---

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

              Monday, October 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 207

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Bartlett Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Calter Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Cerone Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Rodeffer Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Forsythe Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects

3M COMPANY: Faces Valentin Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
3M COMPANY: Fayder Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Little Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Marin Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
3M COMPANY: Petties Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products

ADCARE EMPLOYEE: Underpays Licensed Practice Nurses, Long Claims
ALLERGAN PLC: Will Pay Restasis Buyers $30M in Antitrust Settlement
AMADO'S SOLUTIONS: Baez Hits Unfair Labor Practices
AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Claims Firm Broke Colorado Employment Law
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Continues Case Deadlines in Clark Suit

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Banzai Surf Files Suit Over Oil Spill
ANDY MOHR: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages, Terry Claims
ARROW SENIOR: Olin-Marquez Granted Leave to File 3rd Amended Suit
ATHIRA PHARMA: Labaton & Glancy Named Lead Counsel in Wang Suit
ATI PHYSICAL: Firemen's Fund Hits Share Price Drop

ATLANTIC HOUSING: Bid for Decertification Due Jan. 17, 2022
AUSTRALIA: Suit Against Over Climate Risk in Bonds to Proceed
BIAGI BROS INC: Alvarez Sues Over Uncomfortable Working Conditions
BLUE APRON: Sciabacucchi Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BOSTON BEER: Faces Huber Suit Over Share Price Drop

C & K MARKET: Guinto Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
CANADA: Court OKs Day Scholar Abuse Class Action Lawsuit
CANADA: Discloses Settlement of Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit
CATALONIA CLEANERS: Gonzalez Files Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices
CAVALRY SPV I: Steinmetz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CFCU COMMUNITY: Odell-Gill Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fee Charges
CITIZENS BANK: Writ of Mandamus Bid in FLSA Suit Denied in Part
CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Ford Slams Ambiguous Collection Letter
CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman Wage-and-Hour Suit to Goes S.D. Cal.
CONDUENT INC: Antonelli Slams Illegally-charged Toll Fees
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Mogollon Hits Mislabeled Himalayan Pink Salt
DAL GLOBAL: N.D. Illinois Denies Bid to Dismiss Nseumen BIPA Suit
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN: Rogers Must File Amended Complaint

DISCOUNT BUSINESS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
EARGO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 6 Deadline
EARGO INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of December 6 Deadline
EMORTGAGE FUNDING: Bid to Strike Delgado Class Claims Tossed
EYEBOBS LLC: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Has Prelim. Approval

FACEBOOK INC: Court Appoints Co-Lead Counsel in Stockholder Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Corley Seeks to Certify Class of Linehaul Workers
FLUID FLEET: Hoffman Must Submit Phase I Scheduling Order
FLYING FOOD GROUP: Alfaro Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Consolidated Amended Sayce Suit Tossed

FUTURE MOTION: Jacobson Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
GEM RECOVERY: Ginsberg Files Class Certification Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Nauman Bid for Class Cert Due Jan. 28, 2022
GEORGIA: Renewal of Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 17
GLASSER IMAGES: Ex Clients, Subcontractor Plan to File Lawsuit

HAWX PEST: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Robocalls
HEALTH-ADE LLC: Johnson-Jack Sues Over Mislabeled Kombucha Product
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 10
HONEST COMPANY: Gambino Suit Hits Share Price Drop
INNOVAGE HOLDING: McLeod Sues Over Nearly 69% Drop of Stock Price

JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN: Faces Jane Doe Suit Over Sexual Abuse
JUICIFY INC: Shanahan Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
JUPITER, FL: Bid for Collective Action Status Tossed w/o Prejudice
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL: Bennett Suit Removed to C.D. California
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline

KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Boudreau Suit Moved From D. Mass. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Shrack Suit Moved From D. Del. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Griffin Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
LABOR SOURCE: Certification of Manual Laborer Collective Sought

LATIN BRANDS: Pajarito Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Shafer Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
LOANDEPOT.COM: Rhyoo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
LOUISIANA: Plaisance Class Status Bid Due March 25, 2022
MAGNOLIA FLOORING: $21.6K Class Deal in Ross Suit Has Final Nod

