconut oils in the last
12 months." Dr. Dennis goes on to clarify that his survey
population will "include those residing in either the state of
California or New York," as well as "coconut oil purchasers who
purchased coconut oil in health food stores." However, nowhere does
he say that he will limit the survey population to such purchasers.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that Ms. Butler's critiques of Dr.
Dennis' survey population were based on a mistake of fact; they are
therefore irrelevant and unlikely to assist the trier of fact.
Thus, the Judge Strikes the portions of the Butler Report
pertaining to Dr. Dennis' survey population.

2. Ms. Butler's Qualifications

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Butler is not an economist
and is therefore unqualified to opine on whether Dr. Dennis' survey
addresses supply-side issues. The Defendant counters that, "as a
survey expert, Ms. Butler is indisputably qualified to testify as
to survey design, including what components are included or
excluded from a particular survey design, which is precisely the
nature of the challenged testimony." While the Butler Report is not
a rebuttal report, it does, in fact, critique and respond to the
Dennis Report and ultimately contends that his model cannot
accurately account for market share and prices. Judge Sammartino
agrees that these are economic issues as to which Ms. Butler is not
qualified to testify. Accordingly, she strikes those portions of
the Butler Report opining as to the adequacy of Dr. Dennis'
conjoint survey to account for changes in supply.

B. Defendant's Evidentiary Objections

The Defendant's evidentiary objections to portions of the Reply
Dennis Report and Reply Weir Report mostly argue that the
paragraphs in question are irrelevant, lack foundation, and/or are
improper legal opinions. Thus, the Defendant does not object to
these portions of Plaintiffs' reply reports on the basis of Daubert
concerns, but rather on the basis of general admissibility issues.
At this stage, the Court can, and should, afford such testimony the
proper weight rather than exclude it outright. Accordingly, Judge
Sammartino overrules the Defendant's evidentiary objections.

II. Motion for Class Certification

A. Rule 23(a) Requirements

As noted previously, the Plaintiffs seek certification of two
classes, the California Class and the New York Class. The proposed
California Class comprises "all persons in California who, between
Jan. 24, 2015 and the date the Class is notified of certification,
purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household use and
not for resale." The proposed New York Class comprises "all persons
in New York who, between Jan. 24, 2016 and the date the Class is
notified of certification, purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut
Oils for household use and not for resale."

The Plaintiffs must establish that the Classes satisfy the four
requirements of Rule 23(a). The Defendant does not contest that the
Plaintiffs' Classes meet the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity
and commonality. Thus, Judge Sammartino analyzes these requirements
briefly and focuses its analysis on the contested elements of
typicality and adequacy.

Judge Sammartino finds that (i) the likely class members are
sufficiently numerous that joinder is impracticable, thus
fulfilling the numerosity requirement for each of the Classes; (ii)
the Defendant does not dispute commonality; (iii) the Plaintiffs
allege the same injury as the members of the Classes they seek to
represent and allege they were injured by the same course of
conduct --  the Defendant's alleged mislabeling; and (iv) the
Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and that class
counsel are also adequate.

B. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

Rule 23(b)(3) states that a class may be maintained if the
requirements of Rule 23(a) are fulfilled and if "the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to the class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

Judge Sammartino concludes that common questions of law or fact
predominate over individual issues and that the Plaintiffs'
proposed damages model satisfies the requirements of Comcast.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Sammartino also finds that the superiority requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3) has been met. First, she finds that none of the
proposed class members would likely have any interest in litigating
these claims by themselves, "because the cost of litigating a
single case would undoubtedly exceed the potential return." Second,
given the small recovery any individual plaintiff might expect,
concentrating the litigation in a single forum is appropriate."
Lastly, there is no indication, nor does Defendant contend, that
there is any characteristic of this litigation that would make it
more difficult to manage than other class action litigations
routinely decided by district courts.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Sammartino grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, overrules the
Defendant's evidentiary objections, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, certifies the two proposed Classes, and
appoints Plaintiffs Michael Testone, Collin Shanks, and Lamartine
Pierre as the class representatives and The Law Office of Paul K.
Joseph, PC, and The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, as the class
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/vhzmnud8 from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Brown Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH A. BROWN, Plaintiff v. JENNIFER SHAFFER, ET.
AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470-AWI-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta recommended that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and all other pending
motions be denied as moot.

Background

Plaintiff Keith Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
initiated the action while incarcerated at Valley State Prison by
filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
Plaintiff proceeds on his First Amended Complaint which alleges,
inter alia, due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution in connection with the Plaintiff's Feb.
24, 2017 parole board hearing ("PBH") at which he was denied
youthful offender parole.

The Plaintiff attaches the following exhibits to his FAC: The
Plaintiff's healthcare appeals and responses, and excerpts from his
medical records (Exhibit A, Doc. No. 11 at 34-51); transcript from
the Plaintiff's Sept. 9, 2016 PBH (Exhibit B, Doc. No. 11 at
52-58); transcript of the Plaintiff's Feb. 24, 2017 PBH and
decision (Exhibit C, Doc. No. 11 at 59-159); Comprehensive Risk
Assessment ("CRA") dated July 19, 2016 (Exhibit D, Doc. No. 11 at
160-182); pro se Petition to Advance Parole Hearing postmarked
November 27, 2017 and Denial dated December 7, 2017 (Exhibit E,
Doc. No. 183-201); excerpt of transcript and decision from Aug. 30,
2011 PBH (Exhibit F, Doc. No. 11 at 202-206); CDCR Administrative
Appeal, Log. No. HC16007271 (Exhibit G, Doc. No. 11 at 207-217) and
Declaration of Plaintiff dated March 18, 2018 (Exhibit H, Doc. No.
218-220).

The FAC originally identified four Defendants in their official and
individual capacities and five separate counts, not all Defendants
or claims survived screening. The FAC named the following as
Defendants: (1) Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer of the Board of
Prison Hearing ("BPH"); (2) Line Brynjulfeen, Forensic Psychologist
with BPH; (3) Michelle Minor, presiding Commissioner with BPH; and
(4) Timothy O'Hara, Deputy Commissioner with BPH.

The FAC alleged the following five counts: (1) the Plaintiff's
procedural due process and liberty interest in parole were violated
when BPH failed to adopt regulations consistent with Johnson v.
Shaffer, Case No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM AC, 2014 WL 6834019, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Dec. 3, 2014, report and recommendation adopted by Case No.
2:12-cv-1059-KJM AC, 2015 WL 2358583 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2015); and
California Penal Code Section 3051; (2) the Plaintiff was denied
due process when the psychiatrist, Defendant Byrnjulfsen, conducted
an arbitrary and capricious evaluation, by relying on a standard of
review for adults, not juvenile offenders and falsely found
Plaintiff wanted revenge on his childhood legal guardian, among
other things; (3) the Plaintiff was denied a fair PBH; (4) in the
Plaintiff's Youthful Offender's Hearing, the BPH violated the ADA
when denying parole as opposed to employing an individualized
inquiry; and (5) the Defendants failed to provide the requisite
care in violations of the Eighth Amendment and the ADA. The
Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief.

As required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the previously assigned
magistrate judge issued a F&R concerning the FAC on May 13, 2019.
The District Court adopted the F&R in full. Although the Court gave
the Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second amended complaint,
the Plaintiff opted not to do so. It should be noted that neither
the F&R nor the adoption of the F&R addressed the attachments to
the FAC.

Just shy of his sixteenth birthday, the Plaintiff pled guilty to
second-degree murder with use of a firearm and was sentenced to 15
years to life with the possibility of parole in 1987. Sometime in
2009, a bone-density scan was completed on the Plaintiff and he was
informed that he might have sustained "significant trauma to the
skull, ear to ear" sometime in the past.

Sometime in 2010, the Plaintiff began recalling a traumatic
incident where he had been raped at age six or seven and bludgeoned
on the skull. In 2010, the Plaintiff "declined to participate in
the Forensic Assessment Division ("FAD") report but a report was
authored based upon his file. He sought treatment from various
doctors for his newly recalled injury, after his August 2011 BPH
panel found his account of childhood trauma "credible." In 2015,
Dr. Gosek, a psychiatrist, confirmed "Frontal Lobe damages" to the
Plaintiff's brain and opined the Plaintiff's brain injury likely
resulted in schizophrenia spectrum disorder and recommended the
Plaintiff for a "Frontal Lobe Disorder Assessment" and transferred
him to Valley State Prison for "treatment by a neuropsychologist."

In 2013-14, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 260,
which requires adults who were incarcerated when they were
juveniles for committing serious felonies to be afforded a
meaningful opportunity to obtain release. The bill, codified at
Cal. Penal Code Section 3501 establishes certain criteria
applicable to youthful offender parole hearings.

The Plaintiff had his youth-offender BPH on Feb. 24, 2017 during
which he objected to the FAD report prepared by Dr. Brynjulfsen.
According to the Plaintiff, the report declared him to be the
highest risk for future violence potential based upon factual
misrepresentations. After reviewing the report and finding "several
substantial errors that the highest risk for future assessment had
been based upon," the Plaintiff lodged objections to the report
with the BPH. At the BPH hearing, Defendant Minor interrupted
Plaintiff repeatedly and "minimized the brain injury." The BPH,
including Defendants Minor and O'Hara, denied the Plaintiff parole
in contravention of the weight of the evidence.

The Plaintiff alleges prior to the hearing, Shaffer had failed to
adopt regulations as required by Cal. Penal Code Section 3501 and
had failed to "establish a process for addressing timely objections
to the CRA in writing prior to a hearing" as required by the
remedial order entered by the Sacramento Division of the Court in
by Johnson v. Shaffer, Case No. 2:12-cv-1059-KJM AC (E.D. Cal. Dec.
3, 2014).

The F&R, as adopted, concluded the FAC stated cognizable due
process claims against Defendants Shaffer, Minor, and O'Hara, but
dismissed all remaining claims and the Defendants. Specifically,
the F&R found a due process claim against Defendant Shaffer for (1)
failing to revise the BPH existing regulations to adopt new
regulations compliant with California Penal Code Section 3051; and
(2) failing to establish a process for addressing timely objections
to the CRAs in writing prior to the hearing as required by Johnson.
As to Defendants Minor and O'Hare, the F&R noted that the FAC
alleged these Defendants denied the Plaintiff parole in
contravention of the great weight of the evidence because they knew
the Brynsjulfsen report contained false information, but
nevertheless relied on the report to deny Plaintiff parole. The
order noted that the FAC alleged Defendant Minor interrupted
Plaintiff during the hearing and constantly "minimized his brain
injury."

Discussion

The Defendants move to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). They argue the Plaintiff received a parole hearing where
he presented his case with the assistance of an attorney, was
informed why he did not qualify for parole, which constitutes all
the process due under the U.S. Constitution. They further argue
that Executive Officer Shaffer did promulgate rules and regulations
for the PBHs addressing objections to CRAs, as evidenced by the
exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's FAC. The Defendants contend
that even if these PBH rules did not comply with the deadline set
forth in the Johnson remedial order, such a violation does not
amount to a Constitutional due process violation. Finally, the
Defendants argue the facts presented in the case are
distinguishable from the facts in Johnson and the Court is not
bound by the Johnson decision. Further, the Defendants point out
the transcript of the 2017 BPH contradicts Plaintiff's allegations
that Defendants Minor and O'Hara denied Plaintiff a fair hearing by
failing to "adequately" consider the Plaintiff's objections to the
CRA.

In opposition, the Plaintiff points to the F&R screening discussed,
finding his FAC stated a cognizable claim. He maintains that the
Defendants violated California Penal Code Section 3051 because they
did not have regulatory guidance on how to properly evaluate for
parole crimes committed by juveniles, like the Plaintiff's
conviction and sentence arising at age 16. The Plaintiff reiterates
that Defendant Minor failed to promulgate rules requiring written
responses and objections prior to the hearing. The Plaintiff argues
that the Defendants' failure to promulgate rules in compliance with
Johnson shows the parole board had a "biased agenda." He contends
that Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 requires an "unbiased" PBH.

In Reply, the Defendants correctly argue that screening under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act is not a substitute for a 12(b)(6)
motion and point out that the Court's Screening Order did not
reference or consider the exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's FAC.
Using the evidence attached to the Plaintiff's FAC, which is proper
to do at the 12(b)(6) stage, notes that the evidence contradicts
the factual allegations in the FAC and argues the then-assigned
magistrate judge incorrectly applied Johnson to the case. The
Defendants reiterate that the Plaintiff was afforded all due
process protections during his PBH.

In Sur-Reply, the Plaintiff clarifies that his claims against
Shaffer involve: (1) Shaffer's failure to revise the parole board's
existing regulations and adopt new regulations in compliance with
California Penal Code Section 3051 and (2) that Shaffer failed to
establish a process for addressing timely objections to CRAs in
writing before the hearing. He contends that the parole board
regulations do not comply with California Penal Code Section 3051
because there is no guidance on how the board is to weigh
"diminished culpability" for a crime committed by a juvenile. He
believes that if the parole board had responded to his objections
to the CRA in writing before the hearing, then the parole board
could not have used the CRA to deny him parole.

A. Plaintiff has a Liberty Interest in his BPH

Judge Barch-Kuchta states that ordinarily, courts engage in an
analysis of the language in the particular state's parole statute
to determine whether parole is discretionary or mandatory to
determine whether the statute creates a liberty interest in release
on parole. This determination, she says, satisfies the first
element of a due process claim, e.g. whether the inmate has a
liberty interest for which he or she is afforded due process. In
the case, the Defendants do not challenge the existence of that
interest. For purposes of the Order and based upon the facts
alleged, Judge Barch-Kuchta finds the California Youthful Offender
parole statute creates a liberty interest in parole-release.

B. The FAC Fails to Adequately State a Due Process Claim against
Defendants

Having found a liberty interest, Judge Barch-Kuchta next considers
whether the FAC alleges sufficient facts that the process afforded
to the Plaintiff violated his due process rights protected under
the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She finds the
FAC does not allege sufficient facts and finds that the
non-conclusory allegations are refuted by the exhibits attached to
the FAC.

Essentially, the claims set forth in the FAC are directed at the
evidence the parole board relied on to deny the Plaintiff's
parole-release. The FAC in conclusory terms alleges the parole
board was biased but fails to identify how any Defendant was biased
or identify a specific biased act by any Defendant. Satisfying the
issues the Plaintiff presents with his parole board hearing in the
FAC would convert each parole-release hearing into an adversarial
proceeding, which is not required under the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Barch-Kuchta holds that the Court does not sit as a super
appellate court to review denials by a state's parole board.
Although couched in terms of due process violations, the Plaintiff
disagrees with the BPH decision to deny him parole and seeks a
review of the substantive result of his parole hearing. As stated,
in parole-release hearings due process under the Federal
Constitution is satisfied when the inmate has an opportunity to be
heard and notice why the parole-release is denied. Accordingly,
Judge Barch-Kuchta recommends the District Court grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

Disposition

Accordingly, Judge Barch-Kuchta recommended that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss be granted and all other pending motions be
denied as moot. She recommended that the Clerk of Court enters
judgment accordingly and closes the case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." Parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal.

Also pending is the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and
certify a class action and his motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Based on her recommendation to grant the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, Judge Barch-Kuchta further recommended denying
as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class, motion for
appointment of counsel and motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Alternatively, the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings
is premature should the Court reject the F&R.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/eddna3jb from
Leagle.com.


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: C$83MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In Re: CANNTRUST HOLDINGS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 1:19-cv-06396-JPO

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF U.S.
CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS

www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca

If you purchased the publicly traded common stock of CannTrust
Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust") on the New York Stock Exchange or on
any U.S. based trading platform or pursuant or traceable to
CannTrust's May 6, 2019 secondary offering, you may be entitled to
a payment from several class action settlements.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed U.S.
Class Action Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
members of the proposed U.S. Settlement Class, and defendant
CannTrust and several other defendants in this proposed class
action lawsuit (collectively, "Settling Defendants"), have reached
eight proposed settlements of the majority of the claims in the
above-captioned U.S. class action (the "U.S. Class Action"), as
well as actions pending in Canada and California (collectively with
the U.S. Class Action, the "Actions"), in amounts totaling
approximately C$83,000,000[1] in exchange for releases of liability
(the "Settlements").

