/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211011.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 197

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL: Cossin Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Smith Claims
3M COMPANY: Bailey Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Boyle Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Faces Watts Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Jepsen Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Perry Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
8250 SUNSET: Urrutia Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks

AARON'S LLC: Deering Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
ACRO SERVICE: Oskouie Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
ACTION COLLECTION: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
ACTION PROPERTY: Stone Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
ALDI INC: Illinois Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Brodsky Class Suit

AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Sues to Recover Lost Wages
AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMERICAN PIZZA: Burns Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
AMHERST MAINTENANCE: Underpays Painters, Alvarez Suit Claims
ANDERSEN WINDOWS: Ruiz Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: 'Agave Spiked Seltzer' Has Been Hit With Lawsuit
ANTHEM INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Nixon Class Suit
APEX USA: Francis Suit Loses Class Certification Bid
APPHARVEST INC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of November 23 Deadline
APPLE INC: Class Cert. Reply Brief Extended to Oct. 19

ASCENSION LINGERIE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BED BATH: Settlement Reached in NJ Consolidated Putative Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Bid to Certify Class Tossed
BOY SMELLS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRYAN COWDERY: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in McElwee

BUTTERBALL LLC: Mohr Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Dismisses Bell Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: Thomas Prisoner Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Suit vs. CarMax Superstores Underway
CARMAX INC: Unit Facing Bendure & Miller Putative Class Suits

CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss FL Consolidated Class Suit Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: COVID-19 Exposure Related Suits Underway
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Thomas Sues Over Review Nurses' Unpaid OT
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Felder Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Starling TCPA Suit Goes to D. Connecticut

CHELAN COUNTY, WA: Taxpayers' Claims Dismissal in Sifferman Upheld
CONNIE'S DELI: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Misclassifies Safety Consultants, Ford Claims
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Moses Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Chavez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

CREDIT CONTROL: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CRST EXPEDITED: Jensen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
EFFINGHAM COUNTY, IL: Judge to Decide Over Class Certification
EMOTORS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit

ENCORE CAPITAL: Williams Seeks to Certify Class Action
ENNKAR INC: Woods Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
EQT CORP: Keller Lenkner Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Meeks Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
FACEBOOK INC: Chides Lawyers For 'Inefficiencies' in Antitrust Suit

FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks to Certify Class of Caregivers
FANEUIL INC: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FPC ALDERSON: Asplund Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
FPC ALDERSON: Barker Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
FPC ALDERSON: Belcher Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates

FPC ALDERSON: Moore Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
FPC ALDERSON: Salazar Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
GERON CORPORATION: Junge Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GOTHAM DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Carpenters' Overtime, Torres Alleges

H&M HENNES: Gonzalez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Judge Granted Dismissals of RICO Class Suit
HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Loses Rule 23 Class Status Bid
HOTELMACHER LLC: Casilao Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
HUHTAMAKI INC: Class Claims in Chavez Suit Tossed Without Prejudice

HURRICANE EXPRESS: Ct. Enters Class Status Sched Order in Turpin
HYZON MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
IFINEX INC: Class Suit Over Crypto Market Manipulation Discussed
IHS MARKIT: New Mexico State Investment Council Suit Underway
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodle Files ADA Suit in N.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moreno Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
JUMP START: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Assistant Teachers
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL: Bennett Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
KODIAK CAKES: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Nixed
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Loses Bid to Junk Hennessey Class Status Bid

LEEFAM CLEANING: Faces Rubio Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Cleaners
LONGEVERON INC: Faces Putative Securities Class Suit in Florida
LOWE'S HOME: Alvarez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
MAGNA LEGAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Guynn-Neupane
MAINE DOC: Judge Recommends Denial of Swain Class Status Bid

MAPLEBEAR INC: Levine Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
MICHAEL STINSON: Gibbs Lending Suit Wins Class Certification
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIDLAND FUNDING: Loses Bid to Seal Certain Docs in Province Suit
MIELE INC: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought

NADRI INC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAPERVILLE, IL: Halgren Sues Over Covid-19 Vaccine Requirement
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 29
NEONODE INC: Continues to Defend Purported Class Suit in Delaware
NEXT LEVEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Claims

NORTH AMERICAN: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Lyles ADA Suit
PABST BREWING: Peacock Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
PARKMOBILE LLC: Weaver CCPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga.
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bid to Stay Knapke Suit Pending Appeal Denied
POLARITYTE INC: Faces Richfield Class Action

PORCELANA CORONA: Phase I Class Cert. Deadlines & Settings Entered
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Loses Class Decertification Bid
QUEBEC: Court Approves $60M Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement
QUEST INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hong Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 21 Deadline

RECRO PHARMA: Investor Group Seeks to Certify Class Action
RICHARD ZEITLIN: Donors File Class Action Over TCPA Violations
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Securities Suit Over Trading Restrictions
SAFELITE GROUP: Alvarez Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Seeks to Certify August 30, 2021 Order

SAN JOSE, CA: Faces Class Action Suit Over George Floyd Protests
SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Dialysis Technicians, Soliman Says
SBK DELIVERY: Miller Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages, Overtime
SOMETHING NAVY: Slade Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Gardner

STAY DRY: Gloss et al. Seek Laborers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
STERICYCLE INC: Poston Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Malone Suit
TEXAS: Families Join Lawsuit Against Districts Over Mask Mandate
TGF MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Employees

TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Cardenas
UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Taylor Seeks to Certify Technicians Class
UNITED ASSOCIATION:  Court Approves Settlement Deal in Poe Suit
UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE: Brandon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Doe v. ATF

UNITED STATES: Hachicho's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed
VALLARTA FOOD: Faces Thomas Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions
WASHINGTON HEALTH: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid
WASTE PRO: Court Initially Approves Settlement Deal in Hansen Suit
WAYNE, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Ingram Class Suit

WICKED AUDIO: Delacruz Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
YANFENG US: Bid to Dismiss Dover's First Amended Complaint Denied
[*] Minnesota Class Action Lawsuit Against Beef Processors Proceeds

                            *********

21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL: Cossin Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 21st Century
Centennial Insurance Company. The case is styled as Amanda Cossin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 21st
Century Centennial Insurance Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-04774-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 23, 2021).

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

21st Century Centennial Insurance Company -- https://www.21st.com/
-- provides insurance services. The Company underwrites fire,
marine, auto, and casualty insurance solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart E Scott, Esq.
          Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3400
          Phone: (216) 696-3232
          Fax: (216) 696-3924
          Email: sscott@spanglaw.com
                 khulick@spanglaw.com


3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Smith Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NEIL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03248-RMG
(D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, says the
suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Bailey Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIUS BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03179-RMG
(D.S.C., September 30, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE ROBERT COCHRAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03245-RMG
(D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Boyle Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WILKIN BOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03246-RMG
(D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer due to his
exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the
course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Watts Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03180-RMG
(D.S.C., September 30, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and prostate cancer
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Jepsen Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON LEROY JEPSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03247-RMG
(D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, alleges the suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Perry Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM JOSEPH PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03244-RMG
(D.S.C., October 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit further contends.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer due to his
exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the
course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RICHARD THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03243-RMG
(D.S.C., October 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure
to the Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

8250 SUNSET: Urrutia Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA FAJARDO URRUTIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 8250 SUNSET BLVD INC. dba THE BODY
SHOP, SALAH AL-MUDARRIS, MIKE MUDARIS, DOE MANAGERS 1-3, and DOES
4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07935 (C.D. Cal.,
October 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages,
unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, forced tip sharing,
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties, failure to indemnify business expenses, compelled
patronization of employer and/or other persons, and unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff worked as a dancer at the Defendants' principal place
of business located at 8250 Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood,
California.

8250 Sunset Blvd Inc., doing business as The Body Shop, is an
operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at
8250 Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
         Alejandro Marin, Esq.
         KRISTENSEN LLP
         12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
         Los Angeles, CA 90066
         Telephone: (310) 507-7924
         Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                 jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                 alejandro@kristensenlaw.com

AARON'S LLC: Deering Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXUS DEERING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AARON'S, LLC; THE AARON'S COMPANY,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-8005, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on September 30,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01797-JAM-AC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition.

Aaron's, LLC is a retail company with its principal place of
business in Georgia.

The Aaron's Company, Inc. is a lease-to-own retailer, headquartered
in Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
         Michael A. Wahlander, Esq.
         Ian T. Long, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
                 mwahlander@seyfarth.com
                 itlong@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Sophia S. Kwan, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: skwan@seyfarth.com

ACRO SERVICE: Oskouie Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled POOYA OSKOUIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ACRO SERVICE CORP., and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00033015- CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on October 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01736-AJB-AHG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Failure to Pay
Overtime, failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to
provide compliant rest periods, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and failure
to timely pay all wages upon termination.

Acro Service Corp. is a staffing company, with its principal office
located in Livonia, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq.
         HONIGMAN LLP
         2290 First National Building
         Detroit, MI 48226
         Telephone: (313) 465-7000
         Facsimile: (313) 465-7373
         E-mail: mdisbrow@honigman.com

ACTION COLLECTION: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Collection
Agencies, Inc. The case is styled as Sherry-Lynn Demelo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Action Collection Agencies, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-02348 (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 5, 2021).

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

Action Collection Agencies, Inc. --
https://www.actioncollection.com/ -- specializes in third party
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM, P.C.
          585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 242-8185
          Fax: (516) 414-2869
          Email: jason@jtnylaw.com


ACTION PROPERTY: Stone Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACTION PROPERTY SERVICES LLC, ACTION
PROPERTY SERVICES MANAGER, INC., DOUGLAS ARNOLD, and COURTNEY
ARNOLD, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05259 (N.D. Ill., October 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated construction
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

Mr. Stone worked for the Defendants as a construction worker and
laborer from approximately March 2021 until July 2021.

Action Property Services LLC is a rental property construction and
remodeling company, with its business address located at 401 S. La
Salle St., Suite 403, Chicago, Illinois.

Action Property Services Manager, Inc. is a company that owns and
operates a rental property construction and remodeling business,
with its principal office address located at 401 S. La Salle St.,
Suite 403, Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
         John William Billhorn, Esq.
         BILLHORN LAW FIRM
         53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 853-1450

ALDI INC: Illinois Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Brodsky Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EILEEN BRODSKY and RHONDA DIAMOND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALDI INC.,
COFFEE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., and PAN AMERICAN COFFEE CO. LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20 C 7632 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W.
Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

Background

Plaintiffs Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond bring a putative class
action complaint against Defendants Aldi Inc., Coffee Holding
Company Inc., and Pan American Coffee Co., LLC, alleging violations
of various consumer protection laws involving the Defendants'
coffee products. The first amended complaint alleges: a violation
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750 et seq. ("CLRA") (Count I); a violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, et seq. ("UCL") (Count II); a violation of the California
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et
seq. ("FAL") (Count III); a violation of the New York General
Business Law Sections 349, 350 ("NYGBL") (Counts IV and V); breach
of express warranty under California and New York law (Count VI);
and breach of implied warranty under New York law (Count VII). The
Plaintiffs seek both damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs Eileen Brodsky and Rhoda Diamond bought Beaumont coffee
from Aldi grocery stores in their home states of New York and
California. Defendant Coffee Holding Company, Inc. and Defendant
Pan American Coffee US, LLC are the coffee roasters for the
Beaumont brand. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all people
who purchased any Beaumont Coffee Product falsely advertising the
number of coffee cups that the product would purportedly produce
during the applicable statute of limitations and who have not
received a refund or credit for their purchase." Brodsky also seeks
to represent a subclass consisting of class members who reside in
New York and Diamond seeks to represent a subclass consisting of
members who reside in California.

Ms. Brodsky alleges that she bought a 22.4-ounce canister of
Beaumont 100% Colombian Ground Coffee with a label that the
canister "makes up to" 210 six-ounce cups of coffee. Diamond
alleges that she bought a 22.4-ounce canister of Beaumont Classic
Roast with a label that the canister "makes up to" 210 six-ounce
cups of coffee. The complaint also includes allegations regarding
Beaumont's Decaffeinated Coffee, but there are no allegations that
either Plaintiff purchased the Decaffeinated Coffee products.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of underfilling their
canisters of coffee and allege that the Beaumont label is "false
and misleading and omits material information" and "violates
consumer's reasonable expectations." According to them, the labels
advertise 210 six-ounce cups of coffee, but in fact only produce
137 cups for the 100% Colombian Roast and 173 cups for the Classic
Roast. The Plaintiffs get their calculations based on using one
tablespoon per six-ounce cup of coffee.

The label contains five relevant elements. First, the amount of
coffee is represented by the "net weight" of the contents, and is
provided in ounces, pounds, and grams. There are no allegations
that the weight of the product is inaccurate. Second, the "Brewing
Instructions" direct the consumer to fill the coffee pot to the
desired level. The label recommends using "1 Tbsp" of ground coffee
to make "1 Serving (6 fl. oz)." The brewing instructions also
contain measurements for other servings: ½ cup of ground coffee
(eight tablespoons) to make 10 servings; and 1 ½ cups of coffee
(24 tablespoons) to make 30 servings. Thus, the label provides
measurements other than a one tablespoon to one six-ounce cup
ratio. Third, the label advises "use more or less coffee to get
desired strength." Fourth, the label states that the canister
"makes up to 210 6 oz cups." Finally, Defendant Aldi guarantees
that, if a customer is dissatisfied, Aldi will replace the item and
refund the purchaser's money. There is no indication that the
Plaintiffs availed themselves of this remedy.

Discussion

The Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
Article III standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim. Because standing is jurisdictional, Judge Gettleman must
consider it before reaching the merits.

I. Standing

The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing for
several reasons: The Plaintiffs did not suffer an actual injury;
they did not purchase one of the products alleged in the complaint;
they did not avail themselves of an available remedy; and the
Plaintiffs lack standing for an injunction because future injury is
unlikely.

Contrary to the Defendants' arguments, Judge Gettleman holds that
the Plaintiffs have alleged an actual injury. The first amended
complaint alleges that they suffered an economic injury by
overpaying for a product that underdelivers. However, the
Plaintiffs do lack standing for a product they did not purchase.
The Plaintiffs' claims regarding the Decaffeinated Coffee are
therefore dismissed.

The Defendants' third standing argument is that the Plaintiffs lack
standing because they have not availed themselves of an available
remedy -- namely, a refund and a free canister of coffee. While it
does seem odd that the Plaintiffs would resort to a federal lawsuit
instead of accepting the refund and free canister of coffee
(especially since the latter remedies the Plaintiffs' main
grievance by providing more coffee), Judge Gettleman opines that it
is not a basis to dismiss the suit.

Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing to
seek injunctive relief. The gist of the argument is that there is
no risk of future harm and thus no need for an injunction. To
establish injury in fact when seeking prospective injunctive
relief, "a plaintiff must allege a 'real and immediate' threat of
future violations of their rights." The Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs' complaint fails this test because the allegations of
future harm are hypothetical and speculative.

Judge Getltleman agrees. He opines that the threat of future injury
must be imminent. In the case, there is no indication that the
Plaintiffs must purchase the product, and their claims that they
may purchase other coffee items produced by the Defendants in the
future are conclusory, conjectural, and speculative. The Plaintiffs
have not alleged a risk of future harm sufficient to support
standing for an injunction against the Defendants.

II. Failure to State a Claim

The Plaintiffs bring claims under various state consumer protection
statutes. While the statutes differ in certain particulars, "all
share a common requirement: to state a claim, a plaintiff must
allege conduct that plausibly could deceive a reasonable
consumer."

In the case, Judge Gettleman finds that in the case, it is
implausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived by the
Defendants' packaging. First, there is no allegation that the
coffee canisters do not weigh as advertised. Contrary to the
Plaintiffs' contentions, the label does not promise the maximum
yield, and it certainly does not promise that the maximum yield
will be achieved by following the instructions for a single
serving. The Plaintiffs fail to allege that the canister cannot
yield 210 cups of coffee under any circumstances. The Defendants'
labeling, when viewed as a whole, thus is not deceptive.

Second, the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims suffer
from the same fatal flaw as their consumer protection claims: A
reasonable consumer would not understand the Defendants' label to
warrant that the products make 210 six-ounce cups of coffee. The
express warranty claims can succeed only if a "reasonable consumer
could plausibly read the Defendant's statements to be specific,
factual representations that the product contains" 210 six-ounce
cups of coffee, but must fail if the labels, viewed objectively,
make no such promise. For the reasons stated, a reasonable consumer
could not plausibly read the label as the Plaintiffs suggest.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims
fail.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Gettleman granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jj3ze3h from
Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Sues to Recover Lost Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Elson Marcelo, Petr Bogopolskiy, Jason Sales, Ashley Ellis, David
Simard, Thien Luong, Rhonda Felix, Stephanie Friedman, Workineh
Wolie, Abdul Rehman, David Samra, Mohammed Shaik, Saleh Albadwi,
Tanesha Caldwell, Starr Campbell, and Sergio Garnica, and other
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-07843 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2021), seeks to recover
lost wages for the Defendants' willful violations of federal and
California state law.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, penalties, fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which they may be
entitled.

The Plaintiffs -- current and former Amazon Flex delivery drivers,
called "couriers" -- have not been properly compensated for the
work they performed on the Defendants' behalf, asserts the
complaint. Moreover, the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as
independent contractors as opposed to employees in willful
violation of federal and California state law, causing financial
loss to the Plaintiffs in the form of unpaid wages.

Amazon is a Seattle-based online retailer that contracts with
couriers to deliver consumer goods to its customers throughout the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Jennifer Haidar, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Phone: (877) 500-8780
          Fax: (877) 500-8781
          Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                 jennifer.haidar@zimmreed.com

AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY ART GALLERY LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08219 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

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

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

The Defendant operates the online and physical art gallery as well
as the Gallery website and advertises, markets, and operates in the
State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
                 jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com


AMERICAN PIZZA: Burns Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situate, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PIZZA PARTNERS, L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00939-JD (W.D. Okla., September 23, 2021) brings
this complaint as a collective action alleging the Defendant of
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately February 2018 until June 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant refused to reimburse him
and others similarly situated delivery drivers for all their actual
expenses, such as gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, automobile
repair and maintenance services, and other related expenses, while
delivering pizzas for the Defendant's customers. Instead, they were
only reimbursed at or around 22 cents per mile that is below the
minimum wage requirement. As a result, the Defendant willfully
failed to pay minimum wage to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery drivers, the Plaintiff alleges.

American Pizza Partners, L.P. owns and operates Pizza Hut
franchises throughout Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colby Qualls, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com

AMHERST MAINTENANCE: Underpays Painters, Alvarez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMHERST MAINTENANCE, INC., a Foreign Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-23421-XXXX (S.D. Fla., September 23,
2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as an hourly paid and non-exempt
industrial painter.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek from
on or about January 21, 2019 until June 2021. Despite working more
than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant paid them straight time
for all hours worked, says the suit.

Amherst Maintenance, Inc. provides industrial painting services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Tel: (954) 617-6017
          Fax: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

ANDERSEN WINDOWS: Ruiz Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN CARLOS RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ANDERSEN WINDOWS, INC., formerly known
as ANDERSEN CORPORATION; ANDERSEN WINDOWS AND DOORS; ANDERSEN
DISTRIBUTION, INC.; ANDERSEN LOGISTICS, a Division of ANDERSEN
WINDOWS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CIVSB2115588, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on October 1, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-07834 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the California Public Policy including wrongful
termination, retaliation, discrimination based on medical condition
or physical disability, racial discrimination, harassment & hostile
work environment, denial of premiums for rest breaks and meal
breaks, failure to pay wages on time, failure to pay wages timely
on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide time wages
statements, and failure to maintain accurate payroll records.

Andersen Windows, Inc., formerly known as Andersen Corporation, is
an international window and door manufacturer based in Minnesota.

Andersen Windows and Doors is a window and door manufacturer based
in Minnesota.

Andersen Distribution, Inc. is a distributor of lumber, plywood,
millwork, and other related products, headquartered in Minnesota.