MANITOBA: Class Action Lawsuit Over Breach of Duties Certified
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Class Cert. Denial in Aronstein Suit Affirmed
MCDONALD'S USA: Kim Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kent City Slams Opioid Marketing Strategy
MDL 2437: Memo Issued on Cy Pres Award in Drywall Antitrust Suit

MDL 2543: Co-Lead Counsel to Address Lewis' Concerns on Class Deal
MDL 2924: Bid to Dismiss AMMC in Zantac Liability Suit Denied
MDL 2924: The Brands' Bid to Dismiss Zantac Liability Suit Denied
MEDCURSOR INC: Court Dismisses Casey Suit Upon Parties' Agreement
MH MOBILE 300: Singh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

MIAMI SCAFFOLD: Ceballos Seeks Damages for Illegal Termination
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Smith's Petition for Habeas Corpus
MICHIGAN: Smith Files Petition in W.D. Michigan
MIDLAND FUNDING: Stromberg Seeks to Certify Class Action
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Rodriguez Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California

MORTGAGE LENDERS: Charbonneau Entitled to Get $1.2MM Atty's Fees
MP PLASTIC PLUS: Garcia Slams Discrimination, Illegal Termination
MUSHIANA TRANSPORT: Harden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATIONAL SPINE: Court Enters Amended Case Management, Sched Order
NATIONAL UNION: Towers Watson Wins Bid for Partial Summary Judgment

NCAA: Johnson, et al. Seek Conditional Certification of FLSA Claims
NISSAN NORTH: Court Initially Certifies Stringer Settlement Class
OHIO SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gordon Suit Alleges
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of Thompson v. OCTA
OREGON MUTUAL: Nari Suda Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.

ORGANOGENESIS HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
OWLET INC: Howard G. Smith Investigates Securities Violations
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Joseph Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Class Cert. Filing Extended to April 15, 2022
PIONEER NATURAL: Wilkerson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PLAINS ALL: Illinois Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Morr Suit
PNC BANK: Akins Sues Over Breach of Deferral Agreements
PORTAGE, WI: Refusal to Reopen Discovery in O'Grady Suit Affirmed
QUALITY TRAILER: Vo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Aviles Files Suit in C.D. California

ROTO PASS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RUTTER'S INC: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
SCRIPPS HEALTH: S.D. California Consolidates 3 Data Breach Suits
SENSORY CLOUD: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Academy Swim Files Suit in C.D. California

SESEN BIO: Faces Markman Suit Over Share Price Drop
SMG/LONG BEACH: Acosta Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Terreta Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursement
SUMMIT PYSCHOTHERAPY: Lal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SYNIVERSE CORPORATION: Baron Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
T-MOBILE USA INC: Bensen Files Suit Over Data Breach
TENNESSEE: Gov. Lee More Concerned About "Right Wing Creeds"
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing Schedule in King County Suit Issued
TFORCE FREIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in Mish Wage & Hour Class Suit

TOTAL LIFE: Miller Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 8
TRADER JOE'S: Quinn Sues Over False and Misleading Packaging
TRANSUNION LLC: SCOTUS' Decision in Ramirez FCRA Suit Discussed
UBS FINANCIAL: Goodman Sues Over Incorrectly Reported Tax Info
ULTA BEAUTY: Claims in Hansber's 2nd Amended Complaint Narrowed

UMG RECORDINGS: Bid to Sever Counterclaim in Waite Suit Denied
UNDERLINING BEAUTY: Stoddard FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
UNITED AIRLINES: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Hansen Suit Denied
UNITED STATES: Deadline Extension to Reply to Class Cert Bid Sought
UNITED STATES: Miller Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Tossed

UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Cuban Nationals
UNITED STATES: To Reconsider Discharges in Vets Clinic Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 8
VALVE CORP: Bid to Appoint Co-Lead Counsel in Wolfire Suit Denied
VRX MEDIA GROUP: Bodde TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin

WAYNE-KENT A. BRADSHAW: Nahra Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
XTO ENERGY: Bone FLSA and NMMWA Suit Moved From D.N.M. to D. Del.
ZOOSK INC: Leave to File Second Amended Flores-Mendez Suit Allowed
[*] Laclede County Commission Plans to Join Opioid Class Action
[*] New Tool for Defendants Against TCPA Class Cert. Bid Discussed


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Bartlett Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH WAYNE BARTLETT, JR. and KIMBERLY VAUGHN BARTLETT, his wife,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs 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-03401-RMG (D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod
claim.