The proposed Settlements will be implemented pursuant to an amended
and restated plan of compromise, arrangement and reorganization of
CannTrust, CannTrust Inc. and Elmcliffe Investments Inc. (as may be
further amended from time to time in accordance with its terms),
pursuant to Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-36, as amended, (the "CCAA Plan"), which was approved by
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) by a
"sanction order" entered on July 16, 2021 (the "CCAA Sanction
Order"). Implementation of the CCAA Plan requires, among other
things, approval of the Settlements as they relate to the U.S.
Class Action by the U.S. Court. The CCAA Plan provides for, inter
alia, the restructuring of CannTrust so that it can emerge from
insolvency, the administration of the Settlements for the benefit
of CannTrust's investors, and the handling of unsettled claims
related to the alleged wrongdoing at issue in the Actions.

A telephonic hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Paul
Oetken on Thursday, December 2, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. New York time
(the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should:
(i) approve the proposed Settlements, as they relate to the U.S.
Class Action, as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (ii) approve
the proposed Allocation and Distribution Scheme for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlements to U.S. Settlement Class Members.
The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without
providing another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a payment.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE U.S. SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
A MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you purchased the publicly traded common
stock of CannTrust on the New York Stock Exchange or on any U.S.
based trading platform or pursuant or traceable to CannTrust's May
6, 2019 secondary offering and have not yet received a full Notice
and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
visiting the website for the Settlements,
www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

         CannTrust Securities Settlements
         c/o Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc.
         P.O. Box 507 STN B
         Ottawa ON K1P 5P6
         www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca
         info@CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca
         1-833-871-5359

Inquiries about the U.S. Class Action, other than requests for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to U.S.
Class Action Counsel:

         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         James W. Johnson, Esq.
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         www.labaton.com
         settlementquestions@labaton.com
         1-888-219-6877

If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share
in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlements, you must
submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than
March 16, 2022. (Any extensions of this deadline will be posted on
the website for the Settlements:
www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca).  If you are a U.S.
Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
proceeds from the Settlements, but you will nevertheless be bound
by the terms of the Settlements as they relate to the U.S. Class
Action, all of the U.S. Court's orders about the Settlements,
whether favorable or unfavorable, the CCAA Sanction Order and CCAA
Plan.

If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude
yourself from the U.S. Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice so that it is received no later than November 11, 2021.
This is the only option that potentially may allow you to ever
bring or be part of any other lawsuit against the Settling
Defendants and their related parties about the released claims.
However, the Settlement Parties believe that the CCAA Sanction
Order will operate to bar any claims by the U.S. Settlement Class
Members against the Settling Defendants and their related parties
regardless of whether they request exclusion from the U.S.
Settlement Class.  If you exclude yourself from the U.S. Settlement
Class, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
proceeds of the Settlements.

Any objections to the proposed Settlements and/or the proposed
Allocation and Distribution Scheme must be filed with the U.S.
Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
received no later than November 11, 2021.

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

DATED: September 28, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

URL// www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca

1 For informational purposes, at the time the Settlements were
reached (January 19, 2021 to May 24, 2021), the C$/US$ exchange
rate ranged from C$1.20 to C$1.28 per US$1.00 with an average of
C$1.25 per US$1.00.  Accordingly, at the time of the Settlements,
C$83,000,000 was equivalent to approximately US$66,400,000.


CASSAVA SCIENCES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Cassava Sciences, Inc. (SAVA)
Class Period: 9/14/2020 - 8/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 26, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-sava/


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

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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

COCA-COLA CO: Committed Wage Theft, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that Coca-Cola Company
cheated its California workers out of overtime wages, rest and meal
breaks, a class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Brian Simmons filed the class action lawsuit in a
California state court this summer against The Coca-Cola Company,
alleging violations of California wage laws. On Wednesday, the
company's lawyer filed to have it moved to federal court.

Simmons says The Coca-Cola company employed him for "many years."

However, in 2019, the company experienced payroll issues resulting
in the payment of the incorrect amount of wages for Simmons and
other workers.

"The issues persisted for many months before and after the
company-wide payroll issue." [GN]

ESTATE OF THOMAS BRINKWORTH: Compensation Experts Launch Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
maddenslawyers.com.au reports that Maddens Lawyers have launched a
class action in the South Australian Supreme Court on behalf of
those impacted by the 11 January 2021 fire.

Regional Victorian firm, Maddens Lawyers, have issued proceedings
against the executors of the Estate of Thomas Brinkworth and his
surviving wife Patricia Brinkworth who own the land upon which the
Lucindale fire ignited.

The fire is alleged to have started after a burn off pile ignited
on a day of total fire ban and spread to neighbouring properties.
The fire quickly became out of control in the extreme weather
conditions, burning in excess of 14,000 hectares and impacting
approximately 70 properties.

Maddens Lawyers Class Action Principal, Kathryn Emeny said the
commencement of the class action proceeding is an important
milestone towards obtaining compensation for all community members
impacted by the Lucindale fire.

'This was a very significant fire event. The damage caused by the
fire is far reaching and still being felt to this day. 'Claims for
compensation in the class action will incorporate all aspects of
loss suffered after a major fire such as time spent cleaning and
restoring one's property as well as fencing, tree and pasture
losses. Claims will also be advanced for any psychological injuries
which we understand are commonly experienced by bushfire victims,'
said Ms Emeny.

Maddens Lawyers are Australia's Bushfire Compensation Experts
having successfully acted on behalf of thousands of people impacted
by bushfire events across Australia including the 2009 Victorian
Black Saturday fires and the 2013 NSW Springwood/Winmalee
bushfire.

More recently, the firm has also commenced class action proceedings
on behalf of property owners impacted by the 2019 Cudlee Creek fire
in the Adelaide Hills and the 2019 Yorketown fire on the Yorke
Peninsula. Ms Emeny said the class action is being progressed on a
'no win, no fee' basis and is a secure and low risk means for
residents and businesses marred by the fire to recover compensation
for the significant loss and damage they've suffered.

Anyone impacted by the Lucindale fire is encouraged to contact
Maddens Lawyers to register their interest in the class action
tollfree on 1800 139 290, email info@maddenslawyers.com.au or
register online at maddenslawyers.com.au/2021lucindalefire. [GN]



GARDNER TRUCKING: Tate Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------
William Matney-Tate, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gardner Trucking, Inc., Gardner
Trucking Conversion, LLC, CRST The Transportation Solution, Inc.,
CRST Expedited, Inc. and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-07474, (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages plus an equal amount as liquidated damages,
damages from unreasonably delayed payment of wages, redress for
missed breaks, reimbursement of business-related expenses,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of this
action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
labor laws.

Defendants operate a trucking business where Tate worked as a
driver. Tate claims to have rendered off-the-clock work without
compensation, worked through breaks and not reimbursed for his
uniform expense. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins. Esq.
     Gregory Mauro. Esq.
     Michael Calvo, Esq.
     Jeanne Sarmiento, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive. Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: (949) 387-7200
     Fax: (949) 387-6676
     Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
            Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
            Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
            Jeanne@jameshawkinsaplc.com


GENERAC HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that
purchasers of Generac Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GNRC) between February
23, 2021, and July 29, 2021, have until October 19, 2021, to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) Generac's portable generators posed an unreasonable risk of
injury to users and the public; (2) as a result, at least seven
finger amputations and one crushed finger had been reported to the
Company; (3) as a result, Generac would face increased regulatory
scrutiny; (4) the Company would end sales in its Generac(R) and
DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in the United
States and Canada in June 2021; (5) the Company would recall its
Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in
the United States and Canada; (6) the end of sales and the recall
would occur before the hurricane and wildfire seasons and following
the Texas outage—periods the Company has touted for sales; and
(7) as a result, defendants' public statements and statements to
journalists were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Generac class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Generac class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.

If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning
more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.

                     About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt EV Battery Production Resumes
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Butler, writing for CarBuzz, reports that as GM slowly
starts to convert brands like Cadillac and Chevrolet to electric
power, there's bound to be some hiccups. Take the Chevrolet Bolt:
this small EV has proven to be quite popular until it started
randomly exploding into flames. GM has issued numerous warnings,
and even undertook an expensive recall and halted production of its
battery packs. While Chevrolet and GM try to figure out the issue,
there have been mass calls for refunds, with many customers
threatening class-action lawsuits, but there might be a
non-life-threatening light at the end of the tunnel: Chevrolet has
just announced that Chevy Bolt EV battery production has resumed.

According to the manufacturer, LG battery cell and module
production has resumed with updated manufacturing processes and new
advanced diagnostics software for increased safety. "We're grateful
for the patience of owners and dealers as we work to advance
solutions to this recall. Resuming battery module production is a
first step and we'll continue to work aggressively with LG to
obtain additional battery supply. In addition, we're optimistic a
new advanced diagnostic software will provide more convenience for
our customers," said Doug Parks, GM executive vice president,
Global Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain. [GN]

GERBER PRODUCTS: Shepard Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Melanie Shepard, Ciara Vargas, Tisha Valdez,
Gwyndaline Quarles, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs; Juliana Fondacaro, Mayra Verduzco,
Mieshia Douglas, Charles Robbins, Ana Lynette Gregory Eldridge, Ana
Lynette Gregory Eldridge, Ana Lynette Gregory Eldridge, Marie
Mezile, Consolidated Plaintiffs v. Gerber Products Company doing
business as: Nestle Nutrition, doing business as: Nestle Infant
Nutrition doing business as: Nestle Nutrition North America Case
No. 2:21-cv-01977 was transferred from the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 1, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01104-LO-TCB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an
American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in
Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington,
Virginia. Gerber is a subsidiary of Nestle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East
          Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: ecf@shublawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Geoffrey W. Castello, III, Esq.
          Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          2ND FLOOR
          PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054
          Phone: (973) 503-5900
          Email: gcastello@kelleydrye.com
                 ggraham@kelleydrye.com

The Consolidated Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ & GOLDHAMER
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977

               - and -

          Thomas Alan Brown, II, Esq.
          MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
          444 MADISON AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR
          NEW YORK, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 695-8050
          Email: tbrown@msbllp.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (917) 444-1960
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          140 BROADWAY, 46TH FLOOR
          NEW YORK, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 208-1489
          Email: jonathan@feganscott.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT, & GRAF, PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-7225
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: dabrahams@kohnswift.com


GOPLUS CORP: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goplus Corp. The case
is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Goplus Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-08157
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

Goplus Corp. -- http://www.costway.com/-- is located in Fontana,
California and is part of the Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order
Houses Industry.[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


GRAPEVINE OF NORTH: Drivers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bakari H. Glymph-Dozier and Solomon Hill, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Grapevine
of North Carolina, Inc. and Scott A. Cohen, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00748, (M.D. N.C., September 25, 2021), seeks payment of back
wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorney fees,
interest, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act and the South Carolina Wage Payment
Act.

Grapevine of North Carolina is a full-service distributor selling
wine and servicing accounts across both the Carolinas where
Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers. Both claim to have worked
more than 40 hours in the same workweek but were not paid at the
overtime rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Willis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1828
      488 Thompson Street
      Pittsboro, NC 27312
      Tel: (919) 821-9031
      Fax: (919) 821-1763
      Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


INTERIOR DEFINE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interior Define,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Interior Define,
Inc., a Delaware limited partnership, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:21-cv-07868-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

Interior Define -- https://www.interiordefine.com/ -- offers custom
furniture with over 100+ fabrics, 15+ collections, 20+ legs, and
multiple lengths & depth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
burnscharest.com reports that on behalf of QuickBooks users across
the nation, the law firms of Burns Charest LLP, Stark & Stark, and
Morris Law Firm have filed a federal class action lawsuit against
financial software giant Intuit, Inc. for charging fees for one-day
Automated Clearing House (ACH) bank transfer payments, despite
previously stating there would be no extra fees for this service.

Previously, QuickBooks users had a choice: they could make deposits
for free using a two-to-seven-day deposit option or opt for a one
business day deposit for a transaction fee of 1% of the total
amount transferred. Earlier this year, QuickBooks informed its
customers that one-day deposits were now automatic and there would
be no extra fees. However, the users soon discovered that automatic
one-day ACH transfers did, in fact, include a 1% transaction fee
(max $10) on each transaction.

The switch to one-day transfer with a 1% transaction fee was
especially burdensome to users who are suffering financially during
the COVID-19 pandemic. "Many QuickBooks users are small business
owners struggling to survive during the pandemic. Intuit's
deceptive policy change has financially harmed consumers who
trusted Intuit's representation that there would be no extra fees,"
says Plaintiff co-counsel Amanda Klevorn of Burns Charest. [GN]


JUSTBRAND LIMITED: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justbrand Limited.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Justbrand Limited, Case No.
1:21-cv-08158 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

JustBrand Limited -- https://www.justbrandlimited.com/ -- is the
leader in temperature-controlled apparel and accessories
category.[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


KASIM INTERNATIONAL: Kelly Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kasim International
Corporation. The case is styled as Kevin Kelly, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kasim International
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-08134-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Kasim International -- http://www.kasiminternational.com/--
imports and exports a varied line of crackers, flour, and canned
and bottled foods, including coffee, dressing, and fruit
nectar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAFCO ENTERPRISES: Website Not Blind-accessible, says Crumwell
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Lafco
Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-07989 (S.D. N.Y.,
September 24, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Lafco operates the online retail store https://lafco.com/ that
provides consumers with access to an array of fragrances, essential
oils, high quality wax, soaps and other products available online
for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing,
shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies.
Crumwell is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
             Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
             Dana@Gottlieb.legal

LUCKY FEATHER: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Feather, LLC.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Lucky Feather, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08159 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

Lucky Feather -- https://luckyfeather.com/ -- offers delightfully
fun jewelry and gifts.[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


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 21,
2021, that the court issued a final judgment approving a
stipulation to settle and release the defendants from all claims
asserted in the securities class action suit entitled, In re
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Mammoth was a party to a securities class action lawsuit captioned
"In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation".

The Class Action was brought in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of all investors
(apart from certain investors excluded from the class) who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth common stock between
October 19, 2017 and June 5, 2019 (the "Class Period") against
Mammoth and its executive officers, for alleged violation of
federal securities laws.

On September 21, 2021, the Court issued a final judgment approving
a stipulation to settle and release the defendants from all claims
asserted in the litigation, or that could have been asserted
arising from the subject matter of the litigation and the purchase
or acquisition of Mammoth common stock during the Class Period in
return for a cash payment in the amount of $11.0 million for the
benefit of the settlement class.

The settlement amount is covered in full under Mammoth's directors'
and officers' insurance policy.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


NAVISTAR INC: Kalbrier Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navistar, Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas Kalbrier, Cherrie Kalbrier, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05203 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

Navistar -- http://www.navistar.com/-- operates as the owner of
International brand of trucks and diesel engines.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - Chicago, IL
          227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 283-3814
          Fax: (773) 496-8617
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com


NEW YORK: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Teachers v. NYC DOE Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In case docketed as Rachel Maniscalco, Evelyn Arancio, Diana
Salomon and Corinne Lynch, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The New York City Department of
Education, Meisha Porter, Schools Chancellor of the New York City
Department of Education, in her official capacity, The City of New
York, Bill De Blasio, Mayor of New York City, in his official
capacity, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and Dave
Chokshi, Commissioner of the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05055
(E.D. N.Y., September 23, 2021), plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction is denied.

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from
enforcing the order requiring that all Department of Education
(DOE) staff, City employees, contractors who work in-person in a
DOE school setting or DOE building and all employees of any school
serving students up to grade 12 and any UPK-3 or UPK-4 program that
is located in a DOE building who work in-person, and all
contractors hired by such schools or programs to work in-person
submit proof of at least one dose of vaccination for COVID-19 by
September 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs assert a violation of their
substantive due process and equal protection rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and New York
C.P.L.R. Article 78.

Defendants are city entities and officials responsible for enacting
and enforcing an order mandating vaccination for New York City
Department of Education employees as well as employees and
contractors who work in-person in DOE school settings or buildings.
Plaintiffs are teachers and paraprofessionals employed by the DOE
who bring suit challenging said order asserting a variety of
reasons for not wishing to be vaccinated, including concern over
the long-term effects of a newly developed vaccine. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mark J. Fonte, Esq.
      MARK J. FONTE ATTORNEY AT LAW
      2550 Victory Blvd., Suite 304
      Staten Island, NY 10301
      Phone: (718) 720-4949

Defendants are represented by:

      Devin Slack
      NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
      Tel: (212) 356-0817

             - and -

      Susan Paulson, Esq.
      NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
      Tel: (212) 356-0821


NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE DAVIS, DEREK
COMEAUX, CASEY HAYES, COREY HUDSON, and RON MIGUES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEXTIER OILFIELD
SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00109-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice
plaintiffs' motions for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional
certification and notice, so as to allow refiling if appropriate at
any time in the future.