Andersen Logistics is a division of Andersen Windows, Inc. based in
Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Alaya B. Meyers, Esq.
         Ian G. Robertson, Esq.
         Arya A. Zare, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 705-3000
         Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
         E-mail: ameyers@littler.com
                 irobertson@littler.com
                 azare@littler.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: 'Agave Spiked Seltzer' Has Been Hit With Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
thedrinksbusiness.com reports that US rapper Travis Scott's CACTI
agave spiked seltzer brand has been handed a false advertising
lawsuit for allegedly misleading consumers into believing the
seltzer is made with agave spirits.

Scott's CACTI seltzer brand is not, in fact, produced with agave
spirits, merely using an agave sweetener, receiving its alcohol
content from fermented cane sugar.

Plaintiff Rebecca Read filed a class action lawsuit against
Anheuser-Busch, the parent company of the CACTI brand.

"Whether a product contains agave spirits is basic front label
information consumers rely on when making quick decisions at the
store," the complaint reads in part. "The product lacks any agave
spirits, and instead, uses 'agave syrup,' a sweetener derived from
the agave plant, as shown in the fine print ingredient list on the
back of the product."

Read states in the complaint she purchased the spiked seltzer on
more than one occasion under the assumption that the drink
contained agave spirits.

Citing "The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act" and "Negligent misrepresentation" among other
violations, Read is reportedly seeking damages and other legal
costs related to the complaint, as well as a jury trial.

Earlier in September, we reported that a class action lawsuit had
been filed against Molson Coors, alleging that the company mislead
consumers over the health benefits of its Vizzy hard seltzer.[GN]

ANTHEM INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Nixon Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIXON, et al., v.
ANTHEM, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove entered a scheduling order
as follow:

   -- Discovery

      (a) The parties have already completed initial
          disclosures.

      (b) All Precertification Discovery shall be completed by
          Friday, July 1, 2022.

   -- Dispositive Motions

      (a) The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including Monday,
          August 1, 2022, to file a Motion for Class
          Certification.

      (b) The Defendants shall have up to and including Friday,
          September 9, 2022, to file a Response to Plaintiffs'
          Motion for Class Certification.

   -- Trial

      Following the Court's disposition of the Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Class Certification, the Parties shall
      reconvene and recommend discovery and trial schedule on
      the remaining issues, and the Court shall issue a
      subsequent scheduling order accordingly.

   -- Extensions of Time

      Requests to modify any dates or deadlines established by
      this order shall be submitted upon motion filed prior to
      expiration of the deadline in question, and upon showing
      of good cause beyond the control of counsel in the
      exercise of due diligence. See L.R. 7.1(b).

Anthem is a provider of health insurance in the United States. It
is the largest for-profit managed health care company in the Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fm1Owl at no extra charge.[CC]

APEX USA: Francis Suit Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORRET FRANCIS; ANTHONY
KENNEDY; and CHRISTINE PEARCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. APEX USA, INC., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00583-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk
entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. denying the Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude reports
      and opinions of Luis C. deBaca; and Plaintiffs' motion to
      strike the expert report and testimony of Greg H. Bristol
      and Memorandum in Support of their motion; and

   3. denying Defendants' motion to strike;
      Plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike Defendants' exhibit
      list; and Defendants' combined motion in limine; and
      Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude unsigned
      affidavits and supporting memorandum of law.

Apex USA is in the industrial machinery and equipment industry in
Princeton, New Jersey.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yv8UxC at no extra charge.[CC]



APPHARVEST INC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of November 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against AppHarvest, Inc.
("AppHarvest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APPH) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired AppHarvest securities between May 17, 2021 and August 10,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/apph.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its
recently expanded labor force; (2) as a result, the Company could
not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/apph or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
AppHarvest you have until November 23, 2021, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]

APPLE INC: Class Cert. Reply Brief Extended to Oct. 19
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending class certification
reply brief deadline due October 19, 2021.

On January 8, 2021, this Court entered an Order re: Case Scheduling
that set forth the current class certification briefing schedule.
Pursuant to this Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was due June 1, 2021, Defendant's opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion was due August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs' reply in
support of their Motion is due October 12, 2021, and the class
certification hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YpRjYd at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele r. Byrd, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cynthia E. Richman, Esq.
          Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
          Richard J. Doren, Esq.
          Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
          Veronica S. Lewis, Esq.
          Ethan Dettmer, Esq.
          Eli M. Lazarus, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8234
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9691
          E-mail: crichman@gibsondunn.com
                  tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  rdoren@gibsondunn.com
                  dswanson@gibsondunn.com
                  vlewis@gibsondunn.com
                  edettmer@gibsondunn.com
                  elazarus@gibsondunn.com

ASCENSION LINGERIE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascension Lingerie
And Swimsuit LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ascension
Lingerie And Swimsuit LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08223 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
5, 2021).

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

Ascension Lingerie And Swimsuit doing business as Oh La La --
http://www.ohlalacheri.com/-- is a Chic boutique featuring
designer French intimate apparel, bridal robes & swimsuits for
women.[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


BED BATH: Settlement Reached in NJ Consolidated Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended August 28, 2021, that a settlement in
principle has been reached in the consolidated putative securities
class suit headed by Kavin Bakhda.

A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors
(Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief
Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020.

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about financial performance and certain other public statements
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.

A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020.

That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and
appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (as consolidated, the
"Securities Class Action").

Lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
September 4, 2019 through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 21, 2020.

After a mediation held in August 2021, a settlement in principle
was reached between the Company and lead plaintiff in the
Securities Class Action.

The settlement remains subject to formal documentation and must be
approved by the New Jersey federal court.

Bed Bath said, "If the settlement is approved, all claims in the
Securities Class Action will be fully resolved and the matter will
be dismissed."

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise
retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was founded in 1971.
It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global 1200 Indices. The
company is based in Union, New Jersey.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Bid to Certify Class Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOHANSEN,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. 9:20-cv-81076-RS
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order denying a
motion for class certification.

The Court said, "Most concerning, during his deposition in the
present lawsuit, Plaintiff admits that he believes that engaging in
deception is appropriate behavior for a class representative. Based
on the foregoing, the Court has serious concerns about the
Plaintiff's credibility, honesty, trustworthiness, and motives in
bringing forth this putative class action. Thus, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative."

The Plaintiff Johansen has brought a one-count class action
complaint against Bluegreen Vacations alleging that Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, when Schumer
Management and Consulting, a vendor hired by the Defendant,
initiated telemarketing calls to residential telephone numbers,
despite the fact that the residential telephone numbers were
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Bluegreen Vacations is a leisure, travel and tourism company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BkmylB at no extra charge.[CC]


BOY SMELLS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boy Smells LLC. The
case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Boy Smells LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08224 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021).

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

BOY SMELLS -- https://boysmells.com/ -- is highly spirited scented
candles, fine fragrance and intimate wear for the genderful.[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


BRYAN COWDERY: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in McElwee
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA MCELWEE, et al., v.
BRYAN COWDERY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01265-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge entered a revised scheduling order:

Based upon the parties' Report pursuant to Revised Rule 26(f) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ADOPTS the
following schedule:

   -- Parties and pleadings

      Any motion or stipulation to amend the pleadings or to
      join additional parties shall be filed by December 31,
      2021.

      The Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for Conditional
      Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

      Plaintiff will file their motion for Rule 23 Certification
      on or before March 31, 2022.

   -- Discovery Procedures

      All discovery shall be completed by April 29, 2022, except
      that all parties shall have at least 90 days to conduct
      discovery concerning any opt-in Plaintiff (90 days from
      the date of the opt-in to the case).

   -- Dispositive motions

      Any dispositive motions shall be filed by May 29, 2022 or
      120 days after the last opt-in Plaintiff files her consent
      form -- whichever is later.

   -- Expert testimony

      Primary expert reports must be produced by November 30,
      2021. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by December
      31, 2021. If the expert is specifically retained, the
      reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B),
      unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the expert
      is not specifically retained, the reports must conform to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), unless otherwise agreed to by
      the parties.

   -- Settlement

      Plaintiff will make a settlement demand within 90 days of
      the Court's ruling on conditional certification.
      Defendants will respond within 30 days. The parties agree
      to make a good faith effort to settle this case. This
      matter is referred to a settlement conference in March
      2022. The parties understand that this case will be
      referred to an attorney mediator for a settlement
      conference in the month following the settlement demand.

This is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. This action seeks
class certification for the Chapter 4111 claim pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and conditional collective action certification pursuant
to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. Plaintiffs set forth
claims of failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs seek recovery of their unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, an award of pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs against Defendants. The Defendants deny
all claims and has asserted affirmative defenses. There is a jury
demand.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uPfBqa at no extra charge.[CC]

BUTTERBALL LLC: Mohr Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butterball, LLC. The
case is styled as Douglas Mohr, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Butterball, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02163-PKH (W.D. Ark., Oct. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

Butterball -- https://www.butterball.com/ -- is a brand of turkey
and other poultry products produced by Butterball LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 255-7577
          Fax: (501) 222-3027
          Email: chris@wh.law


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Dismisses Bell Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended August 28, 2021, that the class action suit
entitled, Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case
No.1:20-cv-461, has been dismissed and the court entered a final
judgment in favor of the Company and certain other defendants
dismissing the case without prejudice.

On April 30, 2020, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al., Case
No.1:20-cv-461, in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
The defendants include numerous grocery stores, retailers,
producers, and farms.

Plaintiffs assert that defendants violated the DTPA by allegedly
demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during the
COVID-19 state of emergency.

Plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers who
purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by
any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company and other defendants from
selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of
eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages
in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each
violation impacting anyone over 65 years old.

On December 1, 2020, the Company and certain other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the
motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United
States magistrate judge.

On July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation to the court that the defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

On September 20, 2021, the court adopted the magistrate's report
and recommendation in its entirety and granted defendants' motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint;
thereafter, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the
Company and certain other defendants dismissing the case without
prejudice.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The
Company operates through the segment of production, grading,
packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company
offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The
company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CALIFORNIA: Thomas Prisoner Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff v. J.C. FRY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P. (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion that the
action proceed as a class action.

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed the
civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as
provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 29, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and
recommendations, which were served on all parties and which
contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings
and recommendations were to be filed within 14 days. The Plaintiff
has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C)
and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the
case. Having reviewed the file, Judge Mueller finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper
analysis.

Accordingly, Judge Mueller adopted in full the findings and
recommendations filed June 29, 2021. She denied the Plaintiff's
motion that the action proceed as a class action.

The case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for
further proceedings based on the Plaintiff's individual claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/aws9yypt from Leagle.com.


CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Suit vs. CarMax Superstores Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2021, that CarMax Superstores California,
LLC, continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Joshua Sabanovich.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California.

The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage; provide
meal periods and rest breaks; pay statutory/contractual wages;
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA") claims.

The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

CarMax said, "Based upon our evaluation of information currently
available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the
Sabanovich lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CARMAX INC: Unit Facing Bendure & Miller Putative Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2021, that CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, is facing putative class action suits initiated by
Daniel Bendure and Jordon Miller, respectively.

CarMax entities are defendants in three proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to non-exempt CarMax employees in
California.

The asserted claims include failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks; pay statutory or contractual wages; reimburse for
work-related expenses; and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)
claims.

Two of these claims have been filed in court, whereas one has yet
to be filed in court.

On July 9, 2021, Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.

The Bendure lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the
Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages,
interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and
special damages.

On August 12, 2021, Jordon Miller v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.

The Miller lawsuit also seeks civil penalties for violation of the
Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages,
interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and
special damages.

On August 3, 2021, Charles Walker filed a notice with the
California Labor Workforce Development Agency, which is a
prerequisite to filing a PAGA action in court. To date, Walker has
not yet filed a lawsuit.

CarMax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters."

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss FL Consolidated Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit headed by the New
England Carpenters Pension and Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and Annuity Fund, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is pending.

As previously disclosed, a consolidated class action complaint with
new lead plaintiffs, the New England Carpenters Pension and
Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and
Annuity Fund, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on December 15, 2020.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 2, 2021 and on
August 6, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.

CARNIVAL CORP: COVID-19 Exposure Related Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend purported class action suits related to exposure to
and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard by guests from Ruby Princess,
Diamond Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess, Costa Luminosa or
Zaandam.

As of September 22, 2021, ten purported class actions have been
brought by former guests from Ruby Princess, Diamond Princess,
Grand Princess, Coral Princess, Costa Luminosa or Zaandam in
several U.S. federal courts and in the Federal Court of Australia.


These actions include tort claims based on a variety of theories,
including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn,
physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with
being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard.

As of September 22, 2021, five of these class actions have either
been settled individually or had their class allegations dismissed
by the courts.

These actions were settled for immaterial amounts.

All COVID-19 actions seek monetary damages and most seek additional
punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Thomas Sues Over Review Nurses' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04099-CAP (N.D. Ga., October 4, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Thomas was employed by the Defendant as a concurrent review
nurse from May 2019.

Centene Management Company, LLC is a managed care company, with its
primary place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Daniel Werner, Esq.
         Regan Keebaugh, Esq.
         RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
         315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
         Decatur, GA 30030
         Telephone: (678) 271-0300
         E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com
                 regan@decaturlegal.com

CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Felder Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHERRAINE FELDER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01569 (M.D. Fla., September 23, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an alternative
investment senior specialist from approximately January 7, 2019 to
October 9, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate the
Plaintiff for the time it took to log into the Defendant's computer
and phone system prior to beginning work, or to log out at the end
of the shift. Although the Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked
more than 40 hours in a work week, the Defendant allegedly failed
to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is an American multinational financial
services company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Tel: (727) 220-4000
          Fax: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com
                  cgray@fgbolaw.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Starling TCPA Suit Goes to D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY STARLING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case
No. FBT-cv21-6109429-S, was removed from the Fairfield Judicial
District of the State of Connecticut Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on October 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-01323-VAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications and
mass media company, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Brian E. Moran, Esq.
         Trevor L. Bradley, Esq.
         ROBINSON & COLE LLP
         1055 Washington Boulevard
         Stamford, CT 06901
         Telephone: (203) 462-7500
         Facsimile: (203) 462-7599
         E-mail: bmoran@rc.com
                 tbradley@rc.com

                - and –

         Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
         Matthew A. Keilson, Esq.
         KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
         171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
         Atlanta, GA 30363
         Telephone: (404) 400-7300
         Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
         E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com
                 mkeilson@kcozlaw.com

CHELAN COUNTY, WA: Taxpayers' Claims Dismissal in Sifferman Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP EDWARD SIFFERMAN; BRUCE PENOSKE and RAELYN
PENOSKE, husband and wife; STEVEN R. RAMELS and JACQUELINE J.
RAMELS, husband and wife; MICHAEL F. LASS and DIANE E. LASS,
husband and wife, THOMAS H. JANSEN and SHARON L. JANSEN, husband
and wife, and PATRICK W. FRENCH; and PARADISE LAKE HOUSE LLC,
Appellants v. CHELAN COUNTY and its TREASURER, DAVID GRIFFITHS;
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents, Case No.
54514-4-II (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division Two, affirms the trial court's orders dismissing the
taxpayers' claims on summary judgment.

Background

The case involves the transfer of interests in vacation homes
constructed on leased land held in trust by the United States
government on behalf of a Native American family. Appellants Philip
Sifferman, Bruce and Raelyn Penoske, Steven and Jacqueline Ramels,
Michael and Diane Lass, Thomas and Sharon Jansen, Patrick French,
and Paradise Lake House LLC (collectively taxpayers) paid a real
estate excise tax (REET) when they assigned their interests in
subleased lots and the vacation homes constructed thereon to new
sublessees. None of the parties involved in the transfer were
members of the Native American family for whom the land was
allotted. The taxpayers filed a suit challenging imposition of the
REET on their transactions on various grounds, naming both the
Department of Revenue and Chelan County (collectively DOR) as
Defendants.

Wapato Point, located on the shorelines of Lake Chelan in Chelan
County, is a segment of land that was allotted to Peter Wapato or
Que-til-qua-soon by the United States Government under the original
Indian trust allotment, Moses Agreement No. 10. The allotted land
is held in trust by the United States on behalf of the Wapato
family and is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

In 1976, members of the Wapato family entered into a lease
agreement with Wapato Point Resources, Inc. The parties envisioned
that Wapato Point Resources would operate a resort complex on the
premises comprised of motels, condominiums, and leased lots. Third
parties would then sublease the condominiums or unimproved lots
from Wapato Point Resources. Wright-Wapato, Inc. has since assumed
responsibility over Wapato Point Resources' role as lessee under
the lease agreement with the Wapato family.

At present, the resort is comprised often separate entities called
"associations," that include time-share condominium associations,
full-share private residents associations, and full-share
condominium associations.

Taxpayers Sifferman, the Ramels, and the Penoskes entered into real
estate transactions in which they assigned their respective
subleases and the improvements constructed thereon to their
successors in interest. On the REET affidavit forms, Sifferman, the
Ramels, and the Penoskes each listed a "Taxable Selling Price" for
their sublease and improvements that was equivalent to the "Gross
Selling Price." The REET is calculated based on the taxable selling
price listed on the REET affidavit. Therefore, Sifferman, the
Ramels, and the Penoskes paid their respective REETs at a rate of
1.78% of the total gross selling price for their leasehold
properties.

Taxpayers Michael and Diane Lass, Thomas and Sharon Jansen, and
Patrick French (the Lass owners), and Paradise Lake House LLC also
entered into real estate transactions in which they assigned their
subleases and the improvements constructed thereon to their
successors in interest. However, unlike Sifferman, the Ramels, and
the Penoskes, the Lass owners and Paradise Lake House LLC listed
the "Taxable Selling Price" for their respective leasehold
interests at half of the "Gross Selling Price." Id. at 105-06.
Consequently, the Lass owners and Paradise Lake House LLC paid
REETs at a rate of 1.78% based on half the gross selling price for
their leasehold properties and not the total gross selling price.

In addition to the REET, each taxpayer paid a fee of 3.5% of the
transaction price of their sublease transfer or assignment as
required under the master lease agreement to Wright-Wapato. The fee
is based on gross receipts of the sale and is paid to the
beneficiaries of the Wapato family members who signed the master
lease agreement as lessors of the Wapato Point trust allotment.
Wright-Wapato collects the fee upon sale of a leasehold interest
and remits the payment to the Wapato family beneficiaries.

The improvements on the taxpayers' subleased properties were
private residences rather than condominium units. Therefore, each
taxpayer transferred or assigned a sublease to a full-share private
residence as opposed to a time-share condominium unit. The
taxpayers are not members of the Wapato family, and none of the
taxpayers identified themselves as members of a Native American
tribe.

The taxpayers filed suit naming Chelan County and the Washington
Department of Revenue as defendants and alleging that the REET they
paid on transfers of their sublease properties on Native American
land was an unlawful and unconstitutional tax. The complaint
described the taxpayers' claims as arising under RCW 82.32.1504 and
the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), ch. 7.24 RCW. In
addition to seeking declaratory relief resolving whether the REET
may be applied to transfers of subleases on Native American land,
the taxpayers also requested that the trial court order the county
and the State to refund the taxpayers for the alleged unlawfully
assessed tax. The complaint further included a request that the
trial court certify a class of similarly situated and unnamed
taxpayers under CR 23(b).

DOR moved to dismiss the class action refund claims, arguing that a
claim for a refund of a REET that has already been paid falls
within the exclusive scope of RCW 82.32.180.5 DOR asserted that,
following the Supreme Court's decision in Lacey Nursing Center,
Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 128 Wn.2d 40, 905 P.2d 338 (1995), a
class action claim for an excise tax refund under RCW 82.32.180
cannot proceed.

The taxpayers responded that their causes of action arise under the
UDJA and RCW 82.32.150 because they contest the validity of the tax
imposed under the circumstances and did not merely seek a refund.
The trial court agreed with DOR and, without considering
certification of the putative class under CR 23(b), granted DOR's
motion to strike the taxpayers' class action refund claims with
prejudice.

Thereafter, both parties moved for summary judgment, agreeing that
there were no disputes of material fact and that the issues before
the court pertained solely to matters of law. DOR argued that the
REET was properly imposed because the transaction met the statutory
definition of a sale, federal law does not preempt imposition of
the REET, and the taxpayers failed to satisfy their burden of
demonstrating eligibility for a refund under RCW 82.32.180.