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 firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. Plaintiff Kenneth Wayne
Bartlett, Jr. 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. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Plaintiff Kenneth Wayne Bartlett, Jr. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Calter Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD CALTER and AMY CALTER, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03402-RMG
(D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Edward Calter 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 Mr. Calter, 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, he was exposed to toxic
chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and colon cancer,
the suit alleges.

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

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Cerone Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARD CERONE and STACY CERONE, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03403-RMG (D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Bernard Cerone 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 Mr. Cerone, 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, he was exposed to toxic
chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit
alleges.

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

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Rodeffer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY RODEFFER and MELISSA RODEFFER, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03407-RMG (D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

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, Plaintiff Rodney Rodeffer used
the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended
manner, without significant change in the products' condition. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the complaint.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
Mr. Rodeffer was diagnosed with kidney cancer due to his exposure
to the 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Faces Forsythe Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FORSYTHE and ABBY R. FORSYTHE, his wife, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03405-RMG (D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

This class action seeks to recover compensatory and punitive
damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of Plaintiff William Forsythe 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 Mr. Forsythe, 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, he used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
Mr. Forsythe was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

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

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Faces Valentin Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN VALENTIN and SAYONARA VALENTIN, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03408-RMG (D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of Mr. Valentin's 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 Mr. Valentin, 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, Mr. Valentin used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition. He was diagnosed
with kidney cancer as a result of his exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products, the Plaintiff alleges.

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

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Fayder Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FAYDER and DENEEN WILLIS-FAYDER, his wife, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03404-RMG (D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

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, Plaintiff David Fayder used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. He relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products, the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
Plaintiff David Fayder was diagnosed with kidney failure and
enlarged prostate 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Little Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON LITTLE and KEMM LITTLE, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03406-RMG
(D.S.C., October 18, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of Mr. Little's 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 Mr.
Little, 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, Mr.
Little used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their
intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of
his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, says the Plaintiff.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Marin Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLIE MARIN, JOSE OLIVAS JR., ALFONSO PACHECO,
RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, MARK SCHLOTT, JOSE A. TRUJILLO, GARY WHITE, and
ALEJANDRO ZAMBRANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 21CV02097, was removed from the Superior Court in the
State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01742 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation,
headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
         Dessi N. Day, Esq.
         GREENE & ROBERTS
         402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 398-3400
         Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
         E-mail: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
                 dday@greeneroberts.com

3M COMPANY: Petties Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREL PETTIES, 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-03367-RMG
(D.S.C., October 14, 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 added.

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

ADCARE EMPLOYEE: Underpays Licensed Practice Nurses, Long Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADCARE EMPLOYEE LEASING, LLC, and UVMC NURSING CARE,
INC., dba KOESTER PAVILION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00277-WHR (S.D. Ohio,
Oct. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act for failing to pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated proper overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is a current licensed practical nurse jointly
employed by Defendants.

The Defendants are skilled care unit and long-term facilities based
in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Brian R. Noethlich, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Samuel M. Schlein, Esq.
          MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC
          250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480
          Columbus, OH 43215-5296
          Telephone: (614) 463-9790
          Facsimile: (614) 463-9780
          E-mail: sschlein@marshallforman.com

ALLERGAN PLC: Will Pay Restasis Buyers $30M in Antitrust Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As reported by Law360 Allergan has agreed to pay $30 million to
settle an antitrust lawsuit filed by Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel
on behalf of a group of pharmaceutical purchasers, union benefit
plans, and other buyers of Allergan's blockbuster dry-eye disease
drug Restasis. The sweeping litigation accused the drugmaker of
misconduct intended to illegally limit competition from generic
drugs to the detriment of patients and their healthcare plans.

According to the filing, after nearly four years of hard-fought
litigation, the parties agreed that the settlement provided an
optimal outcome.