Nextier provides oilfield services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FhTVrE at no extra charge.[CC]

NEXTIER OILFIELD: Kenworthy Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE KENWORTHY, CHAD
HENSLEY, STEPHEN MAKANJU, TED WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL SPERLING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS,
INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00111-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order
denying without prejudice plaintiffs' motions for Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and notice, so as to
allow refiling if appropriate at any time in the future.

Nextier provides oilfield services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ytcqsz at no extra charge.[CC]

NOVO NORDISK: Agrees $100M Settlement of Class Action Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
thepharmaletter.com reports that Danish diabetes care giant Novo
Nordisk (NOV: N) has reached an agreement in principle to settle
the previously disclosed securities class action litigation pending
in the Federal District Court of New Jersey, USA, with the
company's US traded shares dipping 1.6% to $100.63 on the news.

The lawsuit, alleging the company concealed a deal to pay kickbacks
to pharmacy benefit managers to get its insulin drugs on stores'
recommended product list, was filed in January 2017 on behalf of
purchasers of American Depository Receipts during the class period
February 3, 2015 to February 2, 2017 against Novo Nordisk itself,
as well as former company executives Lars Rebien Sørensen, Jesper
Brandgaard and Jakob Riis.

The settlement was reached after a voluntary mediation process and
resolves claims brought by plaintiffs for alleged violations of US
securities laws. The settlement contains no admission of liability,
wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants and will
include a full release of all defendants in connection with the
allegations made in the lawsuit. Novo Nordisk believes that the
plaintiffs' claims are without any merit, but is settling the
lawsuit to avoid the burden, inherent risk and expense of further
litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Novo Nordisk has
agreed to pay $100 million (inclusive of all plaintiffs' attorneys
fees and expenses and settlement costs). The payment, which is
covered by insurance, will be made into a settlement fund and
distributed among plaintiffs.

"At Novo Nordisk, we take our responsibility to our shareholders
seriously and remain committed to timely and accurate
communication" said Tomas Haagen, general counsel, Novo Nordisk,
adding: "While we are confident in the facts and merits of our
position, we believe that resolving this matter is the right
business decision for Novo Nordisk and our shareholders."

The settlement is subject to a court approval process, which could
take several months, the company noted. [GN]

OREGON HEALTH: Gipson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------
Laura Gipson and Kirsten Frost, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oregon Health Investors Co. and
DMD Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01815 (N.D. Ohio,
September 24, 2021), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages or interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's Prompt Pay
Act.

Defendants operate a skilled nursing, long-term care, and
rehabilitation facility known as Orchard Villa, in Oregon, Ohio,
where Gipson was hired to work as a Staff Development Coordinator
while Frost was worked as a Unit Manager. Both claim to be denied
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
     TITTLE & PERLMUTER
     4106 Bridge Ave.
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216) 308-1522
     Fax: (888) 604-9299
     Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com


OREGON: District Court Narrows Claims in Maney v. Brown Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT; GEORGE NULPH; THERON HALL;
DAVID HART; MICAH RHODES; SHERYL LYNN SUBLET; and FELISHIA RAMIREZ,
personal representative for the ESTATE OF JUAN TRISTAN,
individually, on behalf of a class of other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KATE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS; HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE
GOWER; MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; KEN JESKE; PATRICK ALLEN; JOE
BUGHER; GARRY RUSSELL; and STATE OF OREGON, Defendants, Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an
Opinion and Order:

   a. denying the Defendants' motion to strike portions of the
      Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint ("FAC");

   b. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
      to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC;

   c. granting in part the Defendants' request to take additional
      depositions and interview unrepresented adults in custody
      ("AIC");

   d. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for an order of dismissal
      without prejudice of Plaintiff Micah Rhodes; and

   e. granting the Plaintiffs' request to compel the Defendants
      to disclose a list of AICs who have tested positive for
      COVID-19 antibodies.

Background

Plaintiffs Paul Maney, Gary Clift, George Nulph, Theron Hall, David
Hart, Micah Rhodes, and Sheryl Lynn Sublet, AIC at four Oregon
Department of Corrections ("ODOC") institutions, and Felishia
Ramirez, the personal representative for the Estate of Juan
Tristan, filed a FAC alleging constitutional and state law
violations against Defendants Governor Kate Brown, Oregon Health
Authority ("OHA") Director Patrick Allen, several ODOC officials,
and the State of Oregon.

The Plaintiffs filed this action in April 2020, alleging that the
Defendants (1) violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with
deliberate indifference to their health and safety by failing
adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through social distancing,
testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking, and vaccines, and
(2) were negligent in failing to carry out proper preventative
measures. The Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of themselves
and a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes:
(1) the "Damages Class"; (2); the "Vaccine Class"; and (3) the
"Wrongful Death Class."

On Aug. 3, 2020, the Defendants moved for partial summary judgment
on the damages portion of the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim
and on the entirety of the Plaintiffs' state negligence claim. On
Dec. 15, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

On Jan. 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction
requiring ODOC to offer all AICs housed in ODOC facilities a
COVID-19 vaccine, and sought provisional class certification of the
Vaccine Class, which includes: "All adults in custody housed at
Oregon Department of Corrections facilities (ODOC) who have not
been offered COVID-19 vaccinations."

On Feb. 2, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class and motion for
a preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to "offer all
AICs housed in ODOC facilities, who have not been offered a
COVID-19 vaccine, a COVID-19 vaccine as if they had been included
in Phase 1A, Group 2, of Oregon's Vaccination Plan."

On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC and a motion to
certify the Damages Class and Wrongful Death Class.

Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' FAC, the Plaintiffs'
motion for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice of
Plaintiff Micah Rhodes, the Defendants' request pursuant to the
Court's informal discovery dispute resolution procedure to take
additional depositions and interview AICs, and the Plaintiffs'
request to compel the Defendants to produce the names of any AICs
who have received positive COVID-19 antibody test results.

Discussion

A. Motion to Strike

The Defendants move the Court for an order striking allegations
from the Plaintiffs' FAC relating to the Defendants' alleged
failure to release AICs from custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Specifically, the Defendants argue that the Court should strike
paragraphs 46-49, 86-93, and 110(e) of the FAC as immaterial based
on the Court's prior ruling that discretionary immunity precludes
the Plaintiffs from pursuing a negligence claim based on the
State's alleged "failure to release or relocate AICs to allow for
adequate social distancing."

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that in light of the Court's prior
ruling, their allegations relating to the failure to release AICs
are immaterial to their negligence and wrongful death claims.
Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that the allegations are relevant to
their Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims because the
Defendants' knowledge of the inability to socially distance within
ODOC facilities coupled with their decision not to release AICs
from ODOC custody to ensure proper social distancing "tends to
establish that the Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety."

Judge Beckerman declines to strike these allegations from the FAC.
She opines that Paragraphs 46-49 and 86-93 provide relevant
background and context to the Plaintiffs' claims, are "arguably
relevant" to the Plaintiffs' deliberate indifference claim, and are
not unduly prejudicial to the Defendants. With respect to paragraph
110(e), the Defendants represent that the Plaintiffs offered to
replead paragraph 110 to challenge only the Defendants'
implementation and enforcement of social distancing policies
throughout ODOC's facilities as a basis for their negligence claim.
Judge Beckerman agrees with that approach and orders the Plaintiffs
to amend paragraph 110 in their fifth amended complaint. Otherwise,
the Judge denies the Defendants' motion to strike.

B. Motion to Dismiss

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' class claim for
injunctive relief related to the prioritization and distribution of
the COVID-19 vaccine is now moot because the Defendants have
offered the vaccine to all AICs, and that the Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim against Governor Brown and Director Allen.

1. Mootness

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive
relief related to the prioritization and distribution of the
COVID-19 vaccine is moot because Defendants have already made
COVID-19 vaccines available to all AICs.

Judge Beckerman agrees. She concludes that the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish the existence of a credible threat that AICs
will again be subjected to an injury relating to the availability
of the COVID-19 vaccine while in ODOC custody. The Plaintiffs have
already prevailed on their claim for injunctive relief on behalf of
the Vaccine Class. Now that the Defendants have complied with the
Court's injunction, the Plaintiffs fail to establish that there
remains a "real and immediate threat" that the Defendants will fail
to offer the COVID-19 vaccine to members of the Vaccine Class, and
therefore they lack standing and the Court no longer has subject
matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive
relief. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman dismisses the Plaintiffs'
injunctive relief claim on behalf of the Vaccine Class.

2. Liability of State Officials

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim for personal liability against Defendants Governor Brown and
Director Allen.

Judge Beckerman disagrees. She concludes that the Plaintiffs have
alleged sufficient facts to suggest that a causal connection exists
between Governor Brown and Director Allen's involvement in
developing, overseeing, and authorizing ODOC's policies and the
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, and that the Defendants knew or
reasonably should have known the consequences of those policies.
Accordingly, Judge Beckerman denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against Governor Brown and Director
Allen.

C. Motion to Dismiss Micah Rhodes

The Plaintiffs move to dismiss Plaintiff Rhodes as a plaintiff
without prejudice because Rhodes has been released from ODOC
custody, he did not test positive for COVID-19 while in ODOC
custody, and he is therefore not currently a member of the proposed
Damages Class.

Judge Beckerman holds that a "dismissal for lack of Article III
standing is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
In general, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
without prejudice." Accordingly, the Judge dismisses Plaintiff
Rhodes without prejudice.

D. Discovery Disputes

On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the Defendants have not yet filed a response.
The Plaintiffs stipulated to the Defendants' request to depose the
named Plaintiffs, as well as the putative class members who
provided declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, for a total of sixteen depositions. The
Defendants now seek a discovery order allowing them to: (1) depose
up to an additional seventy putative class members who provided
declarations in connection with earlier motions; and (2) interview
AICs who are not represented by counsel.

1. Additional Depositions

The Defendants seek to depose up to seventy absent class members
who provided declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' earlier
motions in this case, nine of which Plaintiffs cross-referenced in
their motion for class certification. Of the 70, the Defendants
have identified three declarants whose declarations are arguably
inconsistent with the evidence relied upon by the Plaintiffs in
support of their motion for class certification.

Judge Beckerman concludes that the Defendants have met their burden
to depose the three absent class members whose declarations include
factual assertions that are arguably inconsistent with the
Plaintiffs' current position, but not the dozens of additional
absent class members. The parties will meet and confer to determine
a schedule for any remaining depositions to take place within the
next 30 days.

2. AIC Interviews

The Defendants also request leave to interview unrepresented AICs.
The Plaintiffs object, arguing that all AICs are represented
parties as members of the Vaccine Class, and therefore Rule 4.2 of
the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct
("ABA Model Rules") bars any communication with AICs except through
counsel. The Plaintiffs also argue that allowing counsel for
Defendants to interview AICs creates potential for abuse and risk
to absent class members because of the inherently coercive
relationship between ODOC personnel and AICs.

In weighing the rights of the parties, Judge Beckerman concludes
that, at this juncture of the case, imposing a blanket limitation
on communications between Judge Beckerman Defendants and AICs is
inappropriate. However, to protect against the inherent coercion
between prison officials and unrepresented AICs and to mitigate the
risk that AICs will misapprehend the interview request or their
right to decline, the defense counsel will confer with the
Plaintiffs' counsel with respect to (i) the form and content of the
communication that defense counsel intends to send to AICs; (ii)
the format of the meetings and whether defense counsel intends to
record the interviews; and (iii) how defense counsel will ensure
that they are not contacting any putative members of the Damages
Class or the Wrongful Death Class. The parties may contact the
Court to resolve any disputes.

3. Antibody Test Results

The Plaintiffs asked the Court pursuant to its informal discovery
dispute resolution procedure to compel the Defendants to disclose a
list of AICs who received a positive (i.e., reactive) result on a
COVID-19 antibody test. The Defendants declined to produce the
requested confidential medical information without a Court order.

Judge Beckerman finds that the identities of AICs who tested
positive for COVID-19 antibodies are relevant to the Plaintiffs'
claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, the
parties will confer and submit an agreed-upon proposed order for
the Court's signature allowing disclosure of the requested
information.

Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Beckerman denies the Defendants'
motion to strike, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, grants in part the Defendants' request to take
additional depositions and interview unrepresented AICs, grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for an order of dismissal without prejudice of
Plaintiff Rhodes, and grants the Plaintiffs' request to compel the
Defendants to disclose a list of AICs who have tested positive for
COVID-19 antibodies.

The Plaintiffs will file a Fifth Amended Complaint consistent with
the Opinion.

The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class is due 30 days from the date of the last of the 19
depositions authorized. The parties will notify the Court of the
relevant dates.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/439vx59w from Leagle.com.


PALO ALTO, CA: City to Appeal Decision in Gas Rates Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, September 20, the City Council voted to appeal the trial
court's decision in Green v. City of Palo Alto (Santa Clara
Superior Court Case No. 16CV300760), a class action lawsuit which
challenges the City's gas and electric rates under Proposition 26,
one of many such cases following a 2015 decision involving the City
of Redding.

In Green, the trial court judge found the City's electric rates
valid, but that the City's gas rates were taxes requiring voter
approval under California's Proposition 26, because they were set
at a level sufficient to fund an annual transfer of approximately
$7 million to the City's general fund. The Court was unpersuaded by
the City's argument that its voters did approve the transfer when
they amended the City Charter to authorize it. Plaintiffs also
challenged the City's practice of charging its utilities rent for
their use of City property, like space in parks for utility
infrastructure, akin to fees investor-owned utilities pay to use
public rights-of-way. Although Proposition 26 was approved in 2010,
the California Supreme Court did not apply it in an electric
utility case until 2018 and it has never before been applied to a
municipal gas utility. Significant open questions about the measure
remain to be answered by the courts.

The results of this lawsuit will have important implications for
Palo Alto, as well as for other municipal utilities and cities in
California. The Council therefore authorized an appeal to seek
guidance from the Court of Appeal on these novel legal questions.
The City is also exploring a ballot measure to seek voter approval
or modification of the City's general fund transfer so City voters
can have the final word on how they want to finance City services,
and at what level.[GN]

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL)
Class Period: 2/9/2017 - 7/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-pypl-2/

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

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

                      About ClaimsFiler

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

PEL-STATE BULK: Bid for Distribution of Notice Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALVIN COLLINS and ZACHARY
HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PEL-STATE BULK PLANT, LLC and WILLIAM H. BROYLES, II, Case No.
7:20-cv-00083-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's
motion for distribution of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs:

   "All hourly Frac Drivers and Frac Fuel Technicians employed
   by Pel-State who work or worked out of Pel-State's West Texas
   Terminal since March 27, 2017."

If the parties cannot agree on the content, form, and distribution
of notice, the Defendants are ordered to file any remaining
objections to Plaintiffs' proposed notice on or before October 14,
2021. It is further ordered that within 21 days of this Order, the
parties shall file with the Court their proposed method of notice,
says Judge Griffin.

On March 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Original Complaint
against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring a collective action
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Pel-State Bulk's business "includes providing fueling
services for oil and gas well drilling operators at frac sites in
Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana."

Plaintiff Collins worked for the Defendants as a Frac Fuel Driver
from September 2019 to March 2020. Plaintiff Hall worked for
Defendants as a Frac Fuel Technician from October 2019 to March
2020. Frac Fuel Drivers, like Plaintiff Collins are responsible for
"driving a Pel-State fuel truck known as a 'Bobtail' from one
position to another around the well site in order to fuel up
drilling equipment located on the well site."

Pel-State is located in Bossier City, Louisiana and is part of the
petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yq7kNy at no extra charge.[CC]


PENN NATIONAL: Court OK's FLSA & Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA R. LIPARI- WILLIAMS,
MARISSA T. HAMMOND, and LUCINDA M. LAYTON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC.,
et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06067-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional and Rule 23 Class
Certification of Wage and Hour Claims.