The taxpayers argued that they were entitled to summary judgment in
their favor because the REET could only apply to the value of
improvements on their lots rather than to the entire consideration
paid for the sublease transfer, federal law preempts the REET, and
imposition of the REET under the circumstances was
unconstitutional. The taxpayers reasserted that their claims did
not fall within RCW 82.32.180 and so they were not bound by that
statute's procedural requirements. Instead, because they sought to
invalidate the tax as applied under the circumstances, their claims
were for declaratory relief and could proceed under RCW 82.32.150
and the UDJA.

The trial court granted DOR's motion for summary judgment, denied
the taxpayers' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the
taxpayers' claims with prejudice. The taxpayers appeal the trial
court's order dismissing their class action refund claims, and the
trial court's order granting DOR's motion for summary judgment and
denying their motion for summary judgment.

The taxpayers appeal from the trial court's order dismissing their
class action refund claims, dismissing their motion for summary
judgment, and granting DOR's motion for mummy judgment. They argue
that (1) they are not obligated to meet the requirements in RCW
82.32.180 to obtain a refund of the tax they paid because their
claims arise under the UDJA. 7.24 RCW and RCW 82.32.150, (2) the
amount of tax they paid was incorrect under state law, (3) federal
law preempts imposition of the REET on transfers of subleases on
Native American land, (4) imposition of the REET violated their
rights to due process arising under the Washington and United
States Constitutions, and (5) the trial court erred in dismissing
their class action claims.

Discussion

I. Nature of the Taxpayers' Claims

The taxpayers contend that although they requested a refund of the
REET they paid on transfers of their subleases and improvements,
their claims do not arise under RCW 82.32.180, which is the statute
that sets forth the process for seeking a refund of an excise tax
such as the REET. Rather, the taxpayers assert that refund actions
contemplated under RCW 82.32.180 involve computational errors,
claims of entitlement to an exemption, or similar issues. Because
the taxpayers broadly challenge the lawfulness or validity of the
REET as applied to them, and they seek declaratory relief in
addition to a refund, they argue that their claims fall within the
scope of the UDJA and RCW 82.32.150.

DOR responds that the taxpayers cannot raise their claims under the
UDJA because the legislature set forth specific procedures for
contesting the imposition of a tax under RCW 82.32.180 and limited
the availability of equitable remedies in RCW 82.32.150. In
addition, DOR contends that declaratory relief is inappropriate in
circumstances where, as in the case, an adequate remedy has been
specifically delineated by the legislature to resolve a claim. DOR
argues further that the taxpayers cannot obtain a refund of the
REET under RCW 82.32.150 because the unambiguous language of the
statute only provides for injunctive relief.

The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR that the taxpayers' claims are
refund claims within the scope of RCW 82.32.180. It opines that the
taxpayers' claims fall solely within the scope of RCW 82.32.180
because they seek a refund of taxes already paid and declaratory
relief under the UDJA would be an inappropriate remedy under the
circumstances. Accordingly, the taxpayers have the burden of
proving that the amount of tax they paid was incorrect, and they
have the burden of proving the correct amount of the tax owed.

II. Entitlement to a Refund Under Washington Law

The taxpayers acknowledge that a REET may be imposed on the value
of improvements transferred on leased land, but they contend that
because the values of the taxpayers' improvements are not entered
on the county assessor's rolls, a REET cannot be imposed on their
transactions. Relying on a letter from DOR regarding other
properties on Wapato Point, the taxpayers argue that at minimum,
Sifferman, the Ravels, and the Penoskes are entitled to a 50%
refund because their REET payments were improperly based on 100% of
the gross selling price of their transfers.

DOR responds that the taxpayers did not meet their burden under RCW
82.32.180 of establishing the correct amount of tax that they owed,
and summary judgment dismissal of their refund claims was proper.
DOR asserts that the fact that the value of the taxpayers'
improvements was not listed on county assessor's rolls does not
exempt the taxpayers from their REET obligation. Moreover, to the
extent that DOR's letter provides any authority in resolving this
issue, DOR argues that the instructions in the letter are limited
to time-share units and do not apply to the full-share residences
at issue in the case.

The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR that the taxpayers have not
satisfied their burden of proving the correct amount of tax that
they owe under RCW 82.32.180 to qualify for a refund. It explains
that in a refund claim under RCW 82.32.180, taxpayers have an
affirmative burden of establishing the correct amount of tax owed.
In the case, the taxpayers did not present any evidence
demonstrating the correct values of the interest transferred in
their individual improvements or that such a value would be
impossible to determine. The fact that the statutes, regulations,
and REET affidavit do not specify the method for calculating the
value of taxpayers' particular improvements does not entitle the
taxpayers to a refund under RCW 82.32.180. And in so arguing, the
taxpayers improperly displace their burden of establishing the
correct amount of tax owed when seeking a refund. Therefore, the
trial court properly dismissed the taxpayers' state-law-based
claims for a refund on summary judgment.

III. Federal Preemption

The taxpayers assert that Chelan County lacked authority to impose
the REET on their sublease transfers of improvements on Indian land
because federal law preempts imposition of the tax. The taxpayers
argue that the REET at issue was expressly preempted under 25
U.S.C. Section 5108. They contend further that although the issue
is conclusively resolved under express preemption and we need not
consider implicit preemption, the tax is also implicitly preempted
under the balancing test announced in White Mountain Apache Tribe
v. Brucker, 448 U.S. 136, 142, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L. Ed. 2d 665
(1980) (Bracker).

DOR argues that Section 5108 is inapplicable and that the REET is
not expressly preempted by federal law. It contends that even if
Section 5108 broadly applies, the REET is not expressly preempted
because the tax is allowed under that statute. With regard to
implicit preemption, DOR argues that the Bracker balancing test
should not be invoked in transactions involving non-Indian
individuals on non-reservation lands. However, even if the Bracker
balancing test can be considered under the circumstances, DOR
asserts that the REET is not implicitly preempted.

The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR that Section 5108 does not
apply to this case and that the REET is thus not explicitly
preempted under federal law. It must therefore consider whether the
REET is implicitly preempted. Contrary to DOR's assertion, the
balancing analysis in Bracker applies to the allotted trust land
involved in the case even if that land is not technically
considered a reservation. On weighing the relevant interests under
Bracker, the REET imposed on the real estate transactions involved
in the case is not implicitly preempted.

IV. Due Process

The taxpayers argue that in imposing a REET as a condition to
recording their transactions, the county violated their state and
federal due process rights. In support, the taxpayers rely
exclusively on State ex rel. Baldwin v. Moore, 7 Wn. 173, 34 P. 461
(1893). DOR responds that Baldwin is inapplicable, and that
requiring payment of a REET as a condition to recording the
assignment of the subleases does not violate due process.

The Court of Appeals agrees with DOR. It opines that the
legislature set forth several avenues by which a taxpayer can
contest the imposition of an excise tax in RCW 82.32.150,160,10
170,11 and .180. In approving the excise tax refund procedures in
RCW 82.32.170 and .180 against a due process challenge, the supreme
court in Peters v. Sjoholm, 95 Wn.2d 871, 877, 631 P.2d 937 (1981)
held that "it is constitutionally sound to postpone the opportunity
for a hearing until after the payment of the delinquent taxes."
Therefore, Baldwin is distinguishable and the requirement that
taxpayers pay a tax prior to challenging the validity of the
assessment does not violate the taxpayers' rights to due process.

V. Dismissal of Class Action Refund Claims

The taxpayers assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their
class action claims because it disregarded their causes of action
seeking declaratory relief and improperly limited its focus to ch.
82.32 RCW. Because the REET as imposed in this case was a valid
tax, the Court of Appeals need not consider whether the trial court
erred in dismissing the taxpayers' class action claims. The Court
of Appeals' decision on the substantive issue renders this
determination unnecessary.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals holds that (1) the taxpayers' claims arise
under RCW 82.32.180 and that they cannot challenge imposition of
the REET as applied to them under either RCW 82.32.150 or the UDJA.
It further holds that (2) the taxpayers did not meet their burden
of establishing the correct amount of tax owed under state law, (3)
federal law does not preempt imposition of the REET, (4)
conditioning recording of the taxpayers' real estate transaction on
payment of the REET does not violate constitutional rights to due
process, and (5) because the tax was a valid tax, it need not
address whether the trial court erred in dismissing the taxpayers'
class action claims.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's orders
dismissing the taxpayers' claims on summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4zzzetmf from Leagle.com.

Frank Raymond Siderius -- franks@sidlon.com -- Siderius Lonergan &
Martin LLP, 500 Union St., Ste. 847, in Seattle, Washington
98101-2394, Counsel for the Appellant(s).

Susan E Hinkle, Chelan County Prosecutor's Office, Po Box 2596, in
Wenatchee, Washington 98807-2596, Cameron Gordon Comfort, Atty.
Generals Ofc/Revenue & Finance Div., Po Box 40123, in Olympia,
Washington 98504-0123, David M. Hankins, Atty. Generals Ofc/Revenue
Division, 7141 Cleanwater Drive Sw, in Olympia, Washington
98504-0123, Counsel for the Respondent(s).


CONNIE'S DELI: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Janeth Mejia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CONNIE'S DELI FOOD INC. (D/B/A CONNIE'S DELI), and
CONCEPCION MENDOZA, Case No. 1:21-cv-08182 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4,
2021), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, griller, food preparer and
porter at the deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx,
New York under the name "Connie's Deli."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Misclassifies Safety Consultants, Ford Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN MICHAEL FORD, individually and on for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-03099 (S.D. Tex., September 23, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wage and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a safety consultant
from approximately September 2018 until December 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
each week while he was employed by the ConocoPhillips. He typically
worked more than 80 hours a week. However, the Defendant
misclassified him as an independent contractor. As a result, the
Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he was only paid a day rate
regardless of the number of hours he worked, says the Plaintiff.

ConocoPhillips Company is an oil and natural gas exploration and
production company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Moses Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVEN MOSES, STARAISHA
MORRIS, DWAYNE DALE, ISMAIYL JONES, AYANNA BEACHAM, ANDRE MURRAY,
VICTOR BALLAST, and LUIS SIMONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW
YORK, INC., GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, LLC, GRIFFIN SECURITY SERVICES,
SMITH, WINSTON SMITH, ANDREW MUNIZ, and AARON MUNIZ, Case No.
1:18-cv-01200-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the Plaintiffs' claims for New York Labor Law
      ("NYLL") violations, breach of contract and unjust
      enrichment/quantum meruit (the Third through Eleventh
      Causes of Action in the Consolidated Amended Complaint
      ("CAC")) as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action on behalf of a
      class (the "Class") defined as:

      "all persons employed by the Defendants at any time from
      February 9, 2012 to the present (the "Class Period") who
      worked as flaggers at any Con Ed work site in the state of
      New York (the "Class Members");

   2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as
      representatives for the Class and counsel for the
      Plaintiffs as Class Counsel; and

   3. authorizing the Proposed Class Representatives to send
      notice to Class Members.

Consolidated Edison provides energy-related products and services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iGdX5v
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Kate McGuire, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4699
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  mcguire@whafh.com

               - and -

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 16503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800

               - and -

          George T. Peters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T.
          PETERS, PLLC
          George T. Peters (GP 2661)
          2510 Valentine Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Bronx, NY 10458
          Telephone: (929) 374-1200
          E-mail: g.peters@myattys1.com

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Chavez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Valerie Chavez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-18120 (D.N.J., Oct.
5, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
          THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 974-9400
          Fax: (516) 345-1635
          Email: todd@muhlstocklaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Demelo Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Sherry-Lynn Demelo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services,
Case No. 8:21-cv-02347 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 5, 2021).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is nationally
licensed debt collection agency with over 600 employees dedicated
to resolving accounts since 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM, P.C.
          585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 242-8185
          Fax: (516) 414-2869
          Email: jason@jtnylaw.com


CRST EXPEDITED: Jensen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL ALLEN JENSEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-594399, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on October 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-07741 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to pay vacation
wages, failure to indemnify business expenses, failure to provide
accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final
wages, failure to pay wages without discount, and unfair
competition.

CRST Expedited, Inc. is a transportation and logistics services
provider based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
         3214 W. McGraw Street, Suite 301F
         Seattle, WA 98199
         Telephone: (206) 288-6192
         Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
         E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com

                 - and –

         Rebecca R. Brown, Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
         2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 795-4700
         Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
         E-mail: rbrown@scopelitis.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNDAY HINTON v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01295-JDB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
John D. Bates entered an order:

   1. denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
      injunction;

   2. denying without prejudice plaintiff's motion for class
      certification; and

   3. directing the parties shall submit a joint proposed
      briefing schedule governing further proceedings in this
      matter by not later than October 14, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YrhuOd at no extra charge.[CC]

EFFINGHAM COUNTY, IL: Judge to Decide Over Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Mills at Daily News reports that fourth Judicial Circuit
Chief Judge Douglas L. Jarman is considering a request made in
court in Effingham County court on a motion to certify a lawsuit
filed last month as a class action suit.

Thomas DeVore filed a lawsuit on behalf of Teutopolis Unit 50
parents Eric Pals, Jacob and Christina Thompson and Greg and Rosina
Esker on Sept. 13 for their Unit 50 students, spurring an emergency
30-day temporary restraining order Sept. 15 that allows three
students to be exempt from the mask mandate.

DeVore said if the judge decides to allow the request made in
Effingham County court, every parent and legal guardian who has a
child in the Teutopolis Unit 50 school district would fall under
the temporary restraining order, allowing their children to go
unmasked.

He said if parents want their children to wear a mask they can.
DeVore said if the judge grants the motion the school district
can't force anyone to wear a mask.

"The class action doesn't disenfranchise parents who may want their
child to wear a mask and they can continue to do whatever they want
to do," DeVore said.

DeVore said he has similar cases in Marion, Christian, Madison,
Macoupin, Montgomery and Bond Counties. He said his cases in
Montgomery County for the Hillsboro School District and Clinton
County for the Carlyle School District cases both have district
wide injunctions forcing the school districts not to enforce the
mask mandate.

He said the Bond County Unit 2 case is similar to the Teutopolis
Unit 50 case, only the Bond County Unit 2 school district appealed
the case to the Illinois Appellate court in Mt. Vernon. DeVore said
his next step would depend upon that decision.

"We really need to see what that ruling of the appellate court
before we have any real appreciation on how these other cases are
going to proceed," DeVore said.

The attorney for Teutopolis Unit 50, Luke Feeney, declined to
comment.

For now, the preliminary injunction hearing on the Teutopolis Unit
50 case is set for Oct. 14 at 1 p.m. DeVore said that might change,
depending on the Illinois Appellate court decision. [GN]

EMOTORS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
it investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Lightning eMotors, Inc. f/k/a GigCapital3, Inc.
(NYSE: ZEV, GIK) resulting from allegations that Lightning eMotors
may have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Lightning eMotors securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2155.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: Lightning eMotors' stock began trading on the
New York Stock Exchange on May 7, 2021 following a de-SPAC
transaction with GigCapital3.

Then, on August 16, 2021, after the market closed, Lightning
eMotors announced its second quarter 2021 financial results,
reporting a net loss of $46.1 million, compared to a net loss of
$2.8 million during the prior-year period. The Company also
withdrew its fiscal 2021 guidance, stating that it "no longer
expects to meet full year guidance" citing among other things
"chassis production disruptions."

On this news, Lightning eMotors' stock price fell $1.63 per share,
or 16%, to close at $8.00 per share on August 17, 2021.

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

ENCORE CAPITAL: Williams Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LLOYD WILLIAMS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INC., MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05252-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing him as class representative; and

   3. appointing Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as Class
      Counsel.

Encore Capital is a global specialty finance company with
operations and investments across North America, Europe, Asia and
Latin America.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oFKCfm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Bruno McDermott, Esq.
          Fifth Avenue Place, Suite 2700
          120 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 577-5221
          E-mail: dbrunomcdermott@schnader.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Fogdall, Esq.
          Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
          Layal A. Issa, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          1600 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 751-2581
          E-mail: irichards@schnader.com
                  sfogdall@schnader.com
                  lissa@schnader.com

ENNKAR INC: Woods Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ennkar, Inc. The case
is styled as Eleanora C. Woods, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ennkar, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-01646
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 5, 2021).

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

Ennkar, Inc. -- https://www.ennkar.com/ -- is a mortgage lender in
Orange, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Boulevard
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (866) 540-5505
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jcshah@millershah.com



EQT CORP: Keller Lenkner Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs' law firm Keller Lenkner LLC filed a proposed
class action lawsuit on behalf of real property owners whose rights
have been violated by the unlawful conduct of EQT Corporation, the
largest natural gas producer in the United States. EQT extracted
and otherwise produced natural gas from the plaintiffs' real
property without making required royalty payments.

The complaint alleges the defendants-EQT Production Company; Rice
Drilling B, LLC; Vantage Energy Appalachia LLC; and Vantage Energy
Appalachia II LLC-are in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum
Royalty Act, in breach of quasi-contract, and have committed unjust
enrichment and conversion, among other allegations. Keller Lenkner
and its co-counsel, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, seek to obtain
compensation for real property owners who are owed royalties as
well as to prevent further violation of their property rights.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, EQT leads significant drilling and
natural gas extraction operations throughout Pennsylvania. Prior to
exploiting a natural gas deposit in Pennsylvania, EQT must enter
into agreements with at least one owner of that deposit for the
right to drill and extract natural gas from the owner's property.
Pennsylvania law further requires EQT to pay royalties to all
owners of the natural gas it seeks to produce, regardless of
whether it has secured production rights directly from those
owners.

Keller Lenkner's complaint alleges that EQT systematically fails to
locate, account to, and pay the owners with whom it has not
directly contracted, in violation of Pennsylvania law. It further
alleges that EQT has extracted natural gas from real property in
which plaintiffs have an ownership interest without accounting to
or paying royalties to the plaintiffs as mandated by statute.

"For years, EQT has generated billions in profits by extracting
natural gas beneath properties across the Commonwealth while
failing to pay property owners the royalties to which they are
entitled," Keller Lenkner Partner Seth Meyer said. "On behalf of
our clients, we intend to hold EQT accountable."

Keller Lenkner attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Meyer
and Associate Alex Dravillas. Scott Hare and Anthony Gestrich of
Whiteford Taylor & Preston's Pittsburgh office are co-counsel on
behalf of plaintiffs.

The case is titled Richard A. Ross and Fieldstone Ventures, LLC v.
EQT Corporation et al., No. GD-21-011948, and is filed in the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

                           About Keller Lenkner

Keller Lenkner LLC represents plaintiffs in complex litigation
matters in federal and state courts throughout the nation. The firm
acts for clients in many types of cases, including class and mass
actions, arbitrations, and multi-district litigation matters. Its
team includes four former law clerks at the Supreme Court of the
United States and former partners and associates from the country's
leading law firms. Since its founding in 2018, the firm has secured
results for more than 100,000 clients. [GN]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Meeks Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elettra Meeks, Joseph
De La Cruz, Amber Leonard, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans
Union, LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Goldman Sachs Bank
USA, Case No. 4:21-cv-07727 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: craig@clalegal.com


FACEBOOK INC: Chides Lawyers For 'Inefficiencies' in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that lawyers for Facebook Inc
questioned the number of plaintiffs' attorneys working on a
prospective antitrust class action, suggesting "inefficiencies"
could grow as the case moves forward.

The company's legal team at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
raised its concerns in a jointly filed submission with the
plaintiffs lawyers ahead of a status conference in federal court in
San Jose, California. The lawsuit, filed in December 2020, alleges
Facebook duped consumers about data privacy as part of the
company's bid to monopolize the social media market.

Wilmer Hale attorneys, including partner Sonal Mehta, said
plaintiffs firms are "consistently" staffing 12 to 14 lawyers
despite "only a handful speaking or participating in any way" on
phone calls among counsel addressing issues in the lawsuit.
Facebook said it thought it was "prudent" to raise "potential
(in)efficiency of the interim class counsel structure."