"Continuing to litigate would considerably delay relief and impose
substantial costs, which weighs in favor of preliminary approval,"
the end payor plaintiffs said. With the settlement, "the class will
obtain immediate relief and avoid the potential risks and delay of
trial and appeal." [GN]

AMADO'S SOLUTIONS: Baez Hits Unfair Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------
Tanea N. Baez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amado's Solutions, Inc. and Amado D.
Camilo, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02376 (M.D. Fla., October 8,
2021), seeks to recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Amado's Solutions Amado's Solutions is a cleaning company that
provides cleaning, sanitizing, and janitorial services for
commercial accounts. Baez claims to have worked more than 40 hours
during one or more weeks without being properly compensated. He
also claims to be terminated for complaining about this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Claims Firm Broke Colorado Employment Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
A former Amazon warehouse worker claims the online retail giant's
policies violated Colorado employment law, according to a class
action complaint filed last week. The suit, filed Oct. 1 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, claims that
clock-in policies mean that at least 10,000 Amazon employees across
five Colorado warehouses were uncompensated for work and overtime
before and during the pandemic.

Jennifer Vincenzetti worked at two Colorado Springs warehouses from
October 2018 through December 2020 where she mostly sorted and
packed packages and routed them for delivery. Vincenzetti was fired
"for returning from a break late," according to the complaint.

Vincenzetti says she was not allowed to clock in when she first
arrived at work but did two to five minutes of work duties
including picking up her badge and meeting with a shift assistant
to get her job duties. The complaint adds that at some facilities,
employees had to participate in uncompensated security screenings
after clocking out.

When the pandemic hit around March 2020, according to the
complaint, COVID screening procedures meant "the off the clock
duties required of Amazon's employees increased dramatically."
Before work, employees were required to wait in a line outside the
facility, have their temperatures checked and answer screening
questions. The complaint alleges lines could last 20 to 60 minutes.


According to Vincenzetti, who worked 40 hours a week, Amazon's
policies punished employees who clocked in early or late. And, "if
an employee clocked in early or out late too often, it would result
in eventual termination."

The lawsuit claims that Amazon violated the Colorado Wage Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act and committed civil theft under state
law.

"These violations were committed knowingly, willfully and with
reckless disregard of applicable law," the complaint reads, "Amazon
knew it was requiring its employees to perform off the clock job
duties and knew it was paying them nothing for these off the clock
job duties."

The class action complaint joins "all current and former non-exempt
hourly employees" who worked at Amazon's warehouses in the state
"within the statute of limitations." Vincenzetti says the class is
"so numerous" that she does not know the number of potential class
members. But, based on the size of Amazon's operations, the
complaint estimates that well over 10,000 people were affected.

In the complaint, Vincenzetti asks for a trial by jury and asks the
court to issue an order and judgement to certify the Rule 23 class
and name her and her counsel as class representatives, to rule in
favor on Vincenzetti and the class, to award actually actual and
applicable statutory damage, to award costs and attorney's fees, to
award pre-judgement and post-judgement interest when allowable by
law and to grant other reliefs the court finds are just and proper.


This isn't the first class action lawsuit to claim Amazon's
policies broke employment laws. Lawsuits from across the country
challenged mandatory and unpaid security screenings at the end of
shifts.

In the 2014 case Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that security screenings are not
compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act.

In July, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that unpaid and
mandatory bag checks and security screenings violated the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Amazon agreed to pay $13.5 million
to more than 42,000 workers in the class action settlement.

Vincenzetti is represented by Alexander Hood, David Seligman and
Brianne Power from Towards Justice and Brian Gonzales from The Law
Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC. [GN]

AMERICAN HONDA: Court Continues Case Deadlines in Clark Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned WINNIE CLARK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a
Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal. ),
the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting
stipulation to continue litigation deadlines as follows:

                Event             Current        New
                                  Deadline       Deadline

  -- Deadline to complete       Continued per    Aug. 5, 2022
     settlement conference      ECF No. 137
     (private mediation)

  -- Close of fact              Dec. 31, 2021    Nov. 4, 2022
     discovery

  -- Motion for class           Feb. 1, 2022     Jan. 31, 2023
     certification and
     supporting expert
     reports

  -- Opposition to motion       April 1, 2022    May 1, 2023
     for class
     certification and
     supporting expert
     reports

  -- Close of expert            May 16, 2022     June 30, 2023
     discovery

  -- Reply brief re: motion     May 16, 2022     June 30, 2023
     for class certification
     and rebuttal expert
     reports

  -- Hearing on class           June 17, 2022    Aug. 25, 2023
     certification motion       at 10:00 a.m.