The Court conditionally certifies the following collectives
pursuant to the FLSA:

   a. The FLSA Gaming License Collective

      "All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of the
      applicable federal minimum wage or less per hour during
      the relevant time period at Argosy Casino Riverside or
      Hollywood Casino St. Louis, and for whom a deduction was
      taken from their wages for any amount associated with
      initially obtaining or thereafter renewing a state-issued
      gaming license;"

      The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' FLSA Gaming
      License Collective is September 15, 2018 (three years
      preceding the effective date of the parties' stipulation)
      through the date of this Order;

   b. Argosy Casino Riverside Tip Pooling Collective


      "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Argosy
      Casino Riverside during the relevant time period and who
      participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;"

      The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Argosy Casino
      Riverside Tip Pooling Collective is September 15, 2018
      (three years preceding the effective date of the Parties'
      stipulation) to April 23, 2021;

   c. Hollywood Casino St. Louis Tip Pooling Collective

      "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Hollywood
      Casino St. Louis during the relevant time period and who
      participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;"

      The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Hollywood Casino
      St. Louis Tip Pooling Collective is September 15, 2018
      (three years preceding the effective date of the Parties'
      stipulation) to October 31, 2019;

Additionally, the Court certifies the following classes pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

   a. MMWL Gaming License Class

      "All persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of the
      applicable Missouri minimum wage or less per hour during
      the relevant time period at Argosy Casino Riverside or
      Hollywood Casino St. Louis, and for whom a deduction was
      taken from their wages for any amount associated with
      initially obtaining or thereafter renewing a state-issued
      gaming license;"

      The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' MMWL Gaming
      License Class is March 31, 2017 (three years preceding the
      filing of the Class Action Petition) through the date of
      this Order.

   b. Argosy Casino Riverside Tip Pooling Class

      "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Argosy
      Casino Riverside during the relevant time period and who
      participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;"

      The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Argosy Casino
      Riverside Tip Pooling Class is March 31, 2017 (three
      years preceding the filing of the Class Action Petition)
      to April 23, 2021.

   c. Hollywood Casino St. Louis Tip Pooling Class

      "All persons employed as Table Games Dealers at Hollywood
      Casino St. Louis during the relevant time period and who
      participated in the Table Games Dealer tip pool;"

      The relevant time period for Plaintiffs' Hollywood Casino
      St. Louis Tip Pooling Class is March 31, 2017 (three
      years preceding the filing of the Class Action Petition)
      to October 31, 2019.

The Court also adopts the parties' Stipulation and directs the
parties to abide by its terms.

Penn National is an operator of casinos and racetracks based in
Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. It operates 44 facilities in the United
States and Canada, many of them under the Hollywood Casino brand.
The company also owns a 36% stake in Barstool Sports.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a7G4py at no extra charge.[CC]

PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Niemczyk Suit Moved to N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Niemczyk, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Pro Custom Solar LLC
doing business as: Momentum Solar, Case No. 2:19-cv-7846 ES/MSH was
moved from the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York on Oct. 1, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-mc-00046-LEK-CFH to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel.

Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar --
https://www.momentumsolar.com/ -- is one of the leading residential
solar contractors in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: (845) 356-2570
          Fax: (845) 356-4335
          Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


QAD INC: Continues to Defend Nantahala Capital Suit
----------------------------------------------------
QAD Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filed on September 27, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Nantahala Capital
Partners II L.P. v. QAD Inc., et al.

On June 28, 2021, QAD entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
to be acquired by Thoma Bravo (TB), a leading private equity
investment firm focused on the software and technology-enabled
services sector, in an all-cash transaction with an equity value of
approximately $2 billion.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to
satisfaction of the conditions set forth therein, QAD shareholders
will receive $87.50 per share of Class A Common Stock or Class B
Common Stock. Assuming completion of the transaction, QAD will
become a private company.

The Company is aware of four pending cases related to the Merger.

On July 2, 2021, a purported stockholder class action was filed in
Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Nantahala Capital Partners II
L.P. v. QAD Inc., et al.

The plaintiff alleges breaches of contract and fiduciary duty
against directors Anton Chilton, Scott Adelson, Kathleen Crusco,
and Peter van Cuylenburg (the "Director Defendants"), and Pamela M.
Lopker, as well as a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against Thoma Bravo and certain affiliates of Thoma
Bravo relating to the QAD Board's vote to approve the Merger
Agreement. Plaintiff names the Company as a defendant to the extent
necessary for any of the relief requested, and seeks to, among
other things, enjoin the Closing of the Merger or, in the
alternative, damages, including rescissory damages.

On August 5 and 6, 2021, purported shareholders of the Company
filed two complaints in the District Court of the Southern District
of New York, captioned Stein v. QAD Inc., et. al. and Whitfield v.
QAD, Inc., et. al.

On September 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a complaint in the District Court of the Eastern District of New
York, captioned Parmar v. QAD Inc., et al. All three actions assert
federal securities claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and related provisions for alleged failures to
disclose material information, and seek to enjoin or rescind the
Merger with Thoma Bravo and a request for an award of attorneys'
and experts' fees and damages.

QAD believes that all four pending cases are without any merit.

QAD believes that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement
comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in
the pending actions described above. QAD is voluntarily
supplementing certain disclosures in the Proxy Statement
potentially related to plaintiffs' claims with the Supplemental
Disclosures set forth below.

QAD said, "Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed
an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the
contrary, QAD specifically denies all allegations in the various
litigation matters that any additional disclosure was or is
required or material."

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3uRc1Mf.

Headquartered in Santa Barbara, Calif., QAD Inc. is a global
provider of enterprise software applications, professional services
and application support for manufacturing companies. QAD software
is used at approximately 6,000 sites by manufacturing companies
that operate mainly in six industries: automotive, consumer
products, food and beverage, high technology, industrial products
and life sciences.


RUIXUE SHI: Wu Seeks to Certify Class in "Coachella Project" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUN WU, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUIXUE SHI, aka
SERENA SHI, an individual, COACHELLA VALLEY HOTEL, LLC a California
limited liability company, HYDE MORGAN DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-11799-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3):

   1. certifying the claims for relief to proceed to trial as a
      class action; and

   2. appointing him to serve as a Class Representative of the
      following class:

      "All persons who invested in the "Palm Springs Luxury
      Hotel Investment Project" (the "Coachella Project") by way
      of a Resort Condominium Purchase and Sale Agreement
      ("Purchase Agreement");"

      Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants, their
      affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members,
      directors, officers, and/or employees; the Court and its
      staff; and any investor in the Coachella;

   3. appointing Jeffrey L. Fazio of DeHeng Law Office, P.C. to
      serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) and to
      direct notice to members of the Class pursuant to Rule
      23(c).

The Plaintiff brought this action in December 2020 and served
Defendants with the summons and complaint. When none filed a
responsive pleading, defaults were entered against each Defendant.

In 2015, the Defendants Ruixue Shi, Coachella Valley Hotel, LLC,
and Hyde Morgan Development, LLC began perpetrating a 4 to defraud
unsuspecting investors, most of whom, like Plaintiff Jun Wu, were
residents of China. Defendant Shi, who created and managed the
entity Defendants, represented to prospective investors that they
could purchase luxury condominium units at a 47-acre development in
the Coachella Valley, and that if they provided a 40% down payment,
Defendants would help them finance the balance of the purchase
price.

Impressed by Defendants' promotion of the project, Plaintiff Wu
entered into a standard purchase agreement by which he invested in
a $400,000 condominium unit in exchange for wiring Defendants a
$180,000 down payment. Shortly after entering the contract,
however, Plaintiff learned that the project was not "delayed," as
Defendants had claimed, it was never going to be built: Defendants
had not purchased only one of the three parcels comprising the
47-acre project, and the parcel that was purchased sat between the
other two parcels and had no access to a major thoroughfare so the
City of Coachella would not issue building permits in any event.

The FBI arrested Defendant Shi on federal wire fraud charges in
June 2017 and reported that she had collected at least $21.6
million from unsuspecting investors in the project.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YhlS2d
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
          Yi Yao, Esq.
          DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC
          7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 208
          Pleasanton, CA 94588
          Telephone: (925) 399-5856
          Facsimile: (925) 397-1976
          E-mail: jfazio@dehengsv.com, Esq.
                  yyao@dehengsv.com

RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION: Gambrell Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Gambrell, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. Rumpke Transportation
Company LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00801-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Michael R. Barrett entered an order:

   1. granting certification and court-supervised notice to
      potential opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
      216(B);

   2. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) collective action under section
      216(b) against Defendant Rumpke Transportation, on behalf
      of Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated;

   3. approving that the Court-approved Notice of FLSA claims be
      sent by regular mail and email to:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt welders of
      Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in
      any workweek during the three years preceding the filing
      of this Motion and continuing through the final
      disposition of this case ("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs" or
      "Putative Class Members");"

   4. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms
      with the stated modification;

   5. directing the Defendant to provide, within 14 days of
      entry of this Order, a roster of all persons who fit the
      definition above (the "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs") which
      includes their full names, dates of employment, job
      titles, locations worked, last known home addresses, and
      personal email addresses; and

   6. approving that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
      Join forms are to be sent to such present and former
      employees within 14 days of receipt of the roster using
      the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email
      addresses.

Rumpke Transportation operates as an environmentally friendly waste
disposal solutions and recycling options.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BfnkQR at no extra charge.[CC]

SAGINAW CITY, MI: Taylor Seeks Certification of Class and Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON PATRICIA TAYLOR, et
al, v. CITY OF SAGINAW, et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-11067-TLL-PTM (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting renewed motion for class and subclass
      certification pursuant to FRCP 23; and

   2. appointing attorneys Philip L. Ellison and Matthew E.
      Gronda as class counsel pursuant to FRCP 23(g).

This is a class action lawsuit challenging the legality of vehicle
'tire-chalking' by the City of Saginaw and one of its parking
enforcement officials.

As the Sixth Circuit previously explained --

      Between 2014 and 2017, Tabitha Hoskins chalked Taylor's
      tires on fifteen separate occasions and issued her
      citations in kind. Each citation included the date and
      time the chalk was placed on her vehicle's tires. The cost
      of a citation starts at $15 and increases from there.

      On April 5, 2017, Taylor filed this 42 U.S.C. section 1983
      action against the City, alleging defendants violated her
      Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches by
      placing chalk marks on her tires without her consent or a
      valid search warrant. Taylor also sued Hoskins in her
      individual capacity.

The Plaintiff Alison Patricia Taylor owns or has owned two vehicles
that have, since 2014, received more than a dozen parking tickets
issued by the City of Saginaw. These parking tickets were issued by
Defendant Tabitha Hoskins in her role as a parking enforcement
officer for Defendant City of Saginaw.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
          PO Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055
          E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
          PO Box 70
          St. Charles, MI 48655
          Telephone: (989) 249-0350
          E-mail: matthewgronda@gmail.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants, are:

          Gregory W. Mair, Esq.
          Kailen C. Piper, Esq.
          O'NEILL, WALLACE & DOYLE, PC
          300 St. Andrews Rd, Suite 302
          Saginaw, MI 48638
          Telephone: (989) 790-0960
          E-mail: gregmair@owdpc.com
                  kpiper@owdpc.com

SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS: Lacaprucia Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE LACAPRUCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v.
SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00849-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, and directing notice to the class.

The Court has already preliminarily approved the settlement, but
this renewed motion for preliminary approval is being filed to
facilitate compliance with CAFA's notice provisions.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle this case. The
settlement is fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the class members
and should be readily approved. The settlement creates a common
fund of $75,000 to cover all payments to Class Members, as well as
a service award to the Class Representative and all attorney's fees
and costs.

Every single class member who does not opt out of the settlement
will receive a payment, and no settlement monies will revert to the
Defendants. The settlement represents a reasonable balance of the
risks and delays faced by class members should this case proceed in
litigation, and is in the best interests of class members.

This case centers on alleged non-payment of 401(k) contributions to
a group of food service workers at Whiteman Air Force Base. This
present action commenced in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, and follows a related action also assigned to this Court
against Crystal Enterprises, Inc.

The Defendants removed this action to this Court, and the parties
engaged in preliminary motion practice, including a motion to
dismiss. The parties also engaged in documentary discovery. As part
of the Court's mediation program, the parties proceeded to
mediation with Joseph Knittig, Esq. Following a lengthy mediation,
further discussions, and exchange of drafts, the parties reached a
final settlement.

The settlement agreement is attached and filed with the Court. The
settlement creates a common fund of $75,000. Of this, $50,000 will
be set aside to pay class members. Payments will be in equal shares
to all participating Class Members. The named Plaintiff, Sue
"Shelly" LaCaprucia, would receive a service award of $2,500.
Finally, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs would be paid in the
amount of $22,500. Participating Class Members would release all
claims, and all pending litigation would be dismissed with
prejudice.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sonal Bhatia, Esq.
          E.E. Keenan, Esq.
          KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC
          4600 Madison Ave., Ste. 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 809-2100
          E-mail: sonal@keenanfirm.com
                  ee@keenanfirm.com

SELDAT DISTRIBUTION: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Taylor Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taylor, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. SELDAT DISTRIBUTION, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV36265 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angles Cty., Oct. 1, 2021), is brought under the
California Labor Code with regards to the Defendant's failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages.

During the entirety of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants,
he was not paid a lawful minimum wage for all hours worked. The
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for pre- and post-trip
inspections or during detentions, breakdowns and loading times. He
was regularly required to perform job duties, including the moving
of company vehicles, after his scheduled hours and without
compensation. The Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours in a
single day and/or over 40 hours in a single week. Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff for these additional overtime hours or would
pay him at a rate less than one-and-one-half times or two times his
regular rate of pay for more than eight but less than twelve hours
worked or more than twelve hours of work, respectively, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an over the road
truck driver in Los Angeles County in July 2018.

SELDAT DISTRIBUTION, INC., was and is a California corporation with
its principal place of business in Fontana, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          Matthew W. Dietz, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 622-4278
          Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                 mdietz@blackstonepc.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Property & Business Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on September 26, 2021, that
settlement agreements have been entered in the class action suits
(Property & Business Class Suit) related to the natural gas leak
from one of the injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso
Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles County .

From October 23, 2015 through February 11, 2016, Southern
California Gas Company ("SoCalGas"), a subsidiary of Sempra Energy,
experienced a natural gas leak from one of the
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility in Los Angeles County.

As previously reported, 396 lawsuits, including approximately
36,000 individual and business plaintiffs (the "Individual
Plaintiff Litigation"), a putative class action on behalf of
certain property owners and lessors (the "Property Class Action"),
a putative class action on behalf of persons and entities
conducting business within five miles of the Leak (the "Business
Class Action"), and certain other proceedings, as outlined below,
are pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak. All
these cases are coordinated before a single court in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial management.

On September 26, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an
agreement with counsel representing over 80% of the plaintiffs in
the Individual Plaintiff Litigation to resolve the claims of all
approximately 36,000 individual plaintiffs for a payment of up to
$1.8 billion.

The agreement is subject to acceptance by no fewer than roughly 97%
of all plaintiffs in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation by June 1,
2022, although SoCalGas and Sempra have the right to waive such
condition.

The agreement, which requires each plaintiff who accepts a
settlement to release all such plaintiff's claims against SoCalGas,
Sempra and their respective affiliates related to the Individual
Plaintiff Litigation and the Leak, provides that the settlement
amount will be reduced based on the number of plaintiffs who do not
accept.

The agreement is further subject to Court approval of the process
to allocate payments among the plaintiffs and a stay of the
Individual Plaintiff Litigation. The plaintiffs who do not agree to
participate in the settlement will be able to continue to pursue
their claims.

Separately, also on September 26, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered
into a settlement agreement to settle the Property Class Action for
a total amount of $40 million. If, following a fairness hearing at
which any objections to the settlement will be heard, the Court
gives final approval of the settlement, the agreement provides for
a release of SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates from
all claims related to the Leak by all property class members who do
not opt out of the class. Members of the property class who opt out
of the settlement will have the right to pursue their claims on an
individual basis.

Finally, on September 27, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into a
settlement agreement to settle the individual claims of the named
plaintiffs in the Business Class Action, which class was never
certified, for a total amount of $100,000 in exchange for a
dismissal and release of SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective
affiliates from all claims related to the Leak.

In 2020, SoCalGas and Sempra recorded $307 million ($233 million
after tax) in Aliso Canyon Litigation and Regulatory Matters on the
SoCalGas and Sempra Consolidated Statements of Operations for
costs, inclusive of estimated legal costs, related to settlement
discussions in connection with civil litigation and regulatory
matters arising out of the Leak.

As of June 30, 2021, $414 million was recorded in Insurance
Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on the SoCalGas and Sempra
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other than insurance for
certain future defense costs that may be incurred and directors'
and officers' liability, SoCalGas and Sempra have exhausted all of
their respective insurance in connection with the Leak.