Facebook also said "plaintiffs have had multiple lawyers sending
emails to Facebook on the same subject." Still, the company also
said it "recognizes that it does not have a role" in how the
plaintiffs' lawyers devise their responsibilities.[GN]

FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks to Certify Class of Caregivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gwendoline Aboah and Tania
Stewart, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc d/b/a BrightStar Care of
Fairfield & Southbury, and Peter R. Moore, Case No.
3:20-cv-00763-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of one hundred and thirty-one or more class members, ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and 23(b);

   2. designating them as Class Representatives; and

   3. designating their counsel, the Law Office of Nitor V.
      Egbarin, LLC, as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs propose the following definition of the class they
seek to represent:

   "All Caregivers or Home Health Aides Defendants
   employed in Connecticut during the period of May 15, 2018,
   until the date of final judgment in this matter who worked at
   least one 24-hour shift for Defendants."

Fairfield Healthcare is a hospital & health care company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WOsd4p
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
          100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-3007
          Telephone: (860) 249-7180
          Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
          E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com

FANEUIL INC: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faneuil, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Cicely Anderson, Cristal A. Ruby, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Faneuil, Inc., Insync
Consulting Services, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00308614-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept.
22, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited."

Faneuil -- http://faneuil.com/-- provide business process
outsourcing to a number of sectors including healthcare, social
programs, and transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
          Phone: 760-942-9433
          Fax: 760-452-4421
          Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com


FPC ALDERSON: Asplund Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANETTE M. ASPLUND v.
WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00541 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon.
Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of
FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES
ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other
inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The
inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being
vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire
population of over 650 inmates, the suit says.

The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being
violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death,
constituting irreparable harm.

The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United
States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is
operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United
States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia
counties, near the town of Alderson.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oHlTaw at no extra charge.[CC]

FPC ALDERSON: Barker Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BELINDA BARKER v. WARDEN
CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00528 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge
Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of
FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES
ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other
inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The
inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being
vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire
population of over 650 inmates, the suit says.

The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being
violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death,
constituting irreparable harm.

The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United
States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is
operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United
States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia
counties, near the town of Alderson.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DgRfso at no extra charge.[CC]


FPC ALDERSON: Belcher Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA S. BELCHER v.
WARDEN CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00529 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon.
Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of
FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES
ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other
inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The
inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being
vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire
population of over 650 inmates, the suit says.

The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being
violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death,
constituting irreparable harm.

The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United
States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is
operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United
States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia
counties, near the town of Alderson.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mOtdP5 at no extra charge.[CC]


FPC ALDERSON: Moore Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Megan Moore v. Warden
Carver and BOP Director Carvajal, Case No. 1:21-cv-00530
(S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of
FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES
ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other
inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The
inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being
vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire
population of over 650 inmates, the suit says.

The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being
violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death,
constituting irreparable harm.

The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United
States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is
operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United
States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia
counties, near the town of Alderson.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3akXQFC at no extra charge.[CC]


FPC ALDERSON: Salazar Suit Loses Bid to Certify Class of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE SALAZAR v. WARDEN
CARVER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00531 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge
Omar J. Aboulhosn entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The class certification is on behalf of the vulnerable inmates of
FPC Alderson who qualify for compassionate release of the CARES
ACT, elderly inmates that qualify for home confinement, and other
inmates whom are living in unsafe conditions at FPC Alderson. The
inmates that are living in unsafe conditions with subclasses being
vulnerable inmates and another subclass, as to make up the entire
population of over 650 inmates, the suit says.

The class contends that their Eight Amendment rights are being
violated by way of substantial risk of serious illness or death,
constituting irreparable harm.

The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson is a minimum-security United
States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is
operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United
States Department of Justice. FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia
counties, near the town of Alderson.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WOjkrq at no extra charge.[CC]

GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
NAJEE SLADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC; GEODIS USA, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV387276 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., September 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods, failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods at the regular rate of pay, failure to pay at least minimum
wage for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages at the
correct rate, failure to pay double time wages at the correct rate,
failure to pay overtime and/or double time wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, and failure to pay all
final wages following separation of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee.

Geodis Logistics, LLC is a transport and logistics company based in
Tennessee.

Geodis USA, LLC is a logistics service provider headquartered in
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Shaun Setareh, Esq.
         David Keledjian, Esq.
         SETAREH LAW GROUP
         9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 888-7771
         Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
         E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 david@setarehlaw.com

GERON CORPORATION: Junge Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA JUNGE and RICHARD
JUNGE, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
investors, v. GERON CORPORATION and JOHN A. SCARLETT, Case No.
3:20-cv-00547-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the Class defined as:

      "All persons who purchased Geron common stock during the
      period from March 19, 2018 to September 26, 2018,
      inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;"

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Court-appointed Lead Counsel, Kaplan Fox &
      Kilsheimer LLP as Class Counsel.

The action asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Geron Corp. and John A. Scarlett, the Company's President
and Chief Executive Officer, and a member of the Company's board of
directors.

During the Class Period (March 19, 2018 through September 26,
2018), the Defendants made positive statements about the study data
results of a Phase 2 clinical study (the IMbark study) -- that the
study's median overall survival, a secondary endpoint, suggested a
potential benefit -- while failing to disclose negative study data
results of the Imbark study, namely that the IMbark study data was
disappointing concerning one of the study's two primary endpoints,
total symptom score ("TSS"), and that there were no complete
remissions observed in the IMbark study data, in contrast to an
earlier imetelstat pilot study.

The Defendants' materially misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the price of Geron common stock, and caused
the stock price to plummet when the truth was eventually revealed
at the end of the Class Period, the lawsuit says.

Geron Corporation is a biotechnology company located in Foster
City, California, which specializes in developing and
commercializing therapeutic products for cancer that inhibit
telomerase.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3agOTNU
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Jason A. Uris, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                  juris@kaplanfox.com

GOTHAM DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Carpenters' Overtime, Torres Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOTHAM DRYWALL INC. and JOHN FITZPATRICK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05536 (E.D.N.Y., October 5, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, failure to furnish a proper wage notice, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.

Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from March
1, 2019 until April 21, 2021.

Gotham Drywall Inc. is a construction and drywall installation
company based in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

H&M HENNES: Gonzalez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L.P., ALYSE
DIGILDO, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01217029-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 30,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-01611 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay timely wages,
failure to indemnify work-related expenses, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon
termination, miscalculated overtime compensation, failure to
provide rest periods, and failure to provide meal periods.

H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. is a company that retails apparels and
cosmetic products, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Andrew L. Satenberg, Esq.
         Catherine Rose Noble, Esq.
         MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 312-4000
         Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
         E-mail: ASatenberg@manatt.com
                 CNoble@manatt.com

HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Judge Granted Dismissals of RICO Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver at journalnow.com reports that a federal judge in
Florida significantly reduced - but didn't eliminate - the legal
exposure facing Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. in a potential $1 billion
class-action lawsuit filed in September 2017.

Judge Marcia Cooke, with the Southern District of Florida, granted
dismissals of certain claims in the lawsuit, but gave plaintiffs 30
days to file a second amended complaint.

Herbalife could not be immediately reached for comment on the
ruling. The company has more than 750 employees at its East Coast
production plant in eastern Winston-Salem.

At least eight plaintiffs, comprised of Herbalife distributors,
made claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations law, or RICO, related to Herbalife live sales events.
The current complaint involves six plaintiffs.

Cooke wrote in his 14-page ruling that the plaintiffs failed "to
meet the higher pleading standards required for civil RICO cases."

"Due to similar pleading deficiencies, most of plaintiffs' state
law claims also fail."

"Finally, the court dismisses without prejudice the civil
conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims for failing to meet basic
pleading requirements."

The plaintiffs have sought damages from Herbalife and at least 43
individual defendants identified as "top distributors" in court
documents and considered as "the highest earners and collaborators"
with the company.

The focus of the complaint is the "Circle of Success" events that
the plaintiffs claim was not touched on by the Federal Trade
Commission in its $200 million settlement with Herbalife related to
its business practices.

The complaint says there could be thousands of potential
class-action plaintiffs who have spent thousands of dollars
attending the Circle of Success events and "have received no
benefit from doing so, despite defendants' constant barrage of
guarantees to the contrary."

In August 2018, a judge ruled to allow the shifting of four
plaintiffs from a Florida court to Herbalife's home state of
California.

That judge agreed that four of the plaintiffs are required to enter
arbitration with Herbalife since they signed a distributor
agreement with a valid arbitration clause. That ended the legal
case in Florida.

Herbalife and the individual defendants said in their motions that
the plaintiffs overall have failed to state an actionable claim.

Both groups also say some plaintiffs agreed to participate in a $15
million class-action settlement in May 2015 involving Herbalife vs.
five former distributors who claimed the company operates a pyramid
scheme and misled participants about how much money they
realistically could make.

Cooke ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants'
acts "proximately caused them injury." [GN]

HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Loses Rule 23 Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janet Tillman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Highland Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-02563-SAL (D.S.C.), the
Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order denying the Plaintiff
Tillman's motion to certify class of:

   "All owners of real property in Cheraw, South Carolina which
   abut the Surface Water Drainage Corridor and/or located
   within the Floodplain along said Surface Water Drainage
   Corridor, which have been impacted by PCB contamination
   emanating from the Highland Industries Plant Site."

The Court said "It remains Plaintiff's burden to establish that
certification of the issues is superior to "other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the dispute." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiff has not done that. It remains Plaintiff's
burden to establish all elements of certification, including
superiority. The court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has met her
burden in that regard."

The Plaintiff is a property owner in Cheraw, South Carolina. Her
property "borders" property now owned by Defendant. The Defendant's
real property surrounds an industrial plant, which the Defendant
currently operates to manufacture and produce industrial fabric
(the "Plant Site"). Prior to 1988, Burlington Industries, Inc.
owned the Plant Site, as well as
additional real property not purchased by Defendant. During
Burlington's ownership of the Plant Site, it operated two
divisions: (1) industrial fabrics and (2) fiberglass. In 1988, the
Defendant purchased the Plant Site and Burlington's industrial
fabric business.

The Defendant did not purchase the fiberglass business or the
sludge drying beds. It purchased a portion of the Western Ditch,
but not its entirety. This lawsuit involves the alleged
polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCB") contamination of certain
properties in areas surrounding the Plant Site. In that regard, it
is undisputed that Burlington, not Defendant, used PCBs in the
process of manufacturing fiberglass.

The Plaintiff contends that Burlington's fiberglass operations
resulted in disposal of PCBs in the sludge drying beds and
discharge of PCBs into an open ditch. Further, the Plaintiff claims
that at the time Defendant purchased the Plant Site, it was
"seriously contaminated with high concentrations of PCBs."

The Plaintiff further claims that those PCBs have contaminated her
property. With respect to Defendant's liability, the Plaintiff
contends that Defendant knew or should have known that the property
it acquired was seriously contaminated at the time of purchase, it
"used and operated a stormwater discharge pipe" that allowed
movement of contaminates.

The Plaintiff brought the instant action, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, 1 against Defendant in the
Court of Common Pleas for Chesterfield County, alleging four causes
of action: (1) negligence/recklessness; (2) trespass; (3) nuisance;
(4) injunctive relief.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AdfG8c at no extra charge.[CC]

HOTELMACHER LLC: Casilao Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADELYN CASILAO, HARRY
LINCUNA, and ALLAN GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. HOTELMACHER LLC, dba HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, et
al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00800-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott
L. Palk entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.

      -- The class as proposed in the Motion is certified for
         Plaintiffs' TVPA and breach of contract claims.

      -- Madelyn Casilao, Harry Lincuna and Allan Garcia shall
         serve as representatives of the class.

      -- As directed, Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a motion
         for appointment of class counsel within fourteen days
         of the date of this Order.

   2. The Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude reports and
      opinions of Luis C. DeBaca; and the plaintiff's motion
      to strike the expert report and testimony of Greg H.
      Bristol and memorandum in support of their motion are
      denied.

   3. The following Motions are denied as moot: Defendants'
      motion to strike Plaintiffs' exhibit list; Plaintiffs'  
      cross-motion to strike Defendants' exhibit list; and  
      Defendants' combined motion in Limine.

   4. Defendant Apex USA, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
      is denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling.

Hotelmacher is in the hotels and motels business.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mCQnYB at no extra charge.[CC]

HUHTAMAKI INC: Class Claims in Chavez Suit Tossed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN J. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff v. HUHTAMAKI, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01073-ODW (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismisses the Plaintiff's individual claims
with prejudice and the class claims without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Chavez applies to voluntarily dismiss his individual and
class claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant opposes dismissal
of Chavez's individual claims without prejudice and argues in the
alternative that if dismissal is without prejudice, the Court
should condition dismissal on Chavez's payment of Huhtamaki's fees
and costs in this litigation.

On June 5, 2019, Chavez initiated the putative class action in
state court. Huhtamaki removed the action to the Court on the basis
of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), alleging that the amount
in controversy exceeded $5 million. Chavez did not move for class
certification and instead moved to remand. On Jan. 14, 2020, the
Court granted Chavez's motion and remanded the case to state court
based on his representations that the amount in controversy was
less than the jurisdictional amount.

In December 2019, before the Court ruled on the remand motion,
Chavez filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA")
action against Huhtamaki in state court based on the same Labor
Code violations alleged; that PAGA-only case remains stayed pending
adjudication of the action.

On Jan. 7, 2021, Huhtamaki deposed Chavez in the action while in
state court and discovered that, in his federal remand motion,
Chavez had significantly underestimated the number of overtime
hours he worked and meal periods he missed. Based on this new
information, Huhtamaki removed the case again and it was again
assigned to the Court. On July 2, 2021, after briefing from the
parties on the issue, the Court found Chavez to be time-barred from
pursuing class certification because he failed to move for class
certification at any reasonable time since filing the complaint
with no adequate justification for the delay.

Left with only his individual claims, Chavez now seeks dismissal
without prejudice.

Discussion

Judge Wright finds it appropriate to allow dismissal, but he says
dismissal of Chavez's individual claims should be with prejudice
and not conditioned on payment of Huhtamaki's fees.

Judge Wright must first consider whether to allow the dismissal at
all. Huhtamaki does not oppose dismissal entirely but rather asks
the Court to dismiss Chavez's individual claims with prejudice. As
Huhtamaki does not oppose this argument, Judge Wright focuses on
legal prejudice and possible conditions.

A. Whether Dismissal Should be Without Prejudice

Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is without prejudice unless the
order dismissing the case states otherwise. Whether to allow
dismissal with or without prejudice is discretionary with the
court, and it may order the dismissal to be with prejudice where it
would be inequitable or prejudicial to defendant to allow plaintiff
to refile the action." Courts consider the following factors: "(1)
the defendant's effort and expense involved in preparing for trial,
(2) excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the
plaintiff in prosecuting the action, and (3) insufficient
explanation of the need to take a dismissal."

First, regarding Huhtamaki's effort and expense involved in
preparing for trial, Huhtamaki states it has spent $267,062 in
defending this case over the last two years. Nothing in the record
indicates a lack of diligence on Huhtamaki's part. Thus, this
factor supports dismissal with prejudice.

Second, Judge Wright considers any excessive delay or lack of
diligence on Chavez's part in prosecuting the action. He holds that
Chavez's unreasonable delay in seeking to certify a class and his
underestimations in the motion to remand support dismissal with
prejudice.

Third, Judge Wright finds Chavez's explanation for needing
dismissal sufficient, as it is reasonable that Chavez does not want
to pursue his individual claims without the class claims.

On balance, the factors favor dismissal with prejudice.

B. Whether Dismissal Should be Conditional

A court may condition "the dismissal without prejudice upon the
payment of appropriate costs and attorney fees" to protect a
defendant's interest in having to relitigate the matter. Although
courts often award defendants costs and attorney fees when granting
a plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice under Rule
41(a)(2), such an award is improper when the dismissal is with
prejudice." Huhtamaki requests that, if the Court dismisses
Chavez's claims without prejudice, dismissal be conditioned on
Chavez paying Huhtamaki's fees and costs. However, as Judge Wright
finds dismissal of Chavez's individual claims with prejudice
proper, an award of attorneys' fees is unnecessary to protect
Huhtamaki's interest. Judge Wright thus declines to condition the
dismissal with prejudice upon payment of attorneys' fees.

Conclusion

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright grants Chavez's
Application. She dismisses Chavez's individual claims with
prejudice and dismisses the class claims without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5vpf4vnx from Leagle.com.


HURRICANE EXPRESS: Ct. Enters Class Status Sched Order in Turpin
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Turpin v.
Hurricane Express, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00544-JED-SH (N.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification scheduling
order as follows:

   1. Jan. 17, 2022         Conditional certifiation motion

   2. Feb. 16, 2022         Response to condictional motion (30
                            days after filing motion)

   3. March. 3, 2022        Reply to Conditional Certicication
                            Motion (15 days after response)

   4. April 26, 2022        Hearing on conditional certification
                            motion at 9:30 a.m.

   5. June 6, 2022          Expert witness disclosure

   6. July 15, 2022         Rebuttal expert witness disclosure

   7. Aug. 29, 2022         Class certification discovery cutoff

   8. Sept. 26, 2022        Motion for class certification

   9. Nov. 28, 2022         Response to motion for class
                            certification

  10. Dec. 13, 2022         Reply to motion for class
                            certification

  11. Dec. 28, 2022         Hearing on motion for class
                            certification at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FtnSFi at no extra charge.[CC]

HYZON MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation (NASDAQ: HYZN, HYZNW, DCRB, DCRBW, DCRBU)
between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hyzon
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Hyzon class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2165.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its "customer"
contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and "partnerships"
with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles
in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2165.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

IFINEX INC: Class Suit Over Crypto Market Manipulation Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
theblockcrypto.com reports that a judge has thrown out about half
of the claims in a class-action lawsuit alleging that exchanges
Bitfinex, Bittrex and Poloniex, stablecoin operator Tether and
others manipulated crypto markets.

In June of 2020, a group of traders and trading firms grouped up to
file an amended complaint against the exchanges in the Southern
District Court of New York. The lawsuit alleged the group of
exchanges utilized Tether to manipulate the crypto markets, having
Tether issue USDT to itself without dollar-backing and then selling
the newly issued tokens to its sister company Bitfinex. The filing
had been amended to include Bittrex and Poloniex, claiming the
exchanges knew Bitfinex was transferring large amounts of unbacked
USDT onto their platforms.

That lawsuit sought "reasonable costs of suit, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees" and a trial
by jury to hammer out those claims.

Now, according to an order dated Sept. 28, Judge Katherine Polk
Failla has preserved some of those claims to be litigated and
dismissed others.

What goes
Perhaps most impactfully, the plaintiffs filed claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO Act,
which aims to eradicate organized crime. The traders made multiple
claims under this act, all of which were dismissed by Failla,
meaning Bitfinex and fellow defendants won't face claims of
racketeering or scrutiny as a possible organized crime enterprise.

Tether touted the decision, announcing that the Court dismissed
"half of the class action plaintiffs' claims against Tether and
Bitfinex, including all of their RICO claims."

Indeed, the order dismissed six claims, upheld five claims and
partially dismissed one.

"With half their case now dismissed, their primary expert debunked,
and their lead law firm embroiled in its own internecine war-with
its partners and former partners trading allegations of fraud and
ethics violations-this case is doomed. This is unsurprising given
that plaintiffs' claims are meritless," said the firm's statement.

What stays
The exchanges will still have to face a myriad of claims from the
plaintiffs. Failla decided that the traders adequately alleged
possible market manipulation, and that serves as the catalyst for
further monopoly claims.

The plaintiffs claim that buying a manipulated asset and losing
money is enough to constitute an antitrust injury. Antitrust issues
are litigated under the Sherman Act, which safeguards against
monopolies. Bitfinex and fellow defendants argued that price
manipulation that doesn't result in a clearly defined loss as a
result of manipulation doesn't fall under monopolistic practices
under this law. Failla didn't fully agree with either take, but she
sustained the claim.

"While the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' argument that merely
purchasing an item in a market subject to price manipulation
necessarily suffices to demonstrate antitrust injury, it ultimately
concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to
establish that the price manipulation by which they claim to have
been injured was the product of an anticompetitive scheme," Failla
wrote in the order.