  -- Final pre-trial            TBD at           TBD at
     conference                 11:00 a.m.       11:00 a.m.

American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pnxETB at no extra charge.[CC]

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Banzai Surf Files Suit Over Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------
Banzai Surf Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amplify Energy Corporation, Beta
Operation Company LLC and San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01669 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2021),
seeks to recover business and/or commercial losses and other
damages by owners/operators of local business in close proximity to
the oil spill allegedly caused by the Defendants.

Banzai Surf Company is a year-round surf school that is operating
on Huntington State Beach.

The Beta Field is an oil reservoir located about nine miles off the
coast of Huntington Beach, California. The oil pipeline transports
oil from the Beta Field to a pump in Long Beach, California.
Sometime in October 1 or 2, 2021, oil began gushing just four miles
from shore originating from a broken pipeline which connects to an
offshore oil platform. Said platform is owned and operated by Beta,
a subsidiary of Amplify. The pipeline is owned and operated by San
Pedro Bay, also a subsidiary of Amplify. Over 144,000 gallons of
oil have so far spilled into the Pacific Ocean beginning on or
around early October 2021 and the present.

Amplify is an energy company which handles oil and gas acquisition,
production, and development throughout the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Hutchinson, Esq.
      Gary A. Praglin, Esq.
      Kelly Weil, Esq.
      Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
      Hannah Brown, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3088
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 392-2008
      Facsimile: (310) 310-0111
      Email: rhutchinson@cpmlegal.com
             gpraglin@cpmlegal.com
             kweil@cpmlegal.com
             amurphy@cpmlegal.com
             hbrown@cpmlegal.com


ANDY MOHR: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages, Terry Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA TERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY MOHR AVON NISSAN, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02647-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., October 14, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sends prerecorded voice
messages to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote and market
its business without obtaining the required express written
consent. The Defendant's unsolicited artificial voice or
prerecorded voice message caused harm to the Plaintiff, including
invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the suit alleges.

Andy Mohr Avon Nissan, Inc. is an owner and operator of used car
dealership in Avon, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

ARROW SENIOR: Olin-Marquez Granted Leave to File 3rd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENDALL OLIN-MARQUEZ, Plaintiff v. ARROW SENIOR LIVING
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-996 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Collective
and Class Action Complaint.

The Defendant intends to make a voluntary payment directly to
members of the putative class within the next 30 to 90 days and
agrees to inform the Plaintiff's counsel before making any such
payments. The Plaintiff may move for emergency injunctive relief to
enjoin Defendant from making these payments to avoid confusion.

Judge Vascura granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint. Accordingly,
the Clerk is directed to file the Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification is
denied without prejudice to refiling. The defense counsel
represented that it will extend the exiting tolling agreement to
address statute-of-limitations concerns.

Judge Vascura denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and its Motion to Stay Briefing without prejudice to
re-filing to challenge the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. The
Defendant's Answer or other responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint was due Oct. 19, 2021.

Finally, the parties are ordered to confer and submit a renewed
Rule 26(f) Report, if appropriate within 14 days of the Court's
resolution of the Defendant's forthcoming Motion to Dismiss or
forthcoming the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification, whichever is later.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3pw8rsnu from Leagle.com.