As a result of entering into the agreements described above,
SoCalGas and Sempra expect to record a charge of approximately
$1.13 billion, after tax, in September 2021 (approximately $1.57
billion pre-tax) on the SoCalGas and Sempra Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations. Subject to satisfaction of the terms and
conditions of the agreements, SoCalGas expects that its net,
after-tax cash outflows related to these agreements will ultimately
be up to approximately $895 million consisting of payments of up to
$1.85 billion (inclusive of $10 million in administrative costs),
offset by collections of insurance receivable in future periods and
other adjustments. Sempra has elected to make equity contributions
to SoCalGas beginning in September 2021 that are sufficient to
maintain SoCalGas' approved capital structure in connection with
the accruals related to these agreements, and Sempra does not
expect to issue common equity in relation to these settlement
agreements.

The agreements do not cover (i) an Order Instituting Investigation
(the "OII") opened by the California Public Utilities Commission
(the "CPUC") to consider whether SoCalGas should be sanctioned for
the Leak and what damages, fines or other penalties or sanctions,
if any, should be imposed for any violations, unreasonable or
imprudent practices, or failure to sufficiently cooperate with the
Safety Enforcement Division of the CPUC as determined by the CPUC,
or (ii) an OII opened by the CPUC to determine the feasibility of
minimizing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility while still maintaining energy and electric
reliability for the region, but excluding issues with respect to
air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost
responsibility regarding the Leak (collectively, the "Regulatory
Actions").

Sempra said, "While the agreements cover substantially all of the
material civil litigation against both SoCalGas and Sempra related
to the Leak, they do not cover (i) lawsuits by five property
developers, and (ii) claims for violations of Proposition 65. In
addition, the agreements do not cover the four shareholder
derivative actions alleging breach of fiduciary duties against
certain officers and certain directors of Sempra and/or SoCalGas.
An adverse ruling in any of the (i) Regulatory Actions or
Unresolved Litigation, or (ii) lawsuits in the Individual Plaintiff
Litigation filed by plaintiffs who do not agree to settle or
lawsuits filed by property class members who opt out of the
Property Class Action settlement, could have a material adverse
effect on SoCalGas' and Sempra's cash flows, financial condition
and results of operations. In addition, there can be no assurance
that the conditions to resolve the Individual Plaintiff Litigation
will be satisfied or that the Court will approve the settlement for
the Property Class Action.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY: Myers Loses Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN J. MYERS, on
behalf of the Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan
and a class of similarly situated of the Plan, v. ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY, INC. (SSE) RETIREMENT & SAVINGS
PLAN; et al, Case No. e 5:17-cv-00200-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti entered an order regarding plaintiff's
motion for class certification:

   -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied.

   -- The Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of
      Samuel Halpern and Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert
      Testimony of Steve Pomerantz are denied without prejudice
      to a future submission.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that all
requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and that she should be
authorized to proceed with a class action on behalf of other
participants in SSE's defined contribution Plan. Further, the Court
finds that Defendants' Motions to exclude the opinions of
Plaintiff's expert under Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702 are moot.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of SSE who became a participant
in the Plan when it was established on July 1, 2014, to provide an
employer-sponsored retirement plan for SSE employees who had been
participants in a similar plan of Chesapeake Energy Corporation
before SSE's spinoff from Chesapeake. Both were "defined
contribution" or "individual account" plans as defined by ERISA, 29
U.S.C. section 1002(34), which allow participants to choose how
their contributions will be invested.

The Plan was initially funded by a transfer of assets from
Chesapeake's plan that were held for the SSE participants'
accounts, including a substantial number of shares of Chesapeake
common stock that had been part of an employee stock ownership plan
(ESOP) while the employees worked for an affiliate of Chesapeake.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FoKYgm at no extra charge.[CC]


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SPPI) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 1, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in SPPI:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=19862&from=5

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NEWS - SPPI NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
manufacturing facility for ROLONTIS, an investigational
granulocyte-colony stimulating factor analog, maintained deficient
controls and/or procedures; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies
decreased the likelihood that the Food and Drug Administration
would approve the ROLONTIS biologics license application ("BLA") in
its current form; (iii) Spectrum had therefore materially
overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Spectrum you have until November 1, 2021 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

                         About Klein Law

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

STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extension Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN GARDNER, et al., on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. STARKIST
CO., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-02561-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending
discovery and class certification deadlines as follows:

                                    Current        Proposed
                                    Deadline       Deadline

-- Deadline for completion of     Oct. 1, 2021   Not applicable    

   non-expert factual discovery
   (including depositions) and
   third-party discovery:

-- Limited non-expert factual     Not applicable   Nov. 19, 2021
   depositions as set forth in
   the stipulation above:

-- Plaintiffs' Motion for         Dec. 1, 2021   Feb. 1, 2022
   Class  Certification and
   Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2)
   Expert Disclosures/Reports
   for Class Certification:

-- Deadline for Depositions of    Jan. 25, 2022   March 25, 2022
   Plaintiffs' Class
   Certification Experts:

-- COSI's Opposition to           Feb. 22, 2022   April 22, 2022
   Plaintiffs'  Motion for
   Class Certification and
   COSI's Rule 26(a)(2)
   Expert Disclosures    
   /Reports for Class
   Certification:

-- Deadline for Depositions       April 12, 2022   June 13, 2022
   of COSI's Class
   Certification Experts:

-- Plaintiffs' Class              May 6, 2022    July 6, 2022
   Certification Reply
   Brief and Plaintiffs'
   Rule 26(a)(2) Rebuttal
   Expert Disclosures/Reports
   for Class Certification:

-- Hearing on Plaintiffs'        June 15, 2022   Aug. 24, 2022
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YjY3GG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
          & BALINT, P.C.
          9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C.
          8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700

               - and -

          Brian M. Brown, Esq.
          ZAREMBA BROWN PLLC
          40 Wall Street, 52nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 380-6700
          E-mail: bbrown@zarembabrown.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  bbeall@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com

The Attorneys for Defendant StarKist Co., are:

          Roxane A. Polidora, Esq.
          Lee Brand, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5998
          Telephone: (415) 983-1976
          Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
          E-mail: roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com
                  lee.brand@pillsburylaw.com

STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a
LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):

      "All persons or entities in the Commonwealth of Virginia
      with a Businessowners insurance policy issued by State
      Farm on Form CMP-4100, including a Loss of Income and
      Extra Expense endorsement on Form CMP 4705.1 or CMP
      4705.2, in effect at any time between March 23, 2020 and
      June 30, 2020 (the "Closure Period"), that were subject to
      partial or full business suspension under the Orders and
      submitted claims for business income losses and/or extra
      expenses incurred during the Closure Period that were
      denied by Defendants (the "Class");"

   2. appointing Elegant Massage, LLC d/b/a Light Stream Spa as
      representative of the Class;

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Carella,
      Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. and Glasser
      and Glasser, P.L.C. as Class counsel; and

   4. directing the Defendants to provide the names, last known
      addresses, home and mobile phone numbers, and email
      addresses of all Class members to Plaintiff's counsel
      within five days of the date of this Order so that Class
      members may be provided with notice pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).

State Farm Insurance is a large group of insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fl5spW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class, are:

          William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
          Marc C. Greco, Esq.
          Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
          Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
          GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
          580 East Main Street, Suite 600
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 625-6787
          Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
          E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com
                  marcg@glasserlaw.com
                  kip@glasserlaw.com
                  michael@glasserlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          Eric K. Gerard, Esq.
          Jamie M. McCall, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
          Lauren McGinley, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com
                  egerard@ktmc.com
                  jmccall@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com
                  jjacobson@ktmc.com
                  lmcginley@ktmc.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com
                  zjacobs@carellabyrne.com

STATE FARM: Munoz Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Maria Munoz,
Sandra Smiling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05211 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit filed in the Northern District of
California, is still pending.

On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.

The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by us and our
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our active client growth and strategy with
respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October
2018.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has
been appointed.

On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class
action lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws.

On October 28, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
December 9, 2019, and the company and the other defendants filed
its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019.


The court granted the company's motion to dismiss on September 30,
2020 but allowed the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

On November 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 7, 2020. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021, and the company filed its
reply in support of its motion to dismiss on January 22, 2021. The
court has taken the motion under submission.

Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal
shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters,
blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men
and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch
Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


STRADA SERVICES: Reyes Bid for FLSA Collective Action Status Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD REYES v. STRADA
SERVICES INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00976-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion seeking conditional certification of a Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.

The Court said, "Because Reyes has not met his burden of
demonstrating that the other members of the putative collective
action are similarly situated, his Motion must be denied.
Accordingly, all existing opt-in Plaintiffs are hereby dismissed
from the lawsuit without prejudice and this matter will proceed
only on Reyes's individual claims.

According to the complaint, Reyes worked for Strada from January
2019 1 until April 2021 as an electrician and/or an Electrical
Installer. Strada also employs "helpers," who Reyes describes as
"the laborers who ride along with the Installer/electrician to all
work sites and on work orders."

According to Reyes, he was "forced" to give a portion of his pay to
the helper assigned to him, and although Strada left to his
discretion how much to pay the helper, Strada directed that helpers
should be paid 30% of the rate paid to the installers.

In the complaint, Reyes classifies both installers and helpers as
"piece rate workers and laborers," and alleges that Strada shaves
or edits overtime hours from these workers' time records, permits
employees to work hours off the clock, and prevents full and
accurate reporting of workers' hours.

Strada Services is located in Sanford, Florida and is part of the
building equipment contractors industry.

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

TAMS MANAGEMENT: Bluestone Employees Get Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULES GAUTIER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC. and PAY CAR MINING, INC. and BLUESTONE
INDUSTRIES, INC. and BLUESTONE RESOURCES, INC. and BLUESTONE COAL
CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-00165 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W.
Volk entered an order:

   1. granting Gautier's motion to certify class defined as:

      "All employees of Bluestone Industries, Inc. who were
      terminated from employment, or subject to a reduction in
      force, at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex during the
      period beginning on October 14, 2019 and ending on January
      11, 2020."

   2. certifying the class as moulded; and

   3. directing the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written
      opinion and order to counsel of record and to any
      unrepresented party.

The Court said, "Gautier seeks certification under Rule 23(b) 3),
which also requires that common questions of law and fact
predominate over questions affecting only individual members. Under
this Rule, the Court must also find that a class action is superior
to the other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Respecting predomination, any
individual questions are minor and substantially outweighed by the
common questions regarding whether a WARN Act violation occurred.
Furthermore, a WARN Act claim requires that more than fifty
individuals suffer an employment loss. Joinder of that many claims
would be impracticable and unwieldy. As such, the Court finds that
Gautier's proposed class meets all the requirements for
certification."

Gautier instituted this action on March 4, 2020. He alleges that
Defendants Tams Management, Inc. and Pay Car Mining, Inc. "on their
own and in concert with their affiliates Bluestone Industries,
Inc., Bluestone Resources, Inc., and Bluestone Coal Corp." violated
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act.
Specifically, he alleges that on or about October 24, 2019,
Defendants "failed to provide their full-time employees with
60-days notice" prior to laying off more than fifty workers at the
Burke Mountain Mine Complex.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ys2Aan at no extra charge.[CC]


TENDER CORPORATION: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tender Corporation.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Tender Corporation, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08160 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

Tender Corp. Tender Corporation doing business as Adventure Ready
Brands -- https://www.adventurereadybrands.com/ -- was founded in
1975. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing and
production of agricultural chemicals.[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


THAILAND: Restaurateurs File Class Action v. PM Over Lockdown
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thai PBS World reports that Thailand's Civil Court accepted a class
action lawsuit on Sept. 27, filed by a group of 39 restaurateurs in
Bangkok and upcountry provinces, demanding 50 million baht in
compensation from Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and the others
for damage to their businesses caused by lockdown restrictions
imposed under the Government's Emergency Decree.

The group is led by Mr. Duangrit Bunnag, the proprietor of The
Never Ending Summer company, and Mrs. Sor Rattanamani Polkla.

Mrs. Sor told the media this morning, at the Civil Court, that the
group are seeking redress from the prime minister, finance,
interior and public health ministries and the Bangkok Metropolitan
Administration, for their collective mismanagement of the efforts
to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and in the issuance of
restrictions, rendering damage to their businesses.

Mr. Duangrith, meanwhile, said that none of the eateries have
received any financial help from the government for their losses
resulting from the lockdown measures.

Eateries located outside malls have been especially hard hit and
many of them have been forced to shut down because they were
unprepared to adapt to delivery services.

The court has set the first hearing in the case for November 9th.
[GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius AC Smell Causes Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A Toyota Prius AC smell caused a car owner to file a class action
lawsuit which includes these Toyota Prius vehicles in the U.S.

2006-2020 Toyota Prius
2017-2020 Toyota Prius Prime
2010-2015 Toyota PHV
2012-2016 Toyota Prius c
2012-2017 Toyota Prius v

According to the Prius lawsuit, the vehicles were defective from
the time they left the assembly lines because the air conditioning
and heating systems build up moisture and growth of mold. This
allegedly creates toxic odors that enter the Prius cabins,
especially when the AC systems are in use.

Mold and other contaminants allegedly cause smells of sweaty socks
and urine, causing Prius occupants to inhale noxious fumes that
cause health problems.

The Toyota Prius AC smells have allegedly caused owners to spend
money in an effort to erase the odors, but nothing allegedly works
other than to mask the smells which are always there.

Toyota Prius AC Smell Bulletins
The class action lawsuit alleges Toyota has issued technical
service bulletins (TSBs) about the AC odors but has refused to
recall the Prius cars to properly prevent the smells.

TSB AC002-97 was issued in 1997 and titled, "Air Conditioning
Evaporator Odor," which talked about "[b]lockage of the evaporator
housing drainpipe, resulting in the buildup of condensate" or
"[m]icrobial growth in the evaporator, arising from dampness in the
evaporator housing where the cooling air flow is dehumidified."

The bulletin described a "musty odor . . . emitted from the air
conditioning system of some vehicles which are usually operated in
areas with high temperature and humidity."

More Toyota AC smell bulletins were issued, including T-SB-0261-09,
T-SB-0142-13 and T-SB-0022-20. Toyota told dealers the Prius AC
smells were "naturally occurring" and dealers should use the A/C
Evaporator Cleaning Procedure With Toyota Genuine A/C Refresher
Kit.

In addition to the TSBs, the AC smells were addressed in Toyota
Tech Tip T-TT-0577-19.

"On 2016-2020 model year Prius and 2017-2020 model year Prius Prime
vehicles follow the recommendations when performing the HVAC odor
maintenance service using A/C Power Foam Evaporator Cleaner &
Refresher." -- T-TT-0577-19 / October 15, 2019

Even though dealers received bulletins, Toyota allegedly concealed
the AC smell defects to increase profits by selling the Prius
cars.

The plaintiff also alleges Toyota's repairs and other odor
mitigation efforts have failed to provide permanent repairs to the
air conditioner systems.

The Toyota Prius AC smell lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California: James Bettles, v.
Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Edelsberg Law, P.A., Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, and Gordon & Partners, P.A.
[GN]

TRANSPORT CANADA: Travel Restrictions Leave Residents Stranded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian residents who were stranded in Morocco due to last-minute
travel restrictions are reportedly organizing a class action
against Transport Canada.

On Aug. 30, all direct passenger flights from Morocco to Canada
were suspended until Sept. 29, Travel Week reported.

At the time, Transport Canada cited an increase in COVID-19
positive test results in travellers arriving in Canada from Morocco
over the previous month as the reason behind the ban.

Flights from Morocco already in transit at the time the
announcement was made were allowed to proceed to Canada, with
travellers on those flights taking a COVID-19 test upon arrival.

However, hundreds of other permanent residents were left stranded
in Morocco.

Short Notice on Travel Restrictions Leave Mother, Children in
Morocco
The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is a lawyer from Montreal, Awani
Review reports.

She said she was in Morocco in late August with her three children,
when she learned that returning to Canada would be banned the next
day, and for a month.

The class action lawsuit does not take issue with the border
closure, but with the short amount of notice given to Canadians in
Morocco at the time.

The class action is seeking damages including refunds of air
tickets.

This is not the first class action lawsuit filed in Canada over
COVID-19 travel bans.