Failla also concluded that the traders adequately alleged their
monopolization claim against Bitfinex and Tether, but not the other
defendants. The traders argued that the alleged collaboration of
Bitfinex and Tether constituted a monopolistic practice since the
two could manipulate supply and demand forces. To be clear, making
this argument stick would require the plaintiffs to prove that
Bitfinex and Tether did actually collaborate to print USDT for this
reason, as Failla noted.

"It remains to be seen whether Plaintiffs will be able to establish
willful acquisition in discovery," said the order. "But taking the
allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, Plaintiffs plausibly
allege the DigFinex Defendants' willful intent to acquire monopoly
power."

The traders wanted to include Bittrex and Poloniex in their
conspiracy to monopolize claim, but Failla found there wasn't
sufficient evidence to show that the exchanges might've helped the
alleged Bitfinex/Tether operation. The Court didn't find evidence
that there was intent to assist, and possibly knowing was not
enough to uphold the claim.

Through the alleged actions, defendants claimed that the exchanges
conspired to restrain trade, and these violations of the Sherman
Act resulted in damages against them as individuals. Failla found
these claims adequately alleged as well.

Defendants also claim that the alleged manipulation constituted
violations of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), which safeguards
against contract or swap manipulation. These claims were upheld as
well.

Bittrex, Poloniex and other individual defendants are also still on
the hook for possible principal-agent liability and possible aiding
and abetting. The traders alleged that these entities acted as
agents of Bitfinex and Tether by serving as corporate officers.

What comes next
Tether, Bitfinex and fellow defendants must file answers to the
amended complaint by October 28. Both plaintiffs and defendants
will file a joint status letter with a case management proposal by
Nov. 18.

Bitfinex and Tether say they look forward to litigating the case
and don't plan to settle on the claims that remain.

"Litigation will expose this case for what it is: a clumsy attempt
at a money grab, which recklessly harms the whole cryptocurrency
ecosystem," said the firm's statement.[GN]

IHS MARKIT: New Mexico State Investment Council Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
IHS Markit Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit captioned New Mexico State
Investment Council v. Bank of America Corp., et al, 1:21-cv-00606
(D.N.M.).

On June 30, 2021, a class action lawsuit captioned New Mexico State
Investment Council v. Bank of America Corp., et al, 1:21-cv-00606
(D.N.M.), was filed against nine dealers, ISDA, Creditex, and IHS
Markit, alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the final CDS auction
price used to value CDS contracts following a credit event.

The complaint alleges that the defendants adopted rules or
practices to limit participation in the auctions, and that the
defendants exchanged competitively sensitive information relating
to CDS auctions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
Commodities and Exchange Act, and state tort law.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all persons or
entities who, during the period of June 1, 2005 through the
present, settled a credit default swap by reference to the ISDA
credit default swap auction protocol or the auction process that
became the ISDA credit default swap auction process."

Plaintiffs seek treble damages in an unspecified amount,
restitution, attorney's fees, pre- and post- judgment interest,
injunctive relief, and other remedies.

The deadline for IHS Markit to respond to the complaint has not yet
occurred, and discovery has not yet begun.

IHS Markit Ltd. provides critical information, analytics, and
solutions for various industries and markets that drive economies
worldwide. The Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodle Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Bodle, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-07742-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical
devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Genaro Papale, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
          The Cornerstone Building
          1308 Main Street, Suite 117
          St. Helena, CA 94574
          Phone: (707) 963-1704
          Email: lgpapale@papalelaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moreno Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL MORENO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case
No. 2:21-cv-02666, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on October 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-18128-ZNQ-LHG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraud, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act by engaging in false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of OGX branded
shampoo and conditioner products.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer
products, with its headquarters located in New Brunswick, New
Jersey. [BN]

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

                - and –

         Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
         Montvale, NJ 07645
         Telephone: (845) 356-2570
         Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
         E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

                - and –

         Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
         Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
         Telephone: (845) 356-2570
         Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
         E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com

JUMP START: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Assistant Teachers
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUMP START ACADEMY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-03481 (W.D. La., October 4, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as an assistant
teacher since October 2020.

Jump Start Academy, LLC is an early childhood care center based in
Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Lucas S. Colligan, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH F. GAAR, JR.
         114 Representative Row
         Lafayette, LA 70508
         Telephone: (337) 233-3185
         Facsimile: (337) 233-0690
         E-mail: lucas@gaarlaw.com

                - and –

         Cliff Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         819 N. Upper Broadway
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com

KAMAN INDUSTRIAL: Bennett Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TRACY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES,
formerly RUBY INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV28764, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
October 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01702 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act, the Equal Pay Act, the California
Public Policy, and the California Labor Code including
discrimination based on gender, harassment, and retaliation;
failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation;
negligent infliction of emotional distress; wrongful termination;
failure to pay wages; and waiting time penalties.

Kaman Industrial Technologies, formerly known as Ruby Industrial
Technologies, LLC, is a company that supplies machinery and
equipment, with its principal place of business in Bloomfield,
Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Thomas G. Mackey, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
         Telephone: (213) 689-0404
         Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
         E-mail: Thomas.mackey@jacksonlewis.com

KODIAK CAKES: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TY STEWART, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order:

   1. sua sponte vacating the deadline to file a motion for
      class certification;

   2. denying plaintiffs' ex parte application to extend the
      deadline to file a motion for class certification; and

   3. denying defendant's ex parte applications to extend the
      deadline to file a motion class certification and to set
      a briefing schedule increase the page limits therefore.

Kodiak provides bakery products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ahCU2m at no extra charge.[CC]

KOHL'S CORPORATION: Loses Bid to Junk Hennessey Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL HENNESSEY,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. KOHL'S
CORPORATION and KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-01866-DDN (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge David D. Noce entered
an order that:

   1. The motion of defendants' for a hearing on their motion to
      deny class certification is denied without prejudice. The
      Court will set a hearing on any specific motion, if it
      believes one would be helpful.

   2. The motion of defendants to strike improper errata is
      sustained. The Court has carefully examined the suggested
      errata and finds that they deal with matters of substance
      that ought to be subjected to cross-examination.

   3. The motion of defendants for oral argument on class
      certification briefing and to strike errata is denied as
      moot. The Court has ruled the motion to strike errata,
      above, and, if the Court believes oral argument on the
      class certification issue would be helpful, it will order
      it.

   4. The motions of defendants for leave to submit supplemental
      authority are sustained. The Court will consider the
      proffered supplemental authority.

   5. The motion of plaintiff to compel depositions and
      production of documents is denied as mooted by the rulings
      by the Court during the June 7, 2021 status hearing. The
      Court perceives from the parties' filed memoranda and
      hearing comments that discovery is continuing with the
      parties engaging in reasonable negotiation.

   6. The motion of plaintiff to file under seal portions of
      plaintiff's reply is sustained.

   7. The motions of plaintiff for leave to respond to
      defendant's motions for leave to file supplemental
      authority (Docs. are sustained. The Court will consider
      plaintiff's supplemental authority.

   8. The consent motion of plaintiff to file portions of
      plaintiff's memorandum in support of class certification
      under seal is sustained.

   9. The joint motion of the parties to modify the briefing
      schedule regarding the motion to strike errata is denied
      as moot.

Kohl's is an American department store retail chain, operated by
Kohl's Corporation. As of February 2013 it is the largest
department store chain in the United States, with 1,158 locations,
operating stores in every U.S. state except Hawaii.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fkf5oW at no extra charge.[CC]

LEEFAM CLEANING: Faces Rubio Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA RUBIO and MARIA MACHADO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEEFAM CLEANING, INC. d/b/a
NU-CLEAR CLEANERS and WILSON LEE, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-05515 (E.D.N.Y., October 5, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure
to furnish accurate wage statements.

Ms. Rubio and Ms. Machado were employed by the Defendants as
cleaners in New York from May 2007 until July 2021 and from October
2002 until July 2021, respectively.

Leefam Cleaning, Inc., doing business as Nu-Clear Cleaners, is a
provider of cleaning services, with its principal office located at
172 Middle Neck Road, Great Neck, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

LONGEVERON INC: Faces Putative Securities Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Longeveron Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 1, 2021, that
the company is facing a purported securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.

On September 13, 2021, the Company, and certain of its directors
and officers, were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The suit alleges material misstatements in the Company's initial
public offering materials in alleged violation of the federal
securities laws and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of our
common stock during the period from our initial public offering on
February 12, 2021, through August 12, 2021.

Longeveron said, "We believe that these allegations are without
merit and we intend to vigorously defend against them. We do not
intend to file further Current Reports on Form 8-K describing any
additional lawsuits that may be filed that are based on allegations
substantially similar to those described above."

Longeveron Inc. a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing
cellular therapies for aging-related and life-threatening
conditions. The company is based in Miami, Florida.


LOWE'S HOME: Alvarez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2103912, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
October 1, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01660 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide adequate seating, failure to pay
wages within specified time period, failure to furnish an accurate
itemized wage statement, failure to furnish a place of employment
that is safe and healthful, and unfair competition.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a retailer of home improvement,
building materials, and home appliances, headquartered in
Wilkesboro, North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
         Lauren M. Fischer, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7000
         Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
                 lfischer@gibsondunn.com

                 - and –

         Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
         San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
         Telephone: (415) 393-8200
         Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
         E-mail: jrose@gibsondunn.com

MAGNA LEGAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Guynn-Neupane
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAOMI GUYNN-NEUPANE v.
MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES. LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-02652-VKD (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order:

   1. granting Magna's motion for summary judgment and Wilkins's
      motion for summary judgment; and

   2. denying Ms. Guynn-Neupane's motion for class certification
      as moot.

Magna Legal Services provides end-to-end legal support services to
law firms, corporations and governmental agencies throughout the
nation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at 5:19-cv-02652-VKD at no extra charge.[CC]

MAINE DOC: Judge Recommends Denial of Swain Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY SWAIN, et al., v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00449-JDL
(D. Maine), the Hon. Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison recommended
the Court to deny without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class.

According to the recommendation, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class of more than fifty other prisoners. None of the
plaintiffs, however, can assert a claim on behalf of other
individuals. "The federal courts have consistently rejected
attempts at third-party lay representation. By law an individual
may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal
counsel."

As a pro se litigant, none of the plaintiffs can represent other
prisoners in this court, though they may provide advice and
assistance to their fellow inmates on thei legal matters.
Furthermore, "a class can only be represented by counsel who is
competent to do so." The Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot prevail on
their motion to certify a class. The Plaintiffs' request to certify
a class also fails because Plaintiffs have not otherwise satisfied
the requirements for class certification, the recommendation adds.

The Maine Department of Corrections is a state agency of Maine that
is responsible for the direction and general administrative
supervision, guidance and planning of both adult and juvenile
correctional facilities and programs within the state.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uLVJV0
at no extra charge.[CC]

MAPLEBEAR INC: Levine Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. (d/b/a INSTACART),
Case No. 2184CV01853, was removed from the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 1,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-11617 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
Massachusetts law including failure to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly situated drivers or full-service shoppers appropriate
minimum wages, failure to reimburse them for business expenses, and
failure to pay them earned sick time at a rate of at least one hour
for every 30 hours worked.

Maplebear, Inc., doing business as Instacart, is a company that
operates a grocery delivery and pick-up service based in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
         Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
         Juliana M. Yee, Esq.
         MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
         560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
         Telephone: (415) 512-4000
         Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
         E-mail: rohit.singla@mto.com
                 Justin.Raphael@mto.com
                 Juliana.Yee@mto.com

                 - and –

         Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         One International Place, Suite 2700
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 378-6000
         Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
         E-mail: CKaczmarek@littler.com

MICHAEL STINSON: Gibbs Lending Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE GIBBS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, v.
MICHAEL STINSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge M. Hannah Lauck entered an order granting the motion for
class certification as follows.

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All individuals who resided in Virginia at the time he or
      she obtained any loan: (i) from Great Plains Lending, (ii)
      from Plain Green prior to June 1, 2016. or (iii) from
      MobiLoans prior to May 6, 2017, who made any payment on
      the loan;" and

   2. apointing Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record as Class Counsel
      and Named Plaintiffs Stephanie Edwards, Darlene Gibbs,
      George Hengle, Patrick Inscho. Lawrence Mwethuku, Tamara
      Price, and Lula Williams as Class Representatives.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AoS2pn at no extra charge.[CC]



MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELIOT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV383681, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on October 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-07774 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to reimburse
business expenses and unfair competition in violation of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Micron Technology, Inc. is an American producer of computer memory
and computer data storage based in Boise, Idaho. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Rick Bergstrom, Esq.
         Koree B. Wooley, Esq.
         Joshua C. Dutton, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92121.3134
         Telephone: (858) 314-1200
         Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
         E-mail: rjbergstrom@jonesday.com
                 kbwooley@jonesday.com
                 jdutton@jonesday.com

MIDLAND FUNDING: Loses Bid to Seal Certain Docs in Province Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN PROVINCE and RONALD HOWARD, Plaintiffs v.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants, ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC., Intervenor, Civil Action
No. 3:20-cv-110 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Stephanie L. Haines of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denies the
Defendants' motion for leave to file certain documents under seal.

The case is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs
Helen Province and Ronald Howard against Defendants Midland Funding
LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692 et seq., the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ("FCEUA"),
73 P.S. Sections 2270.1 et seq., the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. Sections 201-1 et seq.,
and the Consumer Discount Company Act ("CDCA"), 7 P.S. Sections
6201, et seq.

On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff's filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of several putative classes of similarly
situated individuals, asserting claims under the FDCPA and various
Pennsylvania consumer protection statutes. The Defendants responded
with a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to
dismiss the complaint. In conjunction with that motion, the
Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(H) for leave
to file certain documents under seal, which they assert contain
confidential and proprietary information.

As directed by the Court, the Defendants have forwarded to the
Court for in camera review the following documents that they wish
to file under seal in their entirety as exhibits to the Affidavit
of Operations Manager Adam Swaninger in support of their motion to
compel/motion to dismiss: (1) Purchase and Sale Agreement 2016
OneMain Fresh Accounts dated June 21, 2016 [Exhibit J]; (2) Bill of
Sale dated June 28, 2016 [Exhibit K]; (3) Purchase and Sale
Agreement 2016 OneMain Fresh Accounts dated March 29, 2016 [Exhibit
M]; and, (4) Bill of Sale dated Dec. 19, 2016 [Exhibit N].

The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion for leave to file the
documents under seal. They assert that the Defendants have not
established "good cause" for sealing the documents, noting that one
of the Purchase and Sale Agreements already was filed on the public
record in another case, and further alleging that Defendants
"routinely" disclose documents similar to the Bills of Sale to the
public. The Plaintiffs indicate, however, that they would not
oppose the filing of the documents with certain redactions.

OneMain has been granted leave to intervene for the limited purpose
of asserting its position that the Defendants should be permitted
to file the documents under seal. It contends that the public
dissemination of the documents at issue would negatively impact
their competitive standing and would affect a clearly defined and
serious injury to OneMain. They also assert that the documents are
irrelevant to the allegations set forth in the Plaintiffs'
complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed a response to OneMain's memorandum disputing
their allegations of harm, but reiterating that they would not
oppose the redaction of portions of the documents containing terms
related to "current pricing and competitive strategies."

Judge Haines opines that the common law right of access "disallows
the routine and perfunctory closing of judicial records," citing
Avandia, 924 F.3d at 677 (citing In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d at
193-94). Moreover, she holds that "the right of access is not a
mere formality -- it promotes public confidence in the judicial
system'; 'diminishes possibilities for injustice, incompetence,
perjury, and fraud'; and 'provides the public with a more complete
understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its
fairness.'"

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Haines finds that the
Defendants' conclusory assertion that the documents contain
confidential and/or proprietary information is insufficient to
overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to
documents filed in a federal court. Nor are OneMain's vague
assertions of harm to its competitive standing sufficient to
overcome that presumption. As a result, the Judge Haines denies the
Defendants' motion for leave to file documents under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3dxv9v7f from Leagle.com.


MIELE INC: Deadline Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, and PAMELA
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MIELE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02890-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
parties submit joint stipulation extending plaintiff's deadline to
file motion for class certification.

On March 1, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Motion and
Motion 5 for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes.

On April 1, 2021, the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement was denied. The parties are finalizing a
revised settlement agreement and the case is ready to be resolved.

The Plaintiff plans to file a Motion for Class Certification. The
parties stipulate and agree to continue the date on which
Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Class Certification now be due
on November 1, 2021.

Miele is a German manufacturer of high-end domestic appliances and
commercial equipment, headquartered in Gütersloh,
Ostwestfalen-Lippe.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YqPpWC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: ysaks@SteinSaksLegal.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant Miele, Incorporated, are:

          Jim D. Newman, Esq.
          THE HANOVER LAW OFFICE
          Telephone: (818) 863-8304
          500 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1280
          Glendale, CA 91203
          E-mail: jnewman@hanover.com

NADRI INC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nadri, Inc. The case
is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Nadri, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08226
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021).

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

NADRI -- https://nadri.com/ -- designs jewelry from luxurious
sterling silver, cubic zirconia, and gemstone jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAPERVILLE, IL: Halgren Sues Over Covid-19 Vaccine Requirement
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HALGREN, JOHN K. STIEGLER, GIL CORTEZ, CHRIS GARON, ROBERT
McCORMICK, and JOEL FOX, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees of the CITY OF NAPERVILLE v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE,
EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTHCARE, and GOVERNOR JAY ROBERT PRITZKER, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05039 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2021), is brought against
the Defendants for requiring their employees to take a vaccine and
to submit to weekly testing for COVID-19.

The State of Illinois and the City of Naperville is threatening to
terminate its firefighter/paramedics unless they agree to take a
vaccine for the SARS-COV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, or submit to
weekly testing for COVID-19 despite the fact that many paramedics
impacted have already contracted COVID-19, and are therefore
largely immune to it already. The implication that these heroes are
somehow public health hazards is wrong, and does a disservice to
them and to the health of the people in this State, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are employees of the Naperville Fire Department.

The City of Naperville is a municipal corporation located in the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Lubin, Esq.
          8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Phone: 773 954 2608
          Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com


NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, v. NATIONWIDE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and
CODY McCONNELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-0051 (S.D.W.Va.), the Court
entered an order:

   1. granting the joint motion to extend brief schedule;

      -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is now
         due by October 29, 2021;

      -- Defendants' opposition to class certification is due by
         November 19, 2021; and

      -- Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification is
         due by December 3, 2021; and

   2. directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to
      counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

Nationwide Property operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDAJyu at no extra charge.[CC]

NEONODE INC: Continues to Defend Purported Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neonode Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on September 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a purported class action suit with Case
No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA.

On September 2, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode Inc. filed
a purported class action lawsuit (Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA) in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company, the Board of Directors of the Company, and the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company for alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, related to the Company's proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2020 for the
Company's 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, with respect to the
Company's August 2020 private placement.

On October 20, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
Proceeding, but was subsequently informed by the Company that
plaintiff's counsel intended to file a fee petition with respect to
the Proceeding.

The Company has now been served with a complaint filed by
plaintiff's counsel in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Nassau, to recover plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $400,000 incurred in connection with the
Proceeding.

The Company does not believe that plaintiff's counsel should be
entitled to any fee award and currently intends to defend against
or settle this matter if possible.

Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical
multi-touch solutions for consumer brands. The Company is focused
on licensing its technology to Original Equipment Manufacturers and
Original Design Manufacturers who embed their technology into
electronic devices.


NEXT LEVEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA HERNANDEZ GARCIA, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. NEXT LEVEL STAFFING; JUSTMAN PACKAGING &
DISPLAY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV34985 (Cal. Sup. Ct., September 22, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendants to recover civil penalties
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
and hourly paid employee, alleges the Defendants of failing to pay
wages for all hours she and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees have worked at the legal minimum wage. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to compensate them for the off-the-clock duties
they performed prior to the start of their shifts, and rounded down
total daily hours worked at the time of their clock-in and
clock-out to the nearest quarter of an hour. In addition, the
Defendants failed to pay wages for overtime hours worked at the
overtime rate of pay; failed to pay wages for workdays that
Defendants failed to provide legally required and compliant meal
periods and rest periods; and failed to pay employees all wages due
at the time of termination/resignation. Moreover, the Defendants
failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements, says the
suit.