ATHIRA PHARMA: Labaton & Glancy Named Lead Counsel in Wang Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAN WANG and HANG GAO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATHIRA PHARMA, INC.;
and LEEN KAWAS, Defendants. HARSHDEEP JAWANDHA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHIRA
PHARMA, INC.; DR. LEEN KAWAS; GLENNA MILESON; TADATAKA YAMADA;
JOSEPH EDELMAN; JOHN M. FLUKE, JR.; JAMES A. JOHNSON; GOLDMAN SACHS
& CO. LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED;
and JMP SECURITIES LLC, Defendants. TIMOTHY SLYNE and TAI SLYNE,
Plaintiffs v. ATHIRA PHARMA, INC.; LEEN KAWAS, Ph.D.; GLENNA
MILESON; TADATAKA YAMADA, M.D.; JOSEPH EDELMAN; JOHN M. FLUKE, JR.;
JAMES A. JOHNSON; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; STIFEL,
NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; and JMP SECURITIES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. C21-861 TSZ, Nos. consolidated with C21-862
TSZ and C21-864 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
issued an Order:

   a. appointing Antonio Bachaalani Nacif and Wies Rafi as the
      Co-Lead Plaintiffs;

   b. approving Labaton Sucharow LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray
      LLP as the Lead Counsel; and

   c. approving Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC and Rossi
      Vucinovich, P.C. as the Liaison Counsel.

Background

Athira is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing small molecules to restore neuronal health in an effort
to combat neurological disorders like Alzheimer's disease.

On June 25, 2021, Athira shareholders Fan Wang and Hang Gao
("Wang/Gao") filed the putative class action alleging claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
well as Rule 10b-5, which was promulgated by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission. On the same day, two other
actions were commenced, one by Athira shareholder Harshdeep
Jawandha, and the other by Athira shareholders Timothy Slyne and
Tai Slyne (collectively, the "Slynes").

In both of those matters, the putative class claims are pleaded
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and relate
to Athira's September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO") and its
"Registration Statement." Upon the parties' stipulation, the Court
consolidated all three cases.

The matter comes before the Court on motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel brought by (i)
Plaintiffs Timothy Slyne and Tai Slyne, (ii) movant Kenneth Rozas,
(iii) movant Nacif, and (iv) movant Rafi.

As required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), all named plaintiffs and all movants seeking appointment
as lead plaintiff have filed the requisite certifications.
Moreover, in accordance with the PSLRA, Plaintiffs Wang/Gao and
Jawandha arranged for notices of their lawsuits to be published.
Both notices specified a deadline of August 24, 2021, for Athira's
investors to move to serve as lead plaintiff in the action. The
pending motions to appoint lead plaintiff were timely filed.

Discussion

In the matter, the parties do not dispute the relative losses
incurred, and the Court need not engage in a protracted analysis of
which party has the largest financial interest. The "trend among
courts nationwide has been to use LIFO [last in, first out] in
calculating competing movants' estimated losses," and explaining
that the assumption under LIFO is the first stocks to be sold are
the stocks most recently purchased).

Using the LIFO method, the losses experienced by the various
movants are as follows:

           Movant      Securities Act   Exchange Act
           ------      --------------   ------------
           Nacif        $0              $449,299.04
           Rafi         $44,737.92      $94,145.10
           Rozas        $30,800         $86,522.20
           Slynes       $7,454.28       $0

Judge Zilly is persuaded that a class member with standing to
assert Securities Act claims should also be appointed as a co-lead
plaintiff. Among the candidates, he says Rafi is presumptively the
"most adequate plaintiff" with respect to the Securities Act
claims. The only opposing parties, the Slynes, do not challenge the
amount of Rafi's calculated losses or the typicality of Rafi's
claims; they argue only that, because Rafi's damages related to
Exchange Act claims exceed those associated with Securities Act
claims, Rafi will have less incentive to "fairly and adequately"
represent class members with solely Securities Act claims. Given
the sums at issue, the nature of the suit, and Rafi's submissions,
Judge Zilly concludes the Slynes have failed to rebut the
presumption that Rafi is the "most adequate plaintiff" in
connection with the Securities Act claims, and Rafi is appointed as
the Co-Lead Plaintiff.