In July, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador declined to
certify a proposed class action lawsuit brought by seasonal
residents who claimed the provinces' COVID-19 travel ban violated
their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Last year, five Canadian airlines were hit with a class action
lawsuit seeking refunds on behalf of passengers who can no longer
use the airline tickets they purchased due to COVID-19 travel
advisories imposed by the Canadian government. [GN]

TULARE, CA: Settlement in Criswell Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES CRISWELL, et al.,
v. MICHAEL BOUDREAUX, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Tulare
County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01048-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Dale A. Drozd entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
      parties' class action settlement and for conditional
      certification of the settlement class is granted;

   2. Plaintiff's counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and the
      American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California are
      appointed as class counsel;

   3. Plaintiffs Samuel Camposeco and Adam Ibarra are appointed
      as class representatives;

   4. The proposed notice and proposed plan of distributing
      notice are approved in accordance with Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23;

   5. If final approval of the settlement agreement is not
      granted, or the effective date does not occur, then (1)
      all parties will proceed as if the settlement agreement
      had not been executed and the related orders and judgment
      had not been entered and (2) all releases given will be
      null and void. In such an event, this court's orders
      regarding the settlement agreement, including this
      preliminary approval order, shall not be used or referred
      to in litigation for any purpose;

   6. The proposed settlement is approved on a preliminary basis
      in the manner detailed above;

   7. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement
      is set for November 29, 20 2021 at 1:30 p.m. before the
      undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final
      approval of class action settlement to be filed at least
      28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in
      accordance with Local Rule 230(b);

   8. The settlement implementation schedule set forth above is
      adopted.

Tulare County is a county in the U.S. state of California. As of
the 2010 census, the population was 442,179. Its county seat is
Visalia. The county is named for Tulare Lake, once the largest
freshwater lake west of the Great Lakes.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3agYST3 at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Court Set to Rule in Class Action Against FBI
------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Poggio, writing for Law360, reports that lawyers are eagerly
anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming term and arguments
on several legal issues touching on the core of the Constitution.

Among the high-stakes matters on the court's docket this term are
the right to access abortion and the right to carry guns in
self-defense, both of which are flashpoints in the country's deep
political divide. Other cases before the court involve the right to
a fair trial, surveillance and equal protection under the law.

With the term beginning on Oct. 4, a slew of amicus briefs have
been filed in recent weeks by the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Cato Institute, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a host of
legal scholars and interest groups.

Here, Law360 has compiled a list of top cases that will examine
issues related to civil rights and access to justice. Noted are
case details, including the number of amicus briefs filed for each
case as of Sept. 23.

Right to Carry Firearms

This case out of New York seeks to clarify whether the government
can prohibit ordinary people without criminal records from carrying
handguns outside the home for self-defense.

In taking up Bruen, the Supreme Court will hear its first gun
rights case since its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v.
Heller, which established that law-abiding individuals have a right
to possess firearms for self-defense in their homes.

Lower courts have since used that decision, penned by Justice
Antonin Scalia, as a measuring stick to determine whether state and
local gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. The results
have varied widely.

Courts across the country split on similar gun regulations and
applied different levels of legal scrutiny to them, said Ilya
Shapiro, a vice president of the Cato Institute and director of the
Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

"There has been a lot of judicial civil disobedience against the
Supreme Court," Shapiro told Law360. "This is a belated opportunity
for the Supreme Court to explain how the lower courts are supposed
to evaluate these claims."

The Bruen case originated from a legal challenge brought by two
residents of New York, who applied for a license to carry a handgun
in public for self-defense, but were denied.

New York State law has a nearly total ban on gun possession. People
seeking a gun license must establish "proper cause," a term that
the law itself doesn't define, but that has largely been
interpreted as meaning that applicants must face a severe threat to
their lives.

The two applicants sued in the district court, joined by the New
York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the largest state affiliate
of the National Rifle Association in the country. The case reached
the Second Circuit, which affirmed the state law didn't violate the
Constitution.

A Supreme Court decision in favor of the applicants could mean that
states banning the right to carry firearms will have to change
their laws, Shapiro said.

The case has been a formidable magnet for attention. Several
interest groups piled up on both sides of the question. Twenty-two
amicus briefs were filed on Sept. 21 alone, for a total of 78 since
the petition was filed.

The briefs include some from nationally known gun-control advocates
and civil rights organizations as well as a long list of states and
municipalities. The Biden administration and the American Bar
Association have both filed a brief in support of the regulation.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, filed an amicus in
support of the applicants and their "natural right to armed
self-defense," Shapiro said.

Twenty-three states filed a joint amicus in support of the
petitioners, arguing state laws banning gun possession like New
York's are unconstitutional and don't result in more safety. The
states asked the Supreme Court to restore "the original public
meaning" of the Second Amendment, which they say lower courts
departed from after Heller.

"These courts employ interest balancing to favor a sense of
security over liberty. This is backwards: liberty ensures
security," the states' brief says.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund was among the
organizations to file a brief in support of state regulators.

"State's ability to regulate public carry, and concealed carry
specifically, is important for contributing to public spaces that
are safe," Mahogane Reed, an attorney with LDF, told Law360. "This
is especially important, we think, for Black communities and
especially young Black men who are disproportionately likely to be
killed or injured because of handgun violence."

Favorable Termination

Thompson v. Clark

Argument Date: October 12, 2021
Docket number: 20-843
Total amicus filed: 17
Notable amicus: NAACP Legal Defense Fund, NACDL, ACLU, Biden
administration

People who were arrested or charged unjustly, and later decide to
sue law enforcement in federal court for civil rights violation,
must first establish that their underlying cases were terminated in
favorable ways to them. The Supreme Court will clarify what
constitutes a "favorable" termination in this context.

The Second Circuit set a rather high standard: In 2018, deciding
the case Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, the court endorsed the
view that a plaintiff must show that his proceeding "ended in a
manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence."

But the Eleventh Circuit ruled last year in the case Laskar v. Hurd
that a plaintiff must only show that the criminal proceeding
against him has "formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with
his innocence."

Six other courts of appeals have adopted the more stringent
requirement, which the Second Circuit upheld in the Thompson v.
Clark case that is now before the high court. The NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund is wary that if the Supreme Court
embraces that doctrine, victims of wrongful arrests and
prosecution, which are more often Black, will be severely limited
in their ability to sue their arresting officers.

"The case has serious implications for communities of color,
especially Black people, who are disproportionately stopped,
searched, arrested, charged, and had charges dismissed by
prosecutors without any indication as to whether they were or were
not guilty, or innocent of the underlying charges," Reed said.
"These plaintiffs would be unable to pursue claims of unreasonable
seizure or procedure under the Fourth Amendment."

Critics of the Second Circuit approach say prosecutors, who have
wide discretion in determining how cases are terminated,
practically have the power of dooming a former defendant's ability
to sue law enforcement for civil rights violations.

LDF filed an amicus brief in June urging the court to adopt the
Eleventh Circuit standard. The American Civil Liberties Union filed
one the same day advocating for the same position.

The Biden administration argued in its own brief that a termination
may be favorable to the plaintiff, for purposes of a Section 1983
claim, even if it lacks affirmative indications of innocence.

In support of the affirmation of innocence doctrine, the District
Attorneys Association of the State of New York said prosecutors
routinely dismiss cases for practical reasons, often balancing the
seriousness of a crime with the limited resources of their offices,
other times because of technicalities. Those dismissals shouldn't
give former defendants the opportunity to turn around and sue.

"Under the Eleventh Circuit's rule, any discretionary dismissal by
the prosecutor would swing open the door to a great deal of
meritless litigation," the association's brief says.

Right to a Fair Trial

United States v. Tsarnaev

Argument Date: October 13, 2021
Docket number: 20-443
Total amicus filed: 10
Notable amicus: NACDL, Center for Constitutional Rights, NAACP LDF,
ACLU, American Bar Association, National Fraternal Order of Police

The Supreme Court will review a First Circuit decision that
overturned the death sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the
perpetrators in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. Three people
were killed in the attack and about 280 were injured. Tsarnaev and
his brother also killed a campus police officer in the attack's
aftermath.

The case deals with the obligations of judges to ensure the right
to a fair trial, a principle enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, amid
national media coverage,

Tsarnaev was convicted in April 2015 and sentenced to death weeks
later. But in July last year, the First Circuit overturned the
death sentence and three of his convictions on the ground that the
district court failed to ask prospective jurors about how much and
what kind of media coverage about the case they had been exposed to
during jury selection, which lasted 21 days.

The American Bar Association submitted an amicus brief in support
of neither party in June, emphasizing the importance of questioning
potential jurors about their exposure news coverage in rooting out
potential biases, particularly in the current media landscape,
where social media spread information fast and widely.

"This Court should affirm that, when it is likely that prospective
jurors have been exposed to prejudicial publicity, they should be
individually questioned to determine what they have read and heard
about the case and how any exposure has affected their attitudes
toward the trial," the brief says.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Rutherford Institute filed a joint
amicus in support of Tsarnaev in August, focusing instead on
"powerful mitigating evidence" that was excluded during the penalty
phase of his proceedings.

That evidence involved knowledge by Tsarnaev that his older
brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had committed three murders in the name
of jihad two years before the Boston attack.

"That evidence tended to show Tamerlan instigated the later
Marathon bombings and Dzhokhar, who had no history of violence,
acted under his influence," the brief says. "That is powerful
mitigation evidence."

Representatives from the ACLU and the NACDL declined to comment on
the case, citing their involvement.

Religious Liberty and Surveillance

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

Argument Date: November 8, 2021
Docket number: 20-828
Total amicus filed: 1
Notable amicus filed: Laura K. Donohue of the Georgetown University
Law Center

This case involves the surveillance of a Muslim congregation in
Orange County, California. Between 2006 and 2007, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation sent a paid informant in the county's
largest mosque to pose as a convert to Islam. The informant
obtained personal information from hundreds of people, inquiring on
their religious and political beliefs.

In June 2011, the ACLU of Southern California filed a federal class
action against the FBI and the agents involved in the operation,
claiming it targeted people for their Muslim faith in violation of
the First Amendment. The suit also alleged the collection of
information violated the congregants' Fourth Amendment rights as
well as the Privacy Act.

In August 2011, the government moved to dismiss the case asserting
the "state secrets" privilege, a doctrine that allows the
government to exclude from discovery evidence on the basis of
national security. About a year later, the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California tossed the claims against the
FBI, but allowed those against the individual agents to proceed.

The case meandered until February 2019, when the Ninth Circuit
ruled that some of the claims the district court dismissed on state
secret grounds should not have been dismissed outright. The
decision in part affirmed and in part reversed the lower court's
ruling, remanding the case.

In December 2020, the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court to
clarify whether Section 1806 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, also known as FISA, displaces the
state-secrets privilege and allows the suit challenging the
lawfulness of government surveillance based on the privileged
evidence to play out in the district court.

FISA does not sidestep the privilege, which enables the executive
to fulfill its constitutional duty to protect national security
information, the government argued. "The Ninth Circuit's decision
to the contrary poses a substantial risk that state secrets will be
disclosed on remand in this case."

Laura K. Donohue, a research professor at the Georgetown University
Law Center, filed an amicus in support of neither party in August,
providing the court with historical background on the state secret
privilege.

Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional legal scholar and dean of
University of California, Berkeley School of Law, told Law360 in an
email that he finds "very persuasive" the Ninth Circuit's argument
that FISA authorizes a course of action.

"The state secrets doctrine is a judicially created, common law
doctrine. Where there is a statute, and here there is, that should
be followed," Chemerinsky said.

But, he added, "There has not been anything like this before the
Supreme Court so it is very hard to predict what it will do."

Before arguments in the Fazaga case get cast on Nov. 8, the
state-secrets privilege will be the focus of another case before
the high court this term, United States v. Zubaydah, which will be
argued on Oct. 6.

There, the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether the Ninth
Circuit was wrong in rejecting the government's assertion of the
privilege and allowing discovery to move forward in a case brought
by a Guantanamo Bay detainee against a contractor for the Central
Intelligence Agency involved in a highly controversial post-Sept.
11 detention and interrogation program.[GN]

UNIVAR SOLUTIONS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER SANTIAGO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNIVAR SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06527-MCS-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order setting class
certification dates as folows:

                   Event                        Date

  -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off          August 8, 2022

  -- Expert Disclosure (Initial)           August 15, 2022

  -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal)          August 29, 2022

  -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off              September 12, 2022

  -- Deadline to File a Motion for         January 31, 2022
     Class Certification

  -- Deadline to File an Opposition        February 22, 2022
     to the Motion for Class
     Certification

  -- Deadline to File a Reply              March 14, 2022

  -- Hearing Date on Motion for Class      April 4, 2022
     Certification

Univar is a global chemical and ingredients distributor and
provider of value-added services. The company was founded in 1924
as Van Waters & Rogers. It was also formerly known as Royal Vopak
and later Univar.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Afx3Fw at no extra charge.[CC]


UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Dragon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW DRAGON v. UNIVERSAL
WINDOWS DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03892-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial
order as follows:

   -- The October 4, 2021 preliminary pretrial conference is
      vacated.

   -- Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures

      The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by
      October 29, 2021.

   -- Jurisdiction and Venue

      There are no contested issues related to venue or
      jurisdiction.

   -- Amendments to Pleadings and/or Joinder of Parties

      Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or
      pleadings, if any, must be filed no laterthan December 31,
      2021. The parties anticipate filing a stipulation to
      conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards
      Act and an agreed notice for Court approval by October 4,
      2021. Any motion by Plaintiff for class certification
      under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 must be filed by
      June 3, 2022.

   -- Motions

      There are no pending motions.

   -- Allegations in the Pleadings and Jury Demand

      This is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq., and the
      Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, R.C. Chapter 4111,
      as a Collective and Class Action. Plaintiff alleges that
      he and similarly situated Technicians were misclassified
      as salary exempt employees and were not paid overtime
      premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
      Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, liquidated
      damages, an award of pre- and postjudgment interest, and
      attorneys' fees and costs against Defendant. Defendant
      denies all claims and has asserted affirmative defenses.
      There is a jury demand.

   -- Expert Disclosures

      Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by March
      31, 2022. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be
      produced by May 13, 2022.

   -- Discovery Deadline and Limitations

      The parties may, without further leave of Court, agree to
      exceed the limitations on discovery established by the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of
      this Court.

      All discovery shall be completed by May 18, 2022. For
      purposes of complying with this Order, the parties must
      schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all
      responses to be served prior to the deadline and must also
      file any motions relating to discovery within the
      discovery period.

   -- Dispositive Motions

      Case dispositive motions must be filed by June 3, 2022.

   -- Settlement

      Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by January 28,
      2022. Defendant shall respond by February 18, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ac2Sij at no extra charge.[CC]


VALVE CORPORATION: Galway, Shoss Seek Certification of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grace Galway and Brenda
Shoss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No.
2:16-cv-01941-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification of:

   "All persons in the United States who are parents/guardians
   of a minor child who provided funds to their minor child(ren)
   for the purchase of keys for the games Counter-Strike:Global
   Offensive, Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2."

Whether Valve offered online gaming to consumers but concealed and
omitted that it offered online gambling to minors is the
certifiable issue which will drive resolution of this case.

Valve has sought to capitalize on the online gaming market among
minors with its "loot boxes". Valve's loot boxes contain "skins,"
cosmetic virtual items of undisclosed and varying real-world cash
value. To obtain a skin, players may access the loot box for a
price, typically by purchasing a "key" that opens the loot box. The
skin the player obtains is determined entirely by chance. Despite
the presence of a prize (the skin), chance (opening the loot box,
which looks and sounds the same as a slot machine), and
consideration (the price of the loot box and/or key), Valve fails
to disclose that the loot box it offers to minor children simulates
online gambling.

The Plaintiffs, the parents/guardians of minor children who engaged
in Valve's illegal online gambling by purchasing keys to open loot
boxes in hopes of obtaining a skin of value, seek certification of
a class damaged by Valve's omissions and misrepresentations in
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Valve is a Washington corporation that makes and sells video games,
gaming hardware, and other digital content, including video games
called Counter-Strike: Global Offensive ("CS:GO"), Defense of the
Ancients 2 ("Dota 2"), and Team Fortress 2 ("TF2").