Next Level Staffing provides professional, engineering, and light
industrial staffing services. Justman Packaging and Display designs
and distributes packaging and point of purchase display solutions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Kevin Joseph Farnan, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Tel: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  kfarnan@lelawfirm.com
                  whteam@lelawfirm.com

NORTH AMERICAN: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Lyles ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARLENE R. LYLES, Plaintiff v. NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL
GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-CV-00721-MJH (W.D. Pa.), Judge
Marilyn J. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, granted the Defendant's:

   -- motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   -- motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

Background

Plaintiff Lyles, brings claims for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (Count I) and Breach of Contract (Count II)
against her former employer, Defendant North American Dental Group,
LLC (NADG). Ms. Lyles asserts two claims against NADG. First, she
claims that NADG violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
by terminating her employment as a result of her alleged
disability. Second, she claims that NADG breached its contractual
duty by terminating her employment without cause.

On Nov. 28, 2018, Ms. Lyles began employment with NADG. On her
first day of employment, NADG gave Ms. Lyles a "team member
handbook", which allegedly detailed the terms and conditions of her
employment. After working for six months, on May 12, 2019, Ms.
Lyles relocated to billing, which required substantial computer
work and coding.

Ms. Lyles allegedly suffers from a severe iron deficiency that
requires infusion treatments. Because of her alleged iron
deficiency, Ms. Lyles has lower energy levels, performs tasks at a
slower rate than normal, and requires time off to recover from
infusion treatments. Her alleged iron deficiency causes her to be
cold and requires her to wear heavy clothing. However, NADG policy
does not permit employees to wear hooded sweatshirts and/or hats at
their workstation.

The team member handbook states that workplace offenses are subject
to progressive disciplinary action, with a listing of immediate
suspension and/or termination offenses. Ms. Lyles alleges that her
supervisor created a hostile work environment by consistently
excluding her from meetings and by selectively enforcing the office
policy against her by repeatedly telling her to remove her hat or
hooded sweatshirt.

Ms. Lyles also alleges that, on April 30, 2019, she was given a
verbal warning that she needed to "send less tasks to departments
and ensure they were correct." And, on June 3, 2019, without
warning and without progressive disciplinary procedures, NADG
terminated her for "poor work performance."

On Aug. 9, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). In its motion to dismiss, NADG argues that Ms. Lyles's
Count I ADA claim should be dismissed because, for her disability
discrimination claim, she failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies before filing this claim in federal court. In addition,
NADG argues that, even if she had exhausted her administrative
remedies, Ms. Lyles's disability discrimination claim must be
dismissed because she fails to sufficiently plead that she suffers
from a protected disability. As regards her Count II Breach of
Contract claim, NADG also moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. NADG
argues that, in the absence of a viable ADA claim, the Court does
not have supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Lyles's state law
claim. In the alternative, NADG argues that Ms. Lyles's Breach of
Contract claim fails as a matter of law, because the Complaint does
not aver that NADG owed her any valid and enforceable contractual
obligation.

Under the Court's Standing Order and Procedures on Civil Motion
Practice, any response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should
have been filed by Aug. 30, 2021. No response was filed by said
date. On Sept. 3, 2021, the Court ordered Ms. Lyles to Show Cause
or otherwise respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Sept.
10, 2021, or the Court would proceed to decide the Defendant's
Motion without the Plaintiff's Response. To date, Ms. Lyles has not
filed a Response. Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for
consideration.

Discussion

A. ADA Claim-Count I

1. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

NADG argues that Ms. Lyles's disability discrimination claim must
be dismissed because she failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies. As indicated, Ms. Lyles did not respond or otherwise file
any opposition to NADG's motion. In order to bring a claim for
disability discrimination in the employment context, a plaintiff
must pursue administrative remedies with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing a complaint in federal
court.

Judge Horan finds that Ms. Lyles fails to allege that she filed any
claim with the EEOC or that she exhausted her administrative
remedies before the EEOC in advance of filing her Complaint in
federal court. Because the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC and
receiving a right to sue letter, her disability discrimination
claim cannot be maintained. Therefore, NADG's Motion to Dismiss Ms.
Lyles's ADA claim, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
will be granted. Count I will be dismissed. Because Ms. Lyles filed
no opposition, Judge Horan holds that the Court has no indication
that any amendment could cure the defect for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Accordingly, leave to amend at this time
will not be granted.

2. ADA Substantive Challenge

Also, as regards the Count I, ADA claim, NADG contends that, even
if Ms. Lyles had exhausted her administrative remedies, her
Complaint fails to state a prima facie case of disability
discrimination, because she fails to plead sufficient facts to
support her conclusory allegation that she suffers from a
disability. Because Ms. Lyles's failure to exhaust her
administrative remedies is fatal to her Count I ADA claim, Judge
Horan need not address NADG's substantive arguments concerning the
same.

B. Breach of Contract Claim-Count II

NADG next contends that, if the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's ADA
claim, it must also dismiss her Breach of Contract claim for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Because Judge Horan will be dismissing Ms. Lyles's ADA claim, she
has no basis for subject matter jurisdiction over her Breach of
Contract claim. Judge Horan holds that the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1331, because the claim arises under Pennsylvania
contract law and not federal law. Further, she declines exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, because, absent the ADA claim,
the Plaintiff has asserted no other federal claim with which the
breach of contract claim might share a common nucleus of operative
facts. Finally, the Complaint does not assert any other alternative
basis upon which this Court could exercise jurisdiction over the
Breach of Contract claim.

Accordingly, NADG's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Lyles's Breach of
Contract claim will be granted due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Count II will be dismissed. Ms. Lyles may re-file her
Breach of Contract claim in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.

Order

Following consideration of the foregoing and for the reasons
stated, Judge Horan granted NADG's Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Lyles's
Complaint is dismissed. Ms. Lyles may re-file her Breach of
Contract claim in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. No leave to
amend is granted; however, the Plaintiff may file a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of
the Order. Should no such motion be filed within said 14 days, the
Clerk will mark the case closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/h2nzd3s7 from Leagle.com.


PABST BREWING: Peacock Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN PEACOCK, on Behalf
of Himself, and All Others Similarly Situated, v. PABST BREWING
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00568-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of all persons or entities who
      purchased Olympia Beer in the United States since March
      15, 2014 under Rule 23(b)(2);

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A., and Beck & Lee Trial
      Lawyers, as class counsel.

The Pabst Brewing Company is an American company that dates its
origins to a brewing company founded in 1844 by Jacob Best and was,
by 1889, named after Frederick Pabst.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class the Defendant
motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3Flj98u at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
          8306 Mills Dr Unit 248
          Miami, FL 33183-4838
          Telephone: (305) 234-2060
          Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
                  elizabeth@beckandlee.com

               - and -

          Cullin O'Brien
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

PARKMOBILE LLC: Weaver CCPA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACK WILLIAM WEAVER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, and PARKMOBILE
USA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-05096, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 5,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04112-WMR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard protected personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and Class members,
failure to comply with industry standards to protect information
systems that contain PII, and failure to provide adequate notice to
the Plaintiff and Class members that their PII had been accessed
and compromised.

ParkMobile, LLC is a company that owns and operates mobile
applications that provide parking services to users, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.

ParkMobile USA, Inc. is a provider of smart parking and mobility
solutions, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
         1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 762-1910
         Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
         E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bid to Stay Knapke Suit Pending Appeal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA KNAPKE, Plaintiff v. PEOPLECONNECT INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C21-262 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J.
Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denies the Defendant's Motion to Stay.

Background

The Court denied PeopleConnect Inc.'s (Classmates) motion to
dismiss, finding, in part, that the Plaintiff was not bound by
Classmates terms of service that might require arbitration. It
rejected Classmates' strained theory that the Plaintiff's counsel's
pre-suit investigation to confirm the accuracy of the allegations
as required by Rule 11 bound his client to Classmates' terms of
service. The Court found no evidence of actual or apparent
authority that might bind the Plaintiff to her counsel's agreement
to Classmates' terms of service under Ohio law. Classmates has now
appealed that portion of the Court's Order and asks the Court to
stay the proceedings until the Ninth Circuit resolves the appeal.

Analysis

Citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009); Britton v. Co-op
Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990), Judge Pechman
states that whether to grant a stay pending an appeal of an order
denying a motion to compel arbitration rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. The party seeking the stay bears the
burden to justify the request. Judge Pechman says that in weighing
such a request, courts considers: "(1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4)
where the public interest lies."

"The first two factor are the most critical." The Court evaluates
these factors on a "continuum," and the party seeking the stay
"must show that irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a
strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the public
interest does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a
substantial case on the merits and that the balance of hardships
tips sharply in the petitioner's favor."

Considering the Nken factors, Judge Pechman finds no basis on which
to grant the requested stay. She says, while Classmates has
identified possible irreparable harm, it has failed to show any
likelihood of success on the merits or a serious legal question to
be resolved on appeal. This is fatal to the motion. And even if it
had demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious legal question,
Judge Pechman holds that Classmates has not shown that the public
interest weighs heavily in favor a stay or that the balance of
hardships tips sharply in its favor. Considering the Nken factors
on a "continuum," Judge Pechman finds that a stay is unwarranted on
this record.

Conclusion

Judge Pechman concludes that Classmates fails to demonstrate the
necessity of a stay of the proceedings pending its appeal of the
Court's order on its motion to dismiss. She holds that the relevant
factors disfavor Classmates' position and Classmates has not
convinced the Court to stay the matter pending the appeal. Judge
Pechman denies the Motion to Stay and orders Classmates to file its
answer within 14 days of entry of the Order, as previously required
by the Order in Docket Entry 31.

The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/cj4ytz7c from Leagle.com.


POLARITYTE INC: Faces Richfield Class Action
---------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 28, 2021,
that the company is facing a class action suit initiated by Marc
Richfield.

On September 24, 2021, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court, District of Utah, by Marc Richfield against the
Company and three officers of the Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00561-DAO.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants made or were responsible
for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose that: (i) the investigational new drug application
("IND") for the Company's product, SkinTE, filed with the United
States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was deficient with
respect to certain chemistry, manufacturing, and control items;
(ii) as a result, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the
IND in its current form; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
materially overstated the likelihood that the SkinTE IND would
obtain FDA approval; and (iv) as a result, the public statements
regarding the IND were materially false and misleading.

PolarityTE said, "As of the date of this filing the Company has not
received notice from its registered agent that the Company has been
served with a summons to answer the Complaint. At this early stage
of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction
regarding the outcome of the litigation."

PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.


PORCELANA CORONA: Phase I Class Cert. Deadlines & Settings Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEBIYU BETESELASSIE,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
BETHLEHEM GELAW, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A., DE C.V.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02153-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Court entered Phase I
Class certification deadlines and settings as follows:

                   Event                      Deadline/Setting

-- Jointly filed mediation notice                Jan. 7, 2022
   or confidential settlement reports
   emailed to
   ksd_james_chambers@ksd.uscourts.gov

-- Mediation completed                           Jan. 21, 2022

-- Jointly proposed protective order             Oct. 1, 2021
   submitted to the court

-- Motion and brief in support of                Oct. 1, 2021
   proposed protective order (only if
   parties disagree about the need for
   and/or scope of order)

-- Toilet and Exemplar Toilet                    Oct. 31, 2021
   Inspections

-- Plaintiffs serve expert disclosures           Nov. 30, 2021
   and reports for class certification
   purposes

-- Defendant serve expert disclosures            Dec. 31, 2021
   and reports for class certification
   purposes

-- Rebuttal experts disclosed for                Jan. 21, 2022
   class certification


-- All discovery completed as to                 Feb. 11, 2022
   class certification

-- Class certification motion filed              March 2, 2022

-- Response to class certification               March 24, 2022

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uYSYj9 at no extra charge.[CC]

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Loses Class Decertification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY LAURENT, et al.,
v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02280-JPO
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order as
follows:

   -- PWC's motion for class decertification is denied; and

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in part
      and denied in part.

Specifically, Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on liability
with respect to the Plan's normal retirement age and the Plan's
projection rate. Summary judgment is denied as to relief. The
parties are directed to confer regarding the next phase of this
litigation. Within days after the date of this Opinion and Order,
the parties shall file a joint letter of up to 6 single-spaced
pages addressing each side's proposals for further proceedings. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers
216 and 260, says Judge Oetken.

PricewaterhouseCoopers is a multinational professional services
network of firms, operating as partnerships under the PwC brand.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FrttvL at no extra charge.[CC]

QUEBEC: Court Approves $60M Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino at canadianlawyermag.com reports that that
Superior Court of Quebec has approved a settlement agreement for an
aggregate amount of $60 million in relation to class actions filed
against the religious congregation of the Brothers of the Sacred
Heart.

The class comprises all those who have been sexually assaulted by a
religious member of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart either:

while they were in any training establishment, school, college,
leisure establishment, activity center, camp, residence, parish,
place of worship or any other place in Quebec before July 9, or
while they were students, boarders or candidates for admission to
Mont Sacre-Coeur de Granby, including the College Mont-Sacre-Coeur,
the boarding schools and the juniorate, between 1932 and 2008.

The defendants and their counsel will have no right to challenge,
review or intervene in the claims process, said a news release from
Kugler Kandestin LLP, class counsel. Class members must file a
claim form by July 30, 2022 in order to benefit from the settlement
agreement, and will then attend a private and confidential meeting
with a claims arbitrator.

Class counsel appointed Claudette Picard and Pepita Capriolo,
retired judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, as arbitrators, in
which role they will decide on the admissibility of the claim and
the category of compensation that each class member can receive.
The amount of compensation for each category will only be
determined after the arbitrators have decided all claims.

According to Kugler Kandestin's website, in November 2017 the
Quebec Superior Court granted an application for authorization to
file a class action for access to justice for those sexually abused
during their childhood by religious members of the Brothers of
Sacred Heart associated with College Mont-Sacre-Coeur in Granby,
Que. The action alleged that at least 18 religious brothers
committed systemic, reprehensible and unacceptable sexual abuse
over several decades.

In February 2019, class counsel brought an application for
authorization for another class action that sought access to
justice for other victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by religious
members of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart across the province,
which was granted by the Quebec Superior Court in December 2019.

The resulting class lawsuit asked for compensatory damages for each
victim, as well as $15 million in punitive and exemplary damages.
The Superior Court conducted a case management conference on Oct.
2, 2020, at which point it decided on the timeline to allow the
case to proceed. [GN]

QUEST INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hong Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNG EI HONG, Plaintiff v. QUEST INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07908 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 2021)
brings this complaint as a collective action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a limousine driver
from in or about 2010 through late 2018.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against
the Defendant on May 13, 2019 contending that throughout his
employment with the Defendant, he was not paid full wages owed to
him. The Defendant, however, filed their Answer to Complaint,
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims alleging the Plaintiff of
false allegations that the Plaintiff had threatened to sue and did
sue companies that did business with Quest for the sole purpose of
injuring Quest's business and that Plaintiff further encouraged
other drivers leave the Quest for other limousine companies and to
join the Collective Action, to hurt the Defendant.

Allegedly, the Defendant brought the claims against the Plaintiff
to retaliate against the Plaintiff for filing the Collective Action
to recover unpaid wages on his own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated employees. As a result of the Defendant bringing
a baseless lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has
suffered emotional distress and incurred attorneys' fees to defend
himself.

Quest International Limousine, Inc. provides a comprehensive luxury
vehicle service that is available to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week for business or leisure requirements in the NYC region. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret McIntyre, Esq.
          195 Montague Street, 14th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: (212) 227-9987

                - and –

          Jonathan Bernstein, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN ISAACS, P.C.
          1250 Broadway, 36th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Tel: (917) 693-7245

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("Complaint"), containing new allegations and an expanded class
definition, has been filed against Raytheon Technologies
Corporation ("Raytheon" or the "Company") (NYSE: RTX) and certain
of its officers. The Complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, and docketed under No.
CV-20-00468-TUC-JCH, has a class period of  February 10, 2016
through October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and is on
behalf of a class consisting of anyone who:

-- purchased or acquired Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) common stock
from the beginning of the Class Period on February 10, 2016 until
the date the merger between Raytheon Company and United
Technologies Corporation was completed on April 3, 2020;
-- purchased or acquired United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX)
common stock from June 10, 2019, the first trading day after the
merger was announced, until the date the merger was completed on
April 3, 2020; and
-- purchased or acquired Raytheon Technologies Corporation
(NYSE:RTX) common stock from the date the merger was completed on
April 3, 2020, until the end of the Class Period on October 27,
2020, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

On July 27, 2021 the Court appointed The State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio as Interim Lead Plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz
LLP as Interim Lead Counsel. (Dkt. No. 30). If you are an investor
who (1) purchased or acquired Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) common
stock from the beginning of the Class Period on February 10, 2016
until the date the merger between Raytheon Company and United
Technologies Corporation was completed on April 3, 2020; (2)
purchased or acquired United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX)
common stock from June 10, 2019, the first trading day after the
merger was announced, until the date the merger was completed on
April 3, 2020; or (3) purchased or acquired Raytheon Technologies
Corporation (NYSE:RTX) common stock from the date the merger was
completed on April 3, 2020, until the end of the Class Period on
October 27, 2020, you have until October 21, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Non-Interim Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Raytheon purports to be an aerospace and defense company providing
advanced systems and services for commercial, military, and
government customers worldwide. Among the Company's four main
operational divisions is its Raytheon Missiles and Defense segment,
which designs, develops, integrates, and produces missile and
combat systems for the armed forces of the United States and allied
nations.

During the class period, Raytheon derived a vast majority of its
revenues from contracts it received from the U.S. government. U.S.
government contracts are subject to heavy scrutiny and contractors
are required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations
governing the government's acquisition of goods and services. These
laws and regulations impose a broad range of requirements, many of
which are unique to government contracting. Failure to comply with
these requirements can result in severe repercussions including,
but not limited to, reduction to the value of contracts, forfeiture
of profits, and bars from future government contracts. Government
contractors are also subject to audits and investigations by U.S.
government agencies to ensure compliance with contracts. During the
Class Period, Raytheon repeatedly engaged in egregious misconduct
in relation to its contracts with the U.S. government. The
misconduct included several improper practices designed to
overcharge the government under existing contracts. Specifically,
Raytheon double-charged the government by miscoding labor charges,
purchased and mislabeled goods as services to charge a higher
markup and avoid certain registration and oversight requirements,
and made unnecessary purchases, without the required authority from
the government, for materials that were scheduled to arrive after
the end date of the task orders. Raytheon also misappropriated
funds, failed to submit sub-contracts for competitive bidding,
deliberately prolonged projects to inflate Estimates at Completion,
and conducted business with foreign companies in direct violation
of presidential executive orders. This misconduct resulted in a
gross overstatement of many important financial metrics such as
revenues, operating income, and operating expenses. Rather than
disclose the misconduct, Raytheon concealed it by doctoring
contracts in advance of government reviews and audits. This
slight-of hand included manipulating dates and other information in
the contracts.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
repeatedly made false and misleading statements regarding the
effectiveness of Raytheon's internal controls over financial
reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, as well as a
number of relevant financial metrics. Contrary to the Defendants'
representations to investors, the aforementioned internal controls
over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures
were not effective and did not provide reasonable assurances that
transactions were properly executed and/or recorded. Raytheon was
not entitled to the benefits of the revenue it generated from its
government contracts due to the misuse, misappropriation, and
violations of the prescribed protocols and parameters of those
government contracts. The material overstatement of reported
revenues resulted in the improper reporting of other important
financial metrics, like operating income, operating margin, income
from operations and net income. The misconduct subjected Raytheon
to significant fines and other punitive remedies, in addition to
future bars from government contracts.

On October 27, 2020, during after-market hours, Raytheon filed its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended
September 30, 2020 (the "3Q20 10-Q"). The 3Q20 10-Q announced a
criminal investigation by the DOJ into the Company, stating, in
pertinent part:

On October 8, 2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from
the DOJ seeking information and documents in connection with an
investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls
over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon
Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009. We are
cooperating fully with the DOJ's investigation. At this time, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation.
Based on the information available to date, however, we do not
believe the results of this inquiry will have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity.