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3laLzKp
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul L. Stritmatter, Esq.
          Ray W. Kahler, Esq.
          Lisa Benedetti, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER
          KOEHLER MOORE
          413 8 th Street
          Hoquiam, WA 98550
          Telephone: (360) 533-2710
          E-mail: pauls@stritmatter.com
                  ray@stritmatter.com
                  lisa@stritmatter.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          The Pointe
          1205 East Washington St., Ste. 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
                  alex@jonesward.com

VERONIQUE GABAI: Crumwell Says Website Not Blind-accessible
-----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Veronique
Gabai L., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-07990 (S.D. N.Y., September 24,
2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Veronique Gabai operates the Veronique Gabai online retail store,
https://veroniquegabai.com/, that provides consumers with access to
an array of fragrances, beauty supplies, accessories and other
products available online for purchase, and to ascertain
information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and
return and privacy policies. Crumwell is legally blind and claims
that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
             Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
             Dana@Gottlieb.legal


VILLAGE CARE: Veras Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------------
Onoria Veras, Tawana Lawton, Kadian Gordon-Mulet, Maribel Almonte
and Aleksandra Barsuk, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated v. VILLAGE CARE OF NEW YORK, INC., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05461 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2021), is brought to recover
unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals under the Fair Labor Standards Act, under the New York
Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
persons work all day long and well into the night, as well as on
weekends, reviewing and responding to emails, making and receiving
telephone calls, reviewing Medicare enrollment applications to
ensure that they are complete, collecting documents from enrollees,
updating reports and submitting paperwork. Defendant has failed to
pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons premium
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in
violation of both the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant to enroll
individuals in Medicare insurance programs.

The Defendant is a not-for-profit health maintenance organization
that contracts with state and local governments to provide managed
care to Medicare-eligible New Yorkers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, New York 11788
          Phone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


WASHINGTON: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to March 4, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ROGERS, RONALD
ACKERSON, and DAMIEN RIVERA et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN,
YOUTH and FAMILIES (DCYF) et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05248-RAJ-MLP
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson entered an order
that:

   1. The stipulation of the parties is approved and adopted.

   2. The Plaintiffs' deadline under the pretrial scheduling
      order to file their Motion for Class Certification and
      Report of Class Certification Expert is continued from
      December 3, 2021 to March 4, 2022.

   3. The deadline for Defendants' to file their opposition to
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification should be re-
      set from the due date of January 21, 2022 to April 22,
      2022.

   4. The Plaintiff's deadline to file their Reply re: Motion
      for Class Certification should be re-set from February 25,
      2022 to May 27, 2022.

   5. Depositions in this matter are stayed until this Court has
      ruled on Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance under FRCP
      56(d).

DCYF is a cabinet-level agency focused on the well-being of
children.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uEDZLb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:

          Sarah R. Nagy, Esq.
          Nicholas B. Straley, Esq.
          Jonathan Momamiukor, Esq.
          Alison Bilow, Esq.
          101 Yesler Way, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 464-0838
          E-mail: Sarah.Nagy@Columbialegal.org
                  Nick.Straley@Columbialegal.org
                  Jonathan.Nomamiukor@columbialegal.org
                  Alison.Bilow@Columbialegal.org

The Attorneys for Defendants are:

          Daniel J. Judge, Esq.
          Anne Miller, Esq.
          William McGinty, Esq.
          Cindy J. Gaddis, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          7141 Cleanwater Drive SW
          PO Box 40124
          Olympia, WA 98504-0124
          Telephone: (360) 586-6565
          Facsimile: (360) 586-6657
          E-mail: Daniel.Judge@atg.wa.gov
                  William.McGinty@atg.wa.gov
                  Anne.Miller@atg.wa.gov
                  Cindy.Gaddis@atg.wa.gov


WEST ROAD: Calhoun Bid to Send Notice to Employees Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samantha Calhoun v. West
Road Pizza Stop, Inc., et al., Case No. e 5:20-cv-12661-JEL-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order
terminating Plaintiff's motion to send notice to similarly situated
employees pending the filing of the parties' settlement documents.


On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff Samantha Calhoun filed a motion to
send notice to similarly situated employees.

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement that
is signed by counsel for both sides.

The Plaintiff may refile her motion, if necessary, Judge Levy
says.

A copy of the Court's orderdated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yj93Uq at no extra charge.[CC]

WESTCO CHEMICALS: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Nixed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DRANEY and LORENZO
IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
others similarly situated, v. WESTCO CHEMICALS, INC., et al., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D.
Wright, II entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify settlement class and
      as moot Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
      class action, both WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing an amended
      motion after revising class or other aspects of the
      settlement pursuant to the Court's concerns; and

   2. If proceeding with an amended motion, directing Plaintiffs
      to schedule the hearing on their amended motion at least
      two months after the date they file it.

This is so the Court has sufficient time to review the settlement
prior to the hearing date. The Court will hold a hearing, if
necessary, to address any remaining issues in real time as to avoid
the need for further motion practice.

The Court said, "In most situations, unless the settlement is
clearly inadequate, its acceptance and  approval are preferable to
lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results. This Court
emphasizes that class disposition of this matter may very well be
appropriate and notes that, byits back-of-the-napkin 7 based on the
data presented, nothing in the record suggests the total 8 amount
of $500,000 is patently or necessarily unreasonable. As a broad,
class disposition of this matter appears favorable, and the Court
10 and appreciates the diligent efforts of class counsel, as
officers of this, to craft a settlement that is fair to all class
members."

The Plaintiffs Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra are employees of
Defendant Westco Chemicals, Inc., whose principals are Defendants
Ezekiel Zwillinger and Steven Zwillinger. The Plaintiffs
participated in Westco's 401(k) Plan, a defined-contribution,
individual account pension plan subject to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA). The Plaintiffs allege that throughout
most of the 2010s, the Zwillingers, as Westco's principals,
invested the 401(k) Plan funds exclusively in low-interest-bearing
certificates of deposit ("CDs"), failing to diversify the
investments or otherwise construct a proper investment platform.

The Plaintiffs allege that Westco employees missed out on over $1
million of collective fund growth as a result.

Westco is a supply and distribution company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ldVheY at no extra charge.[CC]


WESTERN REFINING: Court Tosses Schmidtberger's Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delmar Schmidtberger v.
Western Refining Retail, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-04300-VAP-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order:

   1. denying Motions to strike filed by the parties on August
      20, 2021 and August 30, 2021; and

   2. denying motion for class certification filed by Plaintiff
      Delmar Schmidtberger on April 23, 2021.

The Court said, "By no later than October 11, 2021, the parties are
directed to file a joint status report with proposed dates for the
following: last date to conduct settlement conference; initial
expert disclosures deadline; rebuttal expert disclosures deadline;
discovery cut-off date; last date for hearing any motions for
summary judgment; pre-trial conference date; and trial date."

The Plaintiff Schmidtberger initiated this action by filing a
putative class action Complaint against Defendant Western Refining
Retail, LLC on May 17, 2019. Defendant filed an Answer to the
Complaint on June 11, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC) on June 18, 2019.

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) failure to
provide meal periods; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest; (3)
failure to maintain required records; and (4) failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements.

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges he "brings this action on behalf of
himself and the following similarly situated class of individuals:
all current and former 9 -exempt employees of [Defendant] in the
State of California at any time within the period beginning four
years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time
this action settles or proceeds to final judgment."

The Plaintiff moves to strike the Bennett, Boyd, Brommer, Delgado,
Delgadillo, Espanada, Felton, Gerardo, Harborth, Hencon, Leon, and
McDonald Declarations, filed by Defendant in opposition to the
Motion for 5 Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BjhG0c at no extra charge.[CC]

WHEATLEIGH CORP: Class of Service Employees Certified in Mongue
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLETA MONGUE v. THE
WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, L. LINFIELD SIMON, SUSAN SIMON,
and MARC WILHELM, Case No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification

   2. certifying the following class:

      "All individuals who worked as wait staff employees,
      service employees, or service bartenders for Defendants
      from June 26, 2017, to March 1, 2020, and were paid a
      Service Rate;"

   3. appointing Jeffrey S. Morneau of Connor & Morneau, LLP as
      class counsel.

The Wheatleigh Corporation is located in Lenox, Massachussets, and
is part of the Traveler Accommodation Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YlsjRV at no extra charge.[CC]

WINSLOW TOWNSHIP: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Registration Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WINSLOW TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY; and COMMUNITY CHAMPIONS
CORPORATION d/b/a PRO CHAMPS, Case No. CAM-L-002890-21 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Camden Cty., Sept. 21, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class
composed of New Jersey citizens who were required to pay annual
registration fees of between $500 and $5,000 as part of the Winslow
Township Vacant Properties Registration Program (the "Program").

The ordinance authorizing the creation of the Program, and the
Program itself, are unconstitutional, ultra vires and contrary to
New Jersey law, in that: the mandatory annual registration fees
charged to class members under the Program, which range between
$500 and $5,000 per year, per property, greatly exceed the actual
costs of the Program, and the Program is thus not a proper exercise
of police powers and is instead an unlawful municipal
revenue-raising measure of a type barred by New Jersey law which
Winslow Township is not legally empowered to enact; Winslow
Township's delegation to a private, for-profit company, Defendant
Community Champions Corporation, of full managerial power and
control over the Program, including registration of properties and
the collection of municipal funds under the Program, in the absence
of any delegation legislation which would enable this private
entity to exercise such governmental functions, is in violation of
established New Jersey law; and the Defendants' policy of treating
any unpaid annual registration fees mandated by the Program as
liens on real property, and requiring title companies to collect
such unpaid registration fees at real estate closings and in other
circumstances, violates New Jersey law.

This lawsuit seeks, inter alia: a declaratory judgment declaring
that the ordinance authorizing the creation of the Winslow Township
Vacant Properties Registration Program, and the Program itself, are
unconstitutional, ultra vires and contrary to New Jersey law; an
order for equitable and injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants
from continuing to operate the Program in the manner described
herein; and an order directing that the annual registration fees of
$500 to $5000 which class members were required to pay under the
existing Program be refunded to the class, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Stephanie Santos is a New Jersey citizen residing in
Winslow Township,

Winslow Township is located in Camden County, New Jersey, and is
organized as a municipality under the constitution and laws of the
State of New Jersey, and is a citizen of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Phone: (856) 797-9951

               - and -

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Geoffrey J. Smith, Esq.
          JAVERBAUM, WURGAFT, HICKS, KAHN, WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
          1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Rd., Ste. 203
          Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Phone: (856) 596-4100


WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement in CA Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27,
2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the court
entered an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement of
the California Class Action entitled, In re Woodbridge Investments
Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

On August 6, 2021, the Trust agreed to the terms of a settlement of
two pending actions against Comerica Bank. The terms of the
settlement, reached following negotiations with Comerica Bank and
the plaintiffs in a putative class action against Comerica Bank in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, are the subject of a Settlement Agreement among the
plaintiffs, Comerica Bank, and the Trust ("Comerica Settlement
Agreement").  

Comerica Bank is the institution at which the Debtors maintained
all of their bank accounts, and these actions arise out of the
Debtors' former banking relationships with Comerica Bank.

The Comerica Settlement Agreement resolves two actions.  

One of the actions, captioned In re Woodbridge Investments
Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a
consolidated putative class action in District Court brought on
behalf of former noteholders and unitholders of the Debtors (the
"California Class Action").  

The California Class Action is comprised of five separate lawsuits
filed between January 4, 2018 and April 26, 2018 and, as
consolidated, asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations
of California's unfair competition law.  

The Trust believes that it is the largest member of the putative
class in the California Class Action, as holder of approximately
60.9% of all claims against Comerica based on the claims
contributed to the Trust by former investors of the Debtors.

The other action resolved by the settlement, captioned Michael I.
Goldberg as trustee for the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust v.
Comerica Bank, Adv. Pro. No. 20-ap-50452-BLS (Bankr. D. Del.), is
an adversary proceeding pending in the Bankruptcy Court, in which
the Trust has asserted claims against Comerica Bank for fraudulent
transfers under the California Civil Code (the "Delaware Adversary
Action").

The Delaware Adversary Action also incorporates the claims asserted
against Comerica Bank in the California Class Action to the extent
that such claims may ultimately be determined to belong to the
Debtors' estates rather than to individual former noteholders and
unitholders.

Under the terms of the Comerica Settlement Agreement, the
California Class Action is required to be settled as a class
action, subject to District Court approval, on the basis of a class
defined to consist of (i) the Trust, as assignee of the claims of
the holders of Net Claims in Class 3 (Standard Note Claims, as
defined in the Plan) and Class 5 (Unit Claims) of the Plan who are
Contributing Claimants (as defined in the Plan) and (ii) the
holders of Net Claims in Class 3 (Standard Note Claims, as defined
in the Plan) and Class 5 (Unit Claims) of the Plan who are not
Contributing Claimants. For purposes of distributions under the
Settlement Agreement, the holders of Net Claims who are not
Contributing Claimants are deemed to be the holders of such Net
Claims as of February 15, 2019.

Under the Comerica Settlement Agreement, Comerica Bank has agreed
to pay (including through its insurers) an aggregate of $54.5
million, consisting of $54.2 million to settle the California Class
Action (the "Class Payment") and $300,000 to settle the Delaware
Adversary Action (the "FT Payment").  

The Class Payment is intended to provide recoveries to members of
the plaintiff class and to fund, in amounts to be determined by the
District Court, the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel in the
California Class Action, not to exceed 25% of the California Class
Action settlement payment, the costs of administering the
settlement, and certain incentive award for the class
representatives.  

Under the Comerica Settlement Agreement, Comerica Bank (and certain
related parties) is required to be released from all claims
advanced, or that could have been advanced, related to the facts
alleged in the California Class Action or the Delaware Adversary
Action.

The settlement amount is to be paid within ten business days of the
Settlement Effective Date. The Net Class Consideration (defined as
the Class Payment minus Court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs) is
required to be distributed to class members as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, resulting in a distribution to the Trust of
approximately 60.9% of the Net Class Consideration (corresponding
to the Trust's holding of approximately 60.9% of all claims against
Comerica based on the claims contributed to the Trust by former
investors of the Debtors).  

No costs of administration or incentive award will be deducted from
the Trust's share of the Net Class Consideration.  The Trust has
agreed not to opt out of the settlement with respect to these
claims.  The FT Payment is required to be distributed to the Trust.


The FT Payment is not subject to reduction for any reason,
including attorneys' fees, costs of administration, or incentive
awards.

The proposed settlement of the California Class Action is subject
to court approval, and settlement of the Delaware Adversary Action
is subject to settlement of the Class Action. Court approval and
payment of the proposed settlement amounts is expected by the first
quarter of calendar year 2022 but could be delayed by appeals or
other proceedings.  

Additionally, Comerica has the right to terminate the settlement if
class members accounting for more than an agreed amount of claims
elect to opt out of the settlement.

On September 3, 2021, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement of the California Class
Action.

Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC were formed pursuant to the Plan.
The purpose of the Trust is to prosecute various causes of action
owned by the Trust, to litigate and resolve claims filed against
the Debtors, to pay allowed administrative and priority claims
against the Debtors (including professional fees), to receive cash
from certain sources and, in accordance with the Plan, to make
distributions of cash to Interestholders subject to the retention
of various reserves and after the payment of Trust expenses and
administrative and priority claims. The trust is based in Sherman
Oaks, California.


[*] Class Suits Seen in Mining Industry Before 2040 on Health Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Mining reports that the mining industry is on an upward
trajectory of electrification and social licence, as it continues
to shake off a turbulent history, according to a State of Play
report.

The mining survey platform's ecosystem survey report was conducted
in conjunction with the University of Queensland, CSIRO, METS
Ignited and SLATE.

It found the biggest impact on innovation in mining over the next
15 years will be technological change, followed by environmental
pressures.

State of Play chair Graeme Stanway recalled how COVID-19 has
accelerated technological development to deal with these issues of
electrification, health, and safety.

"COVID-19 has condensed 15 years of change in work practices into
one," Stanway said.

"The use of artificial intelligence to automate value chain
decisions is poised to revolutionise the industry as datasets from
across the value chain coalesce."

The outcomes of this transformation, however, remain far more
uncertain, as the industry untangles 15 years' worth of learning in
as little time as possible.

"Even if our government doesn't enforce decarbonisation
requirements, our customers' governments are through to their
suppliers, so we are forced to decarbonise anyway," one mining
company executive told the survey.

Following in this vein, the energy sources expected to power the
industry are solar (up 11 per cent from 2010 to 83 per cent), gas
(down 10 per cent to 52), and wind (up 16 per cent to 41).