On this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per share, or
approximately 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28,
2020.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

RECRO PHARMA: Investor Group Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ALBERICI,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
RECRO PHARMA, INC., GERALDINE A. HENWOOD, STEWART MCCALLUM AND JOHN
HARLOW, Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiff
Recro Investor Group asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

   1. certifying this action as a class action;

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
      Class; and

   3. appointing Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel, with Kaskela
      Law LLC as Class Liaison Counsel.

Recro Pharma is a specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company
develops non-opioid therapeutics for the treatment of pain in the
post-operative setting. Recro Pharma offers its products to the
medical industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uRgL4G
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brenda Szydlo, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Brenda Szydlo, Esq.
          Villi Shteyn, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  bszydlo@pomlaw.com
                  vshteyn@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258–1585
          Facsimile: (484) 258–1585
          E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

RICHARD ZEITLIN: Donors File Class Action Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
publicintegrity.org reports that political donors filed a class
action lawsuit against Richard Zeitlin, a Las Vegas-based
telemarketer they accuse of facilitating a "massive money-making
scheme."

Zeitlin was the focus of an investigation by the Center for Public
Integrity in 2019.

The lawsuit alleges Zeitlin and his companies violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by "siphoning . . . . donations
out in the form of enormous profits." It was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The donors allege they were duped by telemarketers calling on
behalf of "scam PACs," which are political action committees that
raise significant sums of money from donors but spend little - if
anything - on the people they claim to champion, such as children
with leukemia, women with breast cancer, police officers,
firefighters and veterans.

"Instead of putting the millions of dollars raised by the Zeitlin
companies to work for these noble causes, the scam PACs and their
complicit treasurers (who also profit from this massive scheme),
funnel nearly all of the funds back to the Zeitlin companies
through an array of bogus and inflated overhead expenditures," the
lawsuit states.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits calling a cell
phone using automatic dialing systems or artificial voices (also
known as soundboard technology) without prior consent. Violating
the act carries fines of $500 to $1,500 per phone call.[GN]

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Securities Suit Over Trading Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------
tokenist.com reports that the GameStop/AMC saga has resulted in a
class-action lawsuit against parties that are allegedly responsible
for restricting the trading of short-squeezed securities.

A Quick Recap of the GME/AMC Situation

On January 28, 2021, retail trading hit a new milestone when
Robinhood decided to restrict short-squeezed stocks, citing market
volatility, in addition to raising margin requirements.

"In light of recent volatility, we restricted transactions for
certain securities to position closing only."

Soon after, TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab joined Robinhood in
imposing similar restrictions. Headed by GameStop (GME) and AMC
Entertainment (AMC) as the main ones, the restricted list also
included the following securities:

Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY)
BlackBerry (BB)
Express (EXPR)
Koss (KOSS)
Nokia (NOK)
Naked Brand Group (NAKD)

Up to that point, hedge funds were heavily invested in betting
against GME/AMC. However, they failed to account for the power of
social media combined with zero-fee trading. Robinhood had
established itself as one of the most popular trading apps, having
grown by 80% between 2019 to 2021, from 10 million to 18 million
users.

During the pandemic, day trading became something of a new hobby
among millennials and Gen Xers, notably spearheaded by the likes of
Dave Portnoy and Keith Gill. [GN]

SAFELITE GROUP: Alvarez Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDMOND ALVAREZ and THOMAS NEWELL, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC.; SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC.; SAFELITE GLASS
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV23779, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on October 1, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-07874 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks, failure to pay for non-compliant meal periods and rest
breaks, failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment,
failure to pay overtime, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

Safelite Group, Inc. is a provider of vehicle glass repair,
replacement, and calibration services and insurance claims
management company, based in Columbus, Ohio.

Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. is a company that provides auto glass
fulfillment services based in Columbus, Ohio.

Safelite Glass Corporation is a provider of auto glass repair and
replacement services, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
         Christopher M. Lapidus, Esq.
         VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
         4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 526-7900
         Facsimile: (949) 526-7901
         E-mail: cdcatignani@vorys.com
                 cmlapidus@vorys.com

SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Seeks to Certify August 30, 2021 Order
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ASNER, et al., v.
THE SAG-AFTRA HEALTH FUND, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10914-CAS-JEM
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the Court's August 30, 2021 Order that was
electronically filed on the docket on September 1, 2021 for an
interlocutory appeal.

The Defendants seek this certification to petition the Ninth 20
Circuit to review the Order's denial of Defendants' motion to
dismiss the First and Third Count of the First Amended Complaint.
This request is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion,
Defendants' supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
Order, all pleadings and papers on file with the Court in this
action, and on such other matters as may be presented to the Court
at or before the hearing of this Motion.

The Defendants are the SAG-AFTRA Health Fund, the Board of 6
Trustees of the Screen Actors Guild-Producers Health Plan, the
Board of Trustees of the SAG-AFTRA Health Fund, Daryl Anderson,
Helayne Antler, Amy Aquino, Timothy Blake, Jim Bracchitta, John
Carter Brown, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, Barry Gordon, J. Keith
Gorham, James Harrington, David Hartley-Margolin, Harry Isaacs,
Robert W. Johnson, Sheldon Kasdan, Matthew Kimbrough, Lynne
Lambert, Allan Linderman, Carol A. Lombardini, Stacy K. Marcus,
Richard Masur, John T. McGuire, Diane P. Mirowski, D.W. Moffett,
Paul Muratore, Tracy Owen, Michael Pniewski, Ray Rodriguez, Marc
Sandman, Shelby Scott, David Silberman, Sally Stevens, Gabriela
Teissier, Lara Unger, Ned Vaughn, David Weissman, Russell Wetanson,
David P. White, and Samuel P. Wolfson.

A copy of Defendants' motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YoTefg at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          Neil V. Shah, Esq.
          Anastasia S. Gellman, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com
                  nshah@proskauer.com
                  agellman@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Cooper, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Jones, Esq.
          scooper@proskauer.com
          jljones@proskauer.com
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193

               - and -

          Jani K. Rachelson, Esq.
          Evan R. Hudson-Plush, Esq.
          COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
          900 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10022-4869
          Telephone: (212) 563-4100
          Facsimile: (646) 473-8254
          E-mail: jrachelson@cwsny.com
                  ehudson-plush@cwsny.com

SAN JOSE, CA: Faces Class Action Suit Over George Floyd Protests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Salonga at mercurynews.com reports that a wide-ranging
federal lawsuit against San Jose over severe protester injuries and
violent police actions at last year's George Floyd demonstrations
is moving ahead after a judge largely rejected the city's attempt
to get the case dismissed early.

An order by Judge Phyllis Hamilton means that the suing attorneys -
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of San Francisco Bay Area
and experienced police-misconduct litigators Rachel Lederman, Jim
Chanin, and Michael Flynn - are a step closer in securing
class-action status for the suit, which would significantly expand
the plaintiff group beyond the current 14 named clients.

The lawsuit, filed in March, alleges civil-rights violations by San
Jose police and city leadership covering excessive force, wrongful
arrest, and First Amendment infringements stemming from both
enforcement tactics and the issuing of a city-wide curfew after the
first few days of violent clashes at the end of May 2020. Attorneys
are also seeking to compel wholesale changes in police training and
policies that authorized the violence that drew national infamy to
the city.

While Hamilton's order was a procedural assessment of the legal
standing of the lawsuit's 16 claims, plaintiff attorneys consider
it an encouraging sign that their critiques of how the city and
police cracked down on demonstrators protesting the police killing
of George Floyd will eventually be affirmed by the court.

"This tells both San Jose and other jurisdictions that they have to
be very careful with what tactics they use to engage with their
citizens, that they have to make people feel comfortable and safe
to listen to instructions to police, and move freely in their
city," said Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, an attorney fellow for the
lawyers' committee. "We're really hoping that this order
demonstrates to city officials and police that criticism of how
they operate is also constitutionally protected."

The City Attorney's Office declined to weigh in on the judge's
order, citing a practice of not commenting on pending litigation.

Scores of people were injured during a week of demonstrations that
started May 29, 2020 in downtown San Jose, most of them by police's
prolific use of rubber bullets and other projectiles and chemical
weapons. In previous comments, the police union asserted short
staffing factored into the protest response and that 100 officers
were injured over the course of the demonstrations.

"We saw the city trying to push the narrative that folks protesting
were violent and disruptive, and this (order) recognizes the city
has a lot more responsibility in that situation. If violent people
are there, you have to discern if there is an actual threat, and be
very specific how you approach that single incident," Ressl-Moyer
said. "You cannot just have an indiscriminate response to everyone
present."

The filing addressed by Hamilton is the largest lawsuit filed from
the fallout from the protests. Among the plaintiffs are Michael
Acosta, a resident who asserts he lost an eye to a police
projectile; Joseph Cañas, who was also hit in the eye by a police
munition as he played guitar at the protests; a pre-elected
Assemblymember Alex Lee; and activist Shaunn Cartwright, who claims
that while serving as a legal observer, was shoved repeatedly by an
officer even after she alerted them to her physical disabilities.

Eleven of the city's dismissal motions were denied by the judge
outright. That means First Amendment violation claims, alleging
that police targeted demonstrators based on their viewpoints and
that a city curfew infringed their free expression, can move ahead
to the evidentiary phase. The same goes for federal claims of
excessive force, wrongful arrest, failure of officers to intervene
with other officers using unlawful force, failure to accommodate a
disability, and a series of parallel claims of state-law
violations.

Hamilton did agree with the city in dismissing claims alleging
race-based targeting of protesters and that officers specifically
violated protesters' freedom of movement. She partially dismissed a
claim over the curfew and limited potential liability to Mayor Sam
Liccardo, former city manager Dave Sykes, former police chief Eddie
Garcia and the City of San Jose.

The judge did not decide on issues addressing qualified immunity
for officers - legal protections for officers against monetary
damages - and questions over officers' lack of crowd-control
training. Hamilton wrote that the next information-gathering phase
- discovery - will have to be done first. She will then evaluate
those issues in later summary judgment proceedings, where she will
decide again if the case can advance toward trial. [GN]

SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Dialysis Technicians, Soliman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY SOLIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SATELLITE HEALTHCARE, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV387218 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., September 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide lawful rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse
employee expenses, failure to pay correct sick pay wages, failure
to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages
at termination, knowing and intentional failure to comply with
itemized employee wage statement provisions, and unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dialysis
technician in California from April 2017 until her termination on
October 7, 2020.

Satellite Healthcare, Inc. is a provider of kidney disease care and
dialysis services in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
         Kacey E. Cook, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387—7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387—6676

SBK DELIVERY: Miller Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages, Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY M. MILLER II, for himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SBK DELIVERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-04744-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, September 22, 2021) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver
between approximately October 2020 through July 9, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified its
delivery drivers as independent contractors. Despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate for hours
worked in excess of 40. The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant of
breach of contract by failing to pay him and other similarly
situated delivery drivers the agreed upon percentage of total route
income.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation
costs and expenses, attorney's fees, injunctive relief for the
Defendant to cease violations of the FLSA, and other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court and available under the FLSA in an amount
greater than $75,000.

SBK Delivery, LLC provides delivery services for Watco Supply Chain
Services, Lasership, Need it Now, and others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dryer, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Tel: (614) 796-4325
          Fax: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@ManellLawLLC.com
                  Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com

SOMETHING NAVY: Slade Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOMETHING NAVY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-08196 (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.Somethingnavy.com, requires the use of a mouse to
complete a transaction, denying the Plaintiff and other blind
customers the ability to independently navigate and/or make
purchases on the website. This access barrier hinders them to enjoy
the benefits of the Defendant's online goods, content, and services
offered to the general public through the website.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Something Navy, Inc., is an apparel and fashion accessories
retailer, with its principal place of business located at 183
Madison Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]

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

STARKIST CO: Discovery & Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Gardner
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered 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/3Afx3Fwat 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

STAY DRY: Gloss et al. Seek Laborers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GLOSS, JOSEPH CRASE, TRAVIS MORGAN, and KYLE SANNER, for
themselves and al others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAY DRY
WATERPROOFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04747-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, September 22, 2021) bring this complaint as a collective and
class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Laborers,
allege that the Defendant has violated the FLSA and OMFWSA by
failing to properly compensate them and other similarly situated
laborers. The Plaintiffs claim that despite regularly working over
40 hours in a single workweek, the Defendant did not pay them
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Instead, they were paid a "day rate" for each day of
work, regardless of the number of hours worked, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs of the litigation and administration
of the common fund, and attorneys' fees, injunctive relief for the
Defendant to cease violations of the OMFWSA, and such other or
additional relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

Stay Dry Waterproofing, LLC provides basement waterproofing,
foundation repair, mold testing and removal, crawl space
encapsulation, yard drainage, biohazard clean up, water and fire
damage restoration, and basement finishing services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dryer, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Tel: (614) 796-4325
          Fax: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com

STERICYCLE INC: Poston Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poston, et al., v.
Stericycle Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00655 (W.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge  Robert J. Conrad, Jr. entered an order denying as
moot motion to certify class in light of amended motion to certify
class.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Malone Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VELVET MALONE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC;
ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00584-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration.

Defendants Stoneledge Furniture, LLC and Ashley Furniture
Industries, LLC, filed the Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss
Class Claims, and Stay the PAGA Claim.

Plaintiff Malone will arbitrate his claims against the Defendants
on an individual basis pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement. His
putative class claims are dismissed pursuant to the class action
waiver provision in the Arbitration Agreement.

The action, including the Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim,
will be stayed pending completion of the arbitration, but the Court
will retain jurisdiction to enter or confirm an award of the
arbitrator.

Not later than 60 days following the date the Order is
electronically filed, and every 60 days thereafter until the stay
is lifted, the parties will file a joint status report advising the
Court as to the status of that arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/463966wr from Leagle.com.


TEXAS: Families Join Lawsuit Against Districts Over Mask Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------------
fox4news.com reports that families in three North Texas school
districts are part of a federal lawsuit aimed at implementing
COVID-19 safety measures like mask wearing.

The families from Frisco ISD, Grapevine-Colleyville ISD and the
Hurst-Euless-Bedford school district joined the lawsuit along with
families from Lago Vista ISD, which is northwest of Austin.

All four districts encourage mask wearing but don't require it
because of Gov. Greg Abbott's order banning mask mandates in public
schools.

"We know masking works. The CDC said counties with schools that had
mask requirements had a smaller increase in pediatric cases than
counties without school mask requirements. And we're just using the
courts because we're not like other people who want to use
intimidation or violence in disagreements without government," said
Kathleen Thompson, a Grapevine-Colleyville ISD parent.

The families accuse the school districts of violating their
children's constitutional rights to equal protection as stated in
the 14th Amendment.

U.S. Justice Department supports challenge to mask mandate ban
The Biden Administration threw its support behind another set of
families suing to overturn Gov. Abbott's mask mandate ban.

Those families who have students with disabilities argue the order
prevents their children from going to school safely.

The United States Justice Department filed a statement with a
federal court in Austin that's hearing the lawsuit.

It says Abbott's order violates the rights of students with
disabilities even if their school district offers an online
option.[GN]

TGF MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANNA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 21LBCV00514 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay all
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to timely pay wages
upon separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate payroll
records, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Ms. Sanchez worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee from
October 2009 until October 2, 2020.

TGF Management Group Holdco Inc. is a logistics, trucking and
management company based in Delaware and doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
         George B. Singer, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
         E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 gsinger@rnahoney-law.net

TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Cardenas
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER CARDENAS, KURT
KIRTON, PAMELA BAKER, and MICHELLE MONGE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR
CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING, INC.; and SOUTHEAST TOYOTA
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-22798-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Federico A. Moreno entered an order that Defendants' motions
for summary judgment are denied with the exception of plaintiff
Monge who is dismissed without objection.

The Court said, "The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F.
Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and
Recommendation on Defendants' Motions for Summary. The Magistrate
Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on September 2, 2021.
Magistrate Judge Louis recommended denying summary judgment in all
respects except as to Michelle Mange's RICO claim, because she did
not purchase her vehicle at an authorized Toyota dealer. The
Plaintiffs elected not to object to Mange's claim being dismissed
but filed objections as to other recommendations. With the benefit
of oral argument and after conducting a de novo review the Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds sufficient
evidence presented to preclude summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants at this stage. The Court will consider the Defendants'
arguments again in their expected motion for Judgment as a Matter
of Law at trial."

Toyota and Southeast Toyota Distributors moved for summary
judgment. Toyota argued, among other things, that the substantive
and conspiracy RICO claims fail for myriad reasons, that there is
no evidence of a defect in the class vehicles, and that the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims fail for want of
causation and damages. Southeast Toyota Distributors similarly
argued that there was no evidence of an underlying Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violation or
conspiracy and that there was no deceptive act, causation, or
damages under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA).

This putative class action is brought by current and former owners
of 2012 through 2014 non-hybrid Toyota Camrys. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Toyota entities responsible for designing and
manufacturing the vehicles, along with Southeast Toyota
Distributors, a distributor of Toyota vehicles to authorized
dealers, conspired to conceal a defect in the vehicles' Heating
Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems. Plaintiffs' claims are
brought under RICO and FDUTPA.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi, Japan. It was
founded by Kiichiro Toyoda and incorporated on August 28, 1937.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BomTnm at no extra charge.[CC]

UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Taylor Seeks to Certify Technicians Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES TAYLOR,
Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. UNILEVER MANUFACTURING (US), INC., A Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02803-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
a class of:

   "similarly situated current and former general maintenance
   technicians who were employees of Unilever Manufacturing
   (US), Inc. at any of their non-unionized facilities during
   the last three years ("the putative class").

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an Order:

   (1) authorizing Plaintiff's claims to proceed as a FLSA
       collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative
       class for overtime pay violations;

   (2) directing Defendant to immediately provide Plaintiff's
       counsel a computer-readable file containing the names
       (last names first), last known physical addresses, last
       known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of
       employment and last known telephone numbers of all the
       putative class members;

   (3) providing that Court-approved notice be posted at all of
       Defendant's non-unionized facilities where putative class
       members are employed, enclosed with all of Defendant's
       currently employed putative class members' next
       regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed and
       emailed to the the putative class so that they can timely
       assert their claims;

   (4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
       as of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and

   (5) requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join
       Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AcPj2g
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNITED ASSOCIATION:  Court Approves Settlement Deal in Poe Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. POE, ET AL. V.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMAN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AFL-CIO
LOCAL 198 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, ET AL., Case No.
3:18-cv-00667-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson
entered an order:

   1. confirming the certification of the following, non-opt-out
      Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(l) of the Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure, for settlement purposes only:

      "All persons who had a notional balance in his or her HRA
      by virtue of his or her membership in and work through the
      Local 106 Union when the HRAs were terminated effective
      September 30,2017"

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
      approval of class action settlement and approving the
      Settlement Agreement;

   3. directing that as of the Effective Date, all Plaintiffs'
      Released Claims against Settling Defendants Releasees
      shall be extinguished, discharged and released, subject
      only to compliance by the Plaintiffs and Local 198
      Defendants with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
      this Order;

   4. As of the Effective Date, barring the Settling Parties and
      enjoining from the institution and prosecution, either
      directly or indirectly, of any actions in any court
      asserting any or all of Plaintiffs' Released Claims
      against Settling Defendants Releasees;

   5. As of the Effective Date, Plaintiffs, permanently
      enjoining Settlement Class Members, and the Plan from
      asserting, commencing, prosecuting or continuing, either
      directly, individually, representatively, derivatively or
      in any other capacity, any other actions in any court
      asserting such Plaintiffs Released Claims, or from
      receiving any additional recovery or relief from any of
      Settling Defendants' Releasees with respect thereto;

   7. dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' action as to the
      Local 198 Defendants, which operates to extinguish,
      discharge, and release any and all Released Claims against
      Releasees, without an award of costs except as provided
      for in the Settlement Agreement and this Order; and

   8. granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Final Approval
      Of Attorney's Fees, Costs, And For Case Contribution
      Award:

      a) Class Counsel is awarded attorneys fees in the amount
         of $96,667.67, or thirty-three and one-third percent
         (33 1/3%) of the $290,000.00 gross Settlement Fund;

      b) Class Counsel is awarded litigation-related expenses in
         the amount of $656.85;

      c) Class Counsel is awarded expert fees in the amount of
         $15,000 for work performed by Fiduciary Counselors, the
         Independent Fiduciary for the Settlement; and

      d) Named Plaintiff Michael D. Poe is awarded a case
         contribution award in the amount of $38,000.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3afWEnhat no extra charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE: Brandon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD BRANDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02576 (D. Colo., September 23,
2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay all
overtime due to its hourly employees.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid
utility locator from June 2018 until November 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to compensate him
and other similarly situated utility locators for all hours they
have worked. Specifically, the Defendant did not compensate them
for the time they spent attending required project meetings,
traveling to and from job sites, working through required
thirty-minute lunch breaks, mapping out his route to complete
inspections, reading and responding to work emails, and preparing
reports at the end of their shift. As a result, despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week, they were not properly paid
their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

United States Infrastructure Corp. specializes in the locating
utility services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

UNITED STATES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Doe v. ATF
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States, MATTHEW WHITAKER, in
his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United
States, and THOMAS E. BRANDON, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-6-SMY
(S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois granted the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.