Another mining executive told the survey that the power of solar
energy has yet to be harnessed to its full capacity yet.

"People don't realise that it's cheaper right now to put in solar
power than coal," they said.

The glaring reason for cleaner mining operations is not only for
the health of the environment, but for those working right at the
coal face.

The report found that 76 per cent of industry executives believe
there will be an industry-level class action on a health matter
before 2040.

One services company chief executive officer told the survey their
company enforced measures to improve health and safety and
consequently tripled productivity.

Another said there was now no excuse to remain ignorant on mining
health issues.

"If a board sees that class action statistic and does nothing, they
should all be sacked," they said.

To keep up to date with Australian Mining, subscribe to our free
email newsletters delivered straight to your inbox. Click here.
[GN]

[*] Litigation Funding Sector Growing Up in United Kingdom
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Rothwell, writing for Law Gazette, reports that with a vital
role in the competition class actions regime, a push towards
standard documentation and a nascent secondary market, the
litigation funding sector is growing up.

The low down
As capital floods into litigation funding, the sector has entered a
new phase. Rather than sitting back and waiting for cases, funders
often now play an integral role in the instigation of litigation --
particularly collective actions. Funders are a key part of the
Consumer Rights Act 1995 collective actions regime, but with so
many of them now active, battles between rival funders' claimant
groups are inevitable. The Competition Appeal Tribunal heard the
first of these 'carriage disputes' in July. The industry anxiously
awaits its judgment. Meanwhile there are signs that the market is
maturing. A push towards freely available, standardised documents
will help hedge funds and other players enter the field, while a
secondary market for funding investments is finding its feet.

What shall I do with all this cash I have been given? This is not a
question most of us have to trouble ourselves with - more's the
pity. But litigation funding -- with its rare status as a
potentially high-yielding asset unaffected by shifts in the economy
-- is attracting record levels of investment. Research earlier this
year by City firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain suggested that the
cash currently held by UK funders or invested in their cases now
surpasses £2bn.

Part of the sector's growth is down to new market entrants; with
many funds that previously invested in real estate now turning
their eyes on litigation, for instance. Existing litigation funders
are also increasing their financial firepower. In June, for
example, Augusta Ventures raised £250m in its latest new fund,
bringing its total assets under management to £585m.

But investors do not expect funders to sit smugly atop their vast
war chests, twiddling their thumbs. The cash must be put to work.
That is why, in recent times, litigation funding has entered a new
phase. As Maurice Power, chief executive officer at Apex Litigation
Finance, puts it: 'There's a lot of money in litigation funding
now. The challenge for most funders is deployment of capital. What
I see is more funders instigating claims, rather than waiting for
claims to come to them.'

What kind of claims are they instigating? The main focus is
noticeably on collective actions, sometimes on a grand scale. The
number of mass actions being financed by litigation funders is
striking. Indeed, the new 'opt-out' collective action regime for
competition law openly depends on the involvement of funders,
without whom these significant cases simply could not be brought.

Neil Purslow, chief investment officer of Therium Capital
Management, which specialises in collective actions, explains:
'Funding has become an integral part of these large group claims.
The relationship between the case and the funder is symbiotic.'

Group actions are very expensive to get off the ground, and the
damages to be attributed to each individual may be as low as a few
hundred pounds per head. But their sheer scale -- sometimes brought
on behalf of millions of claimants -- makes them economically
rewarding for funders; assuming they don't lose.

Richard Wise, partner at Addleshaw Goddard, which has set up a
special unit to advise on litigation funding issues, says: 'The
most interesting bit of the market is the way that law firms and
funders are originating the work. These days, we talk about
"issues-based" litigation. Essentially you spot a trend and you go
out and find clients who are affected. It might be about
sustainability, the environment, emissions, or share-price
activity, for example.'

It is certainly a trend that has caught the attention of defendant
clients. Herbert Smith Freehills partner Chris Bushell observes:
'Most class actions started more around securities and consumer
products, and that's still there. But there seems to be an
increasing focus on other types of class action, like data breach
and ESG [environment, social and governance]. From the defence
side, the scope of issues that a client might face is getting
wider.'

Much of the high-profile activity of funders relates to the new
class action regime for competition law claims brought in by the
Consumer Rights Act 2015. From the claimant perspective, the beauty
of these claims is that they can be run on an 'opt-out' basis,
meaning that a class of millions of people - be it truckers,
consumers, technology users or rail passengers - can be represented
by one individual.

But as more funders pile into this area, the more likely it is
that, while one funder is busy shovelling cash into the formation
of a mountainous claim, another funder down the road has also
grabbed a spade and is doing is exactly the same thing with a
different law firm partner. The problem is that in an opt-out
collective action, only one group can be certified to represent the
class of claimants - and it will be down to the Competition Appeal
Tribunal (CAT) to decide which one that is.

Purslow is all too familiar with this problem. In July 2019,
Therium was quick off the blocks to back the launch of an opt-out
mass action against some major banks based on findings by the
European Commission (EC) of cartel activity relating to the foreign
exchange market. But in December that year, a rival opt-out claim
was filed. This 'carriage dispute' over which of the two claims
should be certified to proceed was heard by the CAT in July: the
first time it has grappled with this fundamental issue. The CAT's
decision is expected some time from this month - and the industry
is holding its breath to discover what reasoning the CAT will adopt
in making its decision.

Meanwhile a second carriage dispute is also due to be heard by the
CAT, in the 'truck cartel' litigation relating to a 2016 finding by
the EC that a group of truck manufacturers conspired to fix prices.
Here, Therium is backing a claim brought by the Road Haulage
Association (RHA), while a competing claim is being brought by
another group, UK Trucks Claim Ltd (UKTCL), also backed by
litigation funding. Purslow describes the two groups as 'loosely
competing, but it's not cut-throat'.

This is probably because, in this particular case, there may be
scope for both groups to proceed. The RHA's claim is an 'opt-in'
action, with around 3,500 claimants actively signed up. The
competing claim by UKTCL is primarily an 'opt-out' claim. So it is
possible that the CAT will allow the RHA claim to proceed as an
opt-in class action, and UKTCL to be certified as an opt-out action
that excludes any hauliers already signed up to the RHA claim.

For some, progress on this key question of how carriage disputes
will be resolved has been much too slow. Leslie Perrin, chair of
the International Legal Finance Association, set up a year ago to
be the global voice of the funding industry, says: 'It's a very
undeveloped jurisprudence, so people are guessing about which
routes the court will take. It involves trying to predict [CAT]
president Roth's frame of mind, which isn't easy.

'It's taking far too long and it's too unpredictable. But that's
inevitable when you're testing and introducing a new line of
jurisprudence. We had never even thought of opt-out collective
proceedings before. It's a creature of statute, and people are
making it up as they go along. The defendants are highly motivated
to defend these claims or delay them, because they are so big, and
some of these cases are so monstrous.'

Are we likely to see aggressive jostling between funders as they
compete for certification in these huge claims? Brown Rudnick
partner Christian Toms does not think so. 'In the CAT, the
experience we've had is that there's been a lot of co-operation
between funders - more than is reported on,' he insists. Toms
considers that once funders have got a claim together and begun
pushing it forward, if they lose the bid to achieve certification
for their particular group, 'there's always an arrangement to be
done' - for example by joining forces.

He adds: 'Funders will need to be open to working together. There
may be some chafing to start with, but the funders will find an
equilibrium. In the longer term, we may see syndicates of funders
that [regularly] work together.'

Commercial-offices

Second chances
The mark of a well-established financial sector is when the asset
in question inspires enough confidence to be bought and sold in a
'secondary market'. So the fact that a nascent secondary market is
now emerging for litigation investments is a positive sign for the
litigation finance industry. 'There's definitely a market there,'
remarks Robert Hanna, co-founder of funder Augusta Ventures. 'This
is a sign of the litigation funding market growing up and
evolving.'


'We're seeing a lot more [trading] on the secondary market than we
were seeing a few years ago,' observes Brown Rudnick partner Elena
Rey. 'It's interesting to see how firms that were working on the
trading of distressed debt are now looking at buying into a claim
that's already developed. And I see funders wanting to do a big
claim and syndicate their exposure.'

For Leslie Perrin, chair of the International Legal Finance
Association, this positive trend shows that the standard of
documentation now prevalent in the industry is 'mature' enough to
'carry the weight' of the secondary market. 'If you had done it on
the back of a cigarette packet, no one would buy it,' he says.

Funders may wish to sell on their interests for a host of reasons:
to balance their concentration of risk in different sectors; or
because of limits on the total amount of capital they can invest,
for example. Once a secondary market becomes well-established, it
will significantly boost liquidity for investors: instead of their
cash being tied up until a case completes, it can be released at
any time by selling the litigation asset on the secondary market.

Tets Ishikawa, managing director of funder LionFish, suggests that
a good indication of the direction of travel is the current market
for commercial real estate financing, where the type and size of
deals available is similarly varied, and deals are independently
brokered or negotiated, rather than traded on a platform. But he
adds that platforms are already been created that will serve as
'noticeboards' for litigation funding deals. 'There are a lot more
funds doing secondary trading than has necessarily been recognised
in the marketplace,' he says.

Bearing the standard
With new players eagerly limbering up ready to run on to the
litigation funding pitch, attention has turned to the industry's
documentation. A working group set up by Brown Rudnick partner
Elena Rey is putting together what is intended to be a set of
freely available, standardised documents; starting with a model
litigation funding agreement, and a priorities agreement for
setting out the waterfall of payments.

The working group comprises funders, institutional claimants,
insurers, barristers and law firms. Rey previously helped the Loan
Market Association (LMA) set up similar model documents for the
real estate finance market.

She says: 'The time it takes to negotiate quite short litigation
funding agreements is actually much longer than you would take to
negotiate a hundred-page LMA document. These standard documents
that we're creating will minimise the time and expense spent on
that aspect, and allow parties to focus on the commercial side of
the negotiation.'

Tets Ishikawa, managing director of funder LionFish, made
LionFish's litigation funding documentation suite freely available
in March this year. He would like to see the legal finance industry
move towards the template document approach used in the syndicated
loan market; or to the approach taken in the derivatives field,
where the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA)
provides standard definition for common terms.

'You can write contracts saying, "we enter into this agreement
based on the [1996 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions]",' explains
Ishikawa. 'When you get standard concepts, and everyone refers to
them, it makes the whole process easier.' This could include a
standard definition for concepts such as a 'successful' or
'unsuccessful' outcome, he suggests.

Standard documents or definitions would be especially helpful for
the many new entrants into the market, such as credit funds and
hedge funds. 'If they've got a document that's been signed off by a
major law firm as a standard document, then it's easier for them,'
notes Perrin.

But Wise says that while the more established funders can see some
benefit in the widespread sharing of standard documentation, they
are wary of clients thinking there is no room for negotiation on
those standard terms. 'The idea that the standard documents won't
need to be negotiated isn't right,' Wise warns. 'There will need to
be negotiation on the nitty-gritty of the consequences of
termination of the agreement and what it means for different
parties, for example. That will depend on the relative strength of
the negotiating parties.'

For savvy clients and their legal advisers who want to exploit the
buoyant funding market and shop around for the best deal - or even
play one funder off against another - there is a serious stumbling
block, however. Funders want to look deeply into the merits and
value of a claim before they make an offer of finance - which is
understandable. But because they might spend up to £100,000 on
legal and quantum advice before making an offer, most will insist
on an 'exclusivity clause' before they enter into that
investigatory phase. This prevents the client from engaging with
other funders and weakens their position when negotiating terms.

Unlike most funders, Ishikawa is not a fan of exclusivity clauses.
'They have exclusivity agreements in private equity as well,' he
concedes. 'But that happens at a different point in the curve. It's
much later, when the standard due diligence will be done, and
you're at the confirmatory due diligence stage - where you're
essentially checking that everything that anyone said is
[accurate]. In the funding industry, the exclusivity comes way, way
too early.'

Competitive edge
When it comes to competition between funders, one way that they can
bring down their costs is by striking deals with law firms to
finance a basket of cases, sometimes with more streamlined due
diligence processes due to the trusted relationship with the law
firm. These 'portfolio deals' have been a feature of the market for
several years.

New arrangements are still cropping up. The latest was an
announcement earlier in September of a £150m joint venture between
City firm Mishcon de Reya and Harbour Litigation Funding. The
venture, 'MDR Solutions', will see Harbour and Mishcon co-investing
in cases.

But while a client will often benefit from better terms by using a
law firm's portfolio funding partner, the relationship can never be
exclusive, or even give the funder 'first dibs' on the law firm's
cases. 'The law firm has to be able to represent the client in the
best way they can,' says Toms. 'It's a conduct point, and also a
market point. As a lawyer, you have to look at what's in the best
interests of the client; whether these are the best terms.'

But even if there is no formal obligation to give the portfolio
funding partner priority on the juiciest cases, might the law firm
feel an unspoken pressure to do so? Not according to Toms: 'As
lawyers, we need to be able to show the Solicitors Regulation
Authority that we did a proper trawl of the market. Lawyers are
very conscious of conflicts. It's baked into our DNA.

'It's the client's choice. That's the beauty of it - as long as
that choice remains in the market.'

With new players muscling in on the funding action, investors keen
to hand over their cash and a growing secondary market for
litigation investments, lack of choice over funding providers does
not look like a problem that litigation clients are likely to face
any time soon. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Committee Criticizes Aldrich Pump's $545M Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Sullivan of Law360 reports that the committee of existing
asbestos injury claimants in the Chapter 11 case of Aldrich Pump
said 2021, it hasn't had sufficient time to review a proposal to
settle asbestos claims in the company's bankruptcy for $545 million
because it only received the terms of the deal late last week.

During a video status conference in Charlotte, North Carolina,
bankruptcy court, committee attorney Todd E. Phillips of Caplin &
Drysdale said Aldrich Pump had reached agreement on the settlement
to be embodied in its Chapter 11 plan without input from the
asbestos claimants committee and only negotiated with the future
claims representative.

As reported in the TCR, the Debtors are asking the Bankruptcy Court
to approve the establishment and funding of a North Carolina trust
that will constitute a "qualified settlement fund" to resolve or
satisfy current and future asbestos-related claims asserted against
or related to the Debtors.  The Debtors explained that over the
span of nearly seven months, the Debtors, the FCR, and their
respective professionals engaged in negotiations with the goal of
arriving at appropriate terms for a section 524(g) trust.  These
efforts culminated in an agreed settlement on a plan with funding
for a section 524(g) trust in the amount of $545 million -- $540
million of which would be paid on the effective date of the plan.
Ireland's Trane Technologies PLC has agreed to pay at least $270
million to help settle asbestos claims.  Historically, the Debtors'
insurance reimbursed approximately 50% of the amount of
Aldrich/Murray Asbestos Claims.  As a result, the Section 524(g)
trust will be fully funded when the Plan goes effective.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Personal Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of defense costs, settlements and judgments allocable
to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Ykt2CU

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Agrees to Pay $270MM to Settle Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland's Trane Technologies PLC has agreed to pay at least $270
million to help settle asbestos claims that pushed Aldrich Pump LLC
and Murray Boiler LLC into bankruptcy last year.

Davidson, North Carolina-based Aldrich Pump and Murray are U.S.
units of Trane, a global climate innovator that brings efficient
and sustainable climate solutions to buildings, homes, and
transportation.  The Debtors made industrial equipment that, in
some instances, incorporated certain asbestos-containing
components
manufactured and designed by third parties.

Trane was known as Ingersoll Rand plc before it completed in the
first quarter of 2020 a spin-off of its industrial business, which
was subsequently merged with Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc.  On May
1, 2021, Aldrich's predecessor, the former Trane Technologies
Company LLC, successor by merger to Ingersoll-Rand Company (a
former New Jersey corporation) ("Old IRNJ"), and Murray's
predecessor, the former Trane U.S. Inc. ("Old Trane"), underwent
corporate restructuring to address Old IRNJ's and Old Trane's
asbestos-related claims.

The 2020 Corporate Restructuring was effectuated through a series
of transactions, including divisional mergers under Texas law, that
resulted in the creation of the Debtors, both North Carolina
limited liability companies.  Aldrich was allocated certain of Old
IRNJ's assets and became solely responsible for certain of its
liabilities, including the asbestos claims against Old IRNJ and the
defense of those claims.  Murray was allocated certain of Old
Trane's assets and became solely responsible for certain of its
liabilities, including the asbestos claims against Old Trane and
the defense of those claims.


                            *********

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 ***