Background

Following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, Congress urged the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") to
re-examine the classification of bump stock devices. In response,
the Department of Justice issued a Final Rule, Bump-Stock-Type
Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) ("Final Rule").

Plaintiff John Doe filed the instant putative class action on
behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, claiming the
Final Rule exceeds ATF's statutory authority and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Constitution.

Doe asserts the following causes of action in the Complaint: Count
I - 18 U.S.C. 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration
period/amnesty; Count II - 18 U.S.C. 922(o) is facially
unconstitutional as being in excess of the authority granted to
Congress under the Commerce Clause; Count III - 18 U.S.C. Section
922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to firearms registered in the
National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as being in
excess of the authority granted to Congress under the Commerce
Clause; Count IV - 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is an unconstitutional
direct tax in violation of Article I of the Constitution; Count V -
18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is a violation of the Due Process Clause;
and Count VI - The Final Rule is a Taking requiring just
compensation.

The case is now before the Court for consideration of the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Doe opposes the motion.

Discussion

Doe asserts that the Final Rule is unlawful on its face and as
applied to him as a bump stock owner. He alleges that 18 U.S.C.
Section 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration or amnesty
period for newly regulated bump stocks and that the Defendants have
acted arbitrarily, capriciously, contrary to law, and in violation
of the Constitution by concluding they lack authority to institute
an amnesty or initial registration period. He also challenges the
constitutionality of the federal prohibition on machineguns. The
Defendants argue that each of Doe's claims is subject to summary
dismissal.

I. Registration/Amnesty Period Claim (Count I)

Doe contends the Defendants have abused their discretion and acted
arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to enact an amnesty period
to allow current bump stock owners to register their devices under
the NFA. He cites Section 207(d) of the 1968 Amendments to the NFA
to support his assertion that the ATF has authority to grant
amnesty for bump stocks.

Judge Yandle finds that Doe concedes that a bump stock is a
machinegun. Doe does not take issue with the fact that a bump stock
is a "machinegun." While certainly questionable whether the
drafters of the term used in the U.S. Code ever envisioned a device
like a bump stock, for purposes of the litigation, Doe has already
conceded the point. And an amnesty period would clearly violate
Section 922(o)'s prohibition on machineguns. As such, the
administrative record and legislative history support ATF's
interpretation which is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Accordingly, summary judgment in the Defendants' favor is warranted
on Count I.

II. Commerce Clause (Counts II and III)

Doe contends that the statutory ban on machineguns in Section
922(o) exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause
because the possession of a machinegun is not a channel or
instrumentality of commerce nor is it an activity that has a
substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Judge Yandle holds that Doe offers the Court no basis to
differentiate his commerce clause claims from those rejected by
numerous courts. Thus, consistent with well-reasoned rulings
upholding the constitutionality of Section 922(o), Doe's facial and
as-applied challenges to the NFA and Section 922(o) fail; the
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Doe's commerce
clause claims.

III. Direct Tax Claim (Count IV)

Next, Doe maintains that Section 922(o) and the NFA represent an
unconstitutional direct tax in violation of Article I of the
Constitution, which grants Congress the power to lay and collect
taxes. As an initial matter, Section 922(o) does not impose any
tax. Rather, the Government prohibits the registration of
machineguns (and now bump stocks) covered by Section 922(o) and
will not accept the tax that would otherwise be required by the
registration requirements of the NFA. Further, the regulation of
machineguns is not a direct tax -- it is permissible as an excise
tax under Congress' authority to levy taxes. For these reasons,
Judge Yandle holds that the Defendants are also entitled to summary
judgment on Doe's direct tax claim.

IV. Due Process Claim (Count V)

Doe argues that the NFA and Section 922(o) violate the Due Process
Clause because the statutes are not enforced equally as to all
classes of persons and are therefore void for vagueness. He also
contends the statutes are enforced on "an ad hoc and subjective
basis" -- allowing the Defendants to change their mind on the
interpretation of what constitutes an NFA firearm and forcing
innocent possessors to come into compliance with the constantly
shifting rules.

Judge Yandle notes that there is nothing irrational about Congress
differentiating between machinegun possession by law enforcement
and possession by civilians. As the Final Rule notes, she states,
the Congress provided this exemption because it recognized the
necessity of military and law enforcement to continue to use and
possess machineguns. Prohibiting Doe, a civilian, from possessing a
machinegun and therefore, a bump stock does not run afoul of the
equal protection clause. The Defendants are therefore entitled to
summary judgment on Count V.

V. Unconstitutional Taking Claim (Count VI)

The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause provides that private property
will not "be taken for public use without just compensation." Judge
Yandle finds that the Final Rule's prohibition of bump stock
devices was triggered by Congress' directive that dangerous
machines guns be regulated as part of the effort to fight violent
crime. This classification and seizure of contraband is one of the
most basic exercises of the police power -- it does not implicate
the Takings Clause.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Yandle granted the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. All pending motions
are terminated as moot and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/72mc9963 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Hachicho's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMMAR YOUSSEF HACHICHO, Petitioner v. CHAD F. WOLF, ET
AL., Respondent, Case No. EDCV 20-1228-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed Hachicho's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus.

The Petitioner has filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by
a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241
challenging his detention in United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") custody. The Petitioner presents two claims:
(1) a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim based on his
placement in disciplinary segregation without review ("Claim One");
and (2) a Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim based on
the conditions at the Adelanto Detention Facility during the
COVID-19 pandemic ("Claim Two").

Claim Two is identical to the claim presented in in Roman, et al.
v. Wolf, et al., CV 20-768-TJH (PVCx). On April 23, 2020, the court
in Roman provisionally certified that action as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and issued a
class-wide Preliminary Injunction. Therefore, on July 23, 2020, the
Court stayed Claim Two pending resolution of Roman.

On Sept. 22, 2020, the Court in Roman certified the mandatory Roman
class on a non-provisional basis. Claim Two is, thus, now dismissed
as moot. In addition, on Dec. 15, 2020, the Court previously denied
and dismissed the Petitioner's Claim One with prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Phillips dismissed the Petition. To the extent
the Petitioner was released pursuant to an order issued in Roman,
the Petitioner will remain released subject to the terms and
conditions previously ordered by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yzft2bra from Leagle.com.


VALLARTA FOOD: Faces Thomas Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.,
d/b/a VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00040501-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., September 22, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the California's Labor Code and the
California's Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from November 17, 2017
to January 30, 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has unlawfully deducted
wages from her and other similarly situated employees' paychecks to
pay for the shoes it required them to buy. As a result, the
Defendant allegedly failed to accurately reflect net wages and
deductions on employees' paystubs.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for recovery of
unreimbursed expenses, penalties, unpaid and/or illegally deducted
wages and unjust gains.

Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Vallarta Supermarkets
operates supermarkets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 325-0492
          Fax: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org

                - and –

          Noam Glick, Esq.
          GLICK LAW GROUP, PC
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 382-3400
          Fax: (619) 393-0154
          E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com

                - and –

          Evan D. Dwin, Esq.
          DWIN LEGAL, APC
          2121 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 160
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Tel: (760) 536-6471
          E-mail: edwin@dwinlegal.com


WASHINGTON HEALTH: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LYNCH v. WASHINGTON
HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, and SUE BIRCH, Case No. 3:21-cv-05138-BHS
(W.D. Wash.), Magistrate Judge Daphne Oberg entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion to set aside DUCivR 23-1(d)'s 90-day
deadline to file motions to certify class or, in the alternative,
to continue the deadline until after class discovery.

The Class Plaintiffs shall have 90 days after the resolution of
Crown Asset Management's motion to dismiss to file a motion for
class certification. The parties are ordered to incorporate class
discovery deadlines and the class certification deadline into any
proposed schedule they subsequently submit to the court, says Judge
Oberg.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BkE2yi at no extra
charge.[CC]

WASTE PRO: Court Initially Approves Settlement Deal in Hansen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HANSEN and AHMAD
YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. WASTE PRO OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02654-DCN
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge David C. Norton entered an order that the
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of settlement agreement is
granted:

   1. The following class is certified for settlement purposes
      only:

      "All individuals who previously joined this action as Opt-
      in Plaintiffs or individuals who the Parties' agree may
      have potential claims under the South Carolina Payment of
      Wages Act."

   2. The Court approves the proposed Notice of Class Action
      Settlement and proposed Claim Form.

   3. The Court authorizes a third-party Settlement Claims
      Administrator, as agreed to by the Parties pursuant to the
      terms of the proposed Agreement, to send settlement
      notices to all Settlement Class Members containing the
      Court's approved Notice, Claim Form, and a postage paid
      return envelope addressed to the Settlement Claims
      Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Agreement;

   4. The Court approves the proposed schedule and procedure for
      the final approval of the proposed Agreement and Orders
      that the final approval hearing will be held on Tuesday,
      January 18, 2022 at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 3 of the J.
      Waties Waring Judicial Center, located at 83 Meeting
      Street, Charleston, South Carolina, 29401.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/305eqHW at no extra charge.[CC]


WAYNE, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Ingram Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM ET. AL., v.
COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-10288-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Arthur J. Tarnow entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to abstain on the claims
      asserted by the Plaintiff Stephanie Wilson;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to
      abstain or stay, or in the alternative, granting
      in part and denying in part motion to dismiss the
      claims asserted by the Plaintiff Robert Reeves;

   3. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      asserted motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion
      asserted for summary judgment on the claims asserted by
      asserted the Plaintiff Melisa Ingram;

   4. directing the parties to seek an interlocutory appeal
      asserted under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) of the Court's
      asserted rulings on Counts II and IV;

   5. adjourning pending interlocutory appeal the Plaintiff's
      asserted motion to certify class or for leave to conduct
      asserted class discovery;

   6. granting the Defendant's motion to adjourn Plaintiffs'
      asserted motion to certify class;

   7. granting the Defendant's motion to strike;

   8. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion For leave to
      asserted conduct discovery on Counts I and VII.

The Court said, "Considering that this case presents a putative
class action with a pending motion for class certification, the
Court finds it proper to make two caveats to its holdings, for the
sake of promoting efficiency for both the judiciary and the
litigants alike. The Court finds that this case warrants such a
certification its holdings on Counts II and IV. First, under Count
II, Plaintiff characterizes the Ross holding as a pre-decision.
Although the Court does not read Timbs as impacting Ross'
conclusion regarding excessive fines, the Court finds that there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion in this regard,
warranting a certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28
U.S.C. section 1292(b). Second, considering that the Sixth Circuit
had yet to rule on whether a prompt post-seizure, pre-forfeiture
judgment hearing is required under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process clause, the Court’s finding of such a requirement under
Count IV also warrants certification for an interlocutory appeal."

As alleged by the Plaintiff, "Wayne County has an official policy
of unreasonably seizing cars and other property, without probable
cause to believe that the property is connected to a crime." The
Wayne County Sheriff Department, Detroit Police Department, and
Michigan State Police seize these cars via the Vehicle Seizure
Unity and Asset Forfeiture Unit at the direction of the Wayne
County Prosecutor's Office.

The Plaintiffs allege that their cars were seized even when neither
they, as owners, nor the drivers of the vehicles were arrested at
the time of seizure, simply because their cars were present in an
area known for crime.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Yoxikq at no extra charge.[CC]

WICKED AUDIO: Delacruz Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WICKED AUDIO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08193-JPO (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://wickedaudio.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, (b) empty
links that contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked
images missing alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Wicked Audio, Inc. is an operator of an online retail store, with
its principal place of business in Lindon, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
                 
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

YANFENG US: Bid to Dismiss Dover's First Amended Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON DOVER, et al., Plaintiffs v. YANFENG US
AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS I LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-11643-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint.

Background

The Plaintiffs in the case seek to represent a class of persons who
were participants or beneficiaries of the Defendants'
employer-sponsored retirement plan. The FAC claims that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties towards plan
participants, and failed to adequately monitor other fiduciaries,
resulting in tangible losses to the retirement savings accounts of
the Plaintiffs -- as well as to those of potential class members.

The case is a proposed class action on behalf of persons who were
participants or beneficiaries of retirement plans offered by
Defendants to employees from June 22, 2014 to present. The Named
Plaintiffs alleged they participated in the Plan during their
periods of employment with Defendant Yanfeng. All three Plaintiffs
allege they suffered financial harm due to Defendants' actions as
related to sixteen of the twenty-five investment options in the
Plan.

The "Plan" in question is defined in the FAC as being composed of
25 different funds (investment options) in which participants may
invest. Its current form is the result of the change and/or merger
of several Predecessor Plans. The current Plan, also known as the
"Yanfeng Plan," represents a merger of the previously existing
Yanfeng USA Plan and the Interior Savings and Investment Plan.

The Plaintiffs make a variety of allegations as to why the
Defendants' conduct with respect to each fund violates ERISA, and
they make several distinct arguments regarding the Defendants'
mismanagement of the funds overall. These allegations all
contribute to two claims in the FAC: First, that the corporate and
committee Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence, and second, that the corporate and board Defendants
failed to adequately monitor other fiduciaries.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC on Dec. 14, 2020.
They argue that the Plaintiffs cannot sufficiently plead fiduciary
breach. The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 14, 2021. It
notes that each of the parties have also filed extensive
supplementary briefing and the Court has considered the authorities
submitted therein as well.

Discussion

A. Standing

The Defendants make a factual attack under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
that the named Plaintiffs do not have constitutional standing to
challenge the Defendants' selection and/or management of some of
the funds that comprise the Plan. There are 11 challenged funds in
the Plan that none of the Named Plaintiffs personally participated
in. Therefore, the Defendants say they have suffered no "injury in
fact" with relation to these funds, as is required for standing.

Judge Berg holds that although the facts are about retirement
benefits rather than insurance, the claims arise under the same
sections of the ERISA statute, so it is reasonable to expect that
the Sixth Circuit would approach the issue similarly. Some courts
have explicitly indicated that the standing challenge raised by the
Defendants has merit, but is more properly addressed at the class
certification stage, because it pertains to whether the named
Plaintiffs may serve as appropriate class representatives.
Accordingly, while this issue may be thoroughly scrutinized in
connection with any class certification motion (at which point the
Plaintiffs may be in a position to present more concrete
information about the Defendants' alleged wrongful practices and to
what extent they impact all of the funds at issue), at this point,
the Plaintiffs have standing to move forward. The Motion to Dismiss
will not be granted on this ground.

B. Sufficiency of breach of fiduciary duty allegations

To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, a
plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant was a fiduciary of an
ERISA plan who, (2) acting within his capacity as a fiduciary, (3)
engaged in conduct constituting a breach of his fiduciary duty. The
fiduciary duty under ERISA includes a duty of prudence as well as a
duty of loyalty. Breaches of either duty will amount to a breach of
fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs make arguments that the Defendants
have violated ERISA under both theories.

Judge Berg concludes that the Plaintiffs frame their allegations
regarding breach of the duties of prudence and loyalty under one
count for breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, even though they
fail to state a valid claim for breach of loyalty, their
allegations regarding a breach of the duty of prudence are
sufficient such that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty
survives dismissal. Those alleged breaches of the duty of prudence
include allegations against Defendants for failure to enroll in
lower-cost share classes, failure to select lower-cost alternative
funds, and failure to get rid of underperforming funds. The Motion
to Dismiss as to Count I is therefore denied.

C. Failure to monitor

Count II of the FAC alleges that certain Defendants did not
appropriately monitor the Committee Defendants who were responsible
for making investment choices, hiring outside advisors, and
generally engaging in all the conduct that is the subject of the
breach of fiduciary duty allegations.

Because a claim that certain Defendants failed to monitor the
imprudent or disloyal actions of others requires a preliminary
finding of breach of those duties, courts generally treat a
"failure to monitor" claim as rising or falling with a breach of
duty claim. Judge Berg has found that the Plaintiffs' allegations
of breach of fiduciary duty (prudence) are sufficient, and
therefore the claim for failure to monitor can also stand. The
Motion to Dismiss as to Count II is denied.

The Defendants also argue that, even if Judge Berg find the breach
of duty to be sufficient, this claim should fail because the
Plaintiffs do not make sufficient allegations regarding the
monitoring processes. But at the Motion to Dismiss stage, again,
the Plaintiffs can only be expected to know so much about the
Defendants' internal monitoring structures. The allegations they
have made are sufficient to make out this claim at this stage.

Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Berg denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

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


[*] Minnesota Class Action Lawsuit Against Beef Processors Proceeds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqui Fatka at beefmagazine.com reports that a federal judge in
Minnesota ordered a class action lawsuit against JBS, Tyson,
National Beef and Cargill to proceed. In the ruling, Judge John R.
Tunheim found that plaintiffs have plausibly plead that defendants
conspired to suppress the price of fed cattle and increase the
price of beef.

"We are pleased the effort to restore pricing transparency and
competitiveness to the cattle markets is moving forward in the
courtroom. This case is nearly two-and-a-half years old, and we
look forward to the next step in the litigation," comments Rob
Larew, National Farmers Union president, which is a plaintiff in
the case.

The case now enters the discovery phase of the trial, where
evidence and information will be presented to demonstrate how
packers violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and
Stockyards Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.

The class-action antitrust lawsuit was originally filed in April
2019 by R-CALF USA though its counsels Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
LLP, along with Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

USA's antitrust action alleges the four processors violated the
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by engaging in a price-fixing
conspiracy. It also alleges the entities violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act as well as the Commodity Exchange Act.

"As the case moves to discovery, NFU will continue to hold the
packers accountable. Malfeasance in the cattle markets has been
very damaging to independent farmers and ranchers, and we look
forward to continuing to advocate for our members in the
courtroom," Larew adds.

A public version of the order will be available at a later date,
according to plaintiffs.

Separate DOJ investigation
On May 22, 2020, the DOJ's Antitrust Division sent civil
investigative demands to the nation's four biggest meatpackers.
Since that time, the American people have seen no public results
from the investigation. In fact, there is no information to even
suggest whether the investigation has concluded or is still
ongoing, the letter notes.

Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D. previously reported that Congress has
not received any update from the Department of Justice on its own
investigation into the cattle price changes. He says this is not
"unusual" as "agencies are notoriously tight-lipped about ongoing
investigations, and there are legal reasons for that."

However, he did note that the joint statement from leading cattle
groups out of a Phoenix meeting in May confirmed their joint desire
for a final report from DOJ. At the producer-led meeting, four
member leaders from each the American Farm Bureau Federation,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Farmers Union,
R-CALF USA and the United States Cattlemen's Association
established several action items including demanding DOJ issue an
update on its investigation into packer activity.

Johnsons says it's important to make sure these investigations get
run to the ground and that the DOJ investigation is "for real,
rather than just investigations for show."

"I think there is a strong bipartisan coalition on the fact that
these investigations really do need to conclude, and then we need
to have a very transparent release of their findings."

Following the meeting, Johnson and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., led a
bicameral letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging
the Department of Justice to move forward with their investigation
into anticompetitive practices in the meatpacking industry. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***