No reason has been given to disturb the choices of counsel made by
Nacif and Ravi. Thus, Labaton Sucharow LLP and Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP are approved as the Lead Counsel, and Breskin Johnson &
Townsend, PLLC and Rossi Vucinovich, P.C. are approved as the
Liaison Counsel.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly (i) struck as moot Rozas'
motion; (ii) denied the Slynes' motion; (iii) granted in part and
denied in part Nacif's motion; and (iv) granted in part and denied
in part Nacif's motion Rafi's motion. Nacif and Rafi are appointed
the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Labaton Sucharow LLP and Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP are approved as the Lead Counsel. Breskin Johnson &
Townsend, PLLC and Rossi Vucinovich, P.C. are approved as the
Liaison Counsel.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
the Defendants will meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report
proposing a schedule for the matter, including deadlines for the
filing of a consolidated complaint and any responsive pleading or
motion. The Joint Status Report will also identify one attorney
from either Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC or Rossi Vucinovich,
P.C., and one attorney for the Defendants who will serve as the
liaison lawyer for each side; the Liaison lawyers will have
responsibility for receiving and, as appropriate, distributing to
co-counsel any written or oral communications of the Court and
serving as the contact point between the Court and all the counsel
to assist with scheduling and coordinating hearings and telephonic
conferences.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order to all counsel of
record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/33mk9e9f from Leagle.com.


ATI PHYSICAL: Firemen's Fund Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
City of Melbourne Firefighters' Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATI
Physical Therapy, Inc., Labeed Diab, Joseph Jordan, Andrew A.
McKnight, Joshua A. Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee Cowen, Aaron F.
Hood, Carmen A. Policy, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach and Sunil Gulati,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05345, (N.D. Ill., October 7, 2021),
seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ATI is an outpatient physical therapy company. It owns and operates
nearly 900 physical therapy clinics across 25 states. On June 17,
2021, ATI became public via a business combination with Fortress
Value Acquisition Corp. II.

On July 26, 2021, before the market opened, ATI reported its
financial results for second quarter 2021, the period in which the
Business Combination was completed. Among other things, ATI
reported that "the acceleration of attrition among its therapists
in the second quarter and continuing into the third quarter,
combined with the intensifying competition for clinicians in the
labor market, prevented it from being able to meet the demand and
increased labor costs." It eventually reduced its fiscal 2021
forecast due to the foregoing factors. On this news, its share
price fell $3.62, or 43%, to close at $4.72 per share on July 26,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share price continued
to decline the next trading session by as much as 19%.

Plaintiff alleges that ATI failed to disclose it was experiencing
attrition among its physical therapists, that it faced increasing
competition for clinicians in the labor market, and thus faced
difficulties retaining therapists and incurred increased labor
costs resulting in opening fewer new clinics.

City of Melbourne Firefighters' Retirement System is a pension fund
based in Melbourne, Florida that provides retirement benefits to
retired firefighters. It managed assets on behalf of hundreds of
active members, retirees, and beneficiaries. It purchased ATI
securities and held shares of ATI Class A common stock as of May
24, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (312) 373-3880
      Facsimile: (312) 794-7801
      Email: avi@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
             scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      Bonni S. Jensen, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      7080 Northwest 4th Street
      Plantation, FL33315
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
      Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
             bonni@robertdklausner.com


ATLANTIC HOUSING: Bid for Decertification Due Jan. 17, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANITA JORGE, BETHELLINE
SCHAEFER, TRINA BARRY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. ATLANTIC HOUSING FOUNDATION, INC. and
MICHAEL NGUYEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-02782-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Godbey entered a second agreed order extending
remaining deadlines as follows:

   a. The Parties may conduct class certification and merits-
      based discovery until December 17, 2021.

   b. Defendants may file a motion for decertification on or
      before January 17, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nyBcjF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Crystal Nhi Le, Esq.
          Hillary Kramer Lynch, Esq.
          Andrew Lin, Esq.
          PLATT CHEEMA RICHMOND, PLLC
          1201 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 150
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Telephone: 214-559-2700
          Facsimile: 214-559-4390
          E-mail: cle@pcrfirm.com
                  hlynch@pcrfirm.com
                  alin@pcrfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew M. Gould
          Molly M. Jones
          Dana M. Hilzendager
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 692-6200
          Facsimile: (214) 692-6255
          E-mail: andrew.gould@wickphillips.com
          molly.jones@wickphillips.com
          dana.hilzendager@wickphillips.com


AUSTRALIA: Suit Against Over Climate Risk in Bonds to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Burgess at bloomberg.com reports that a class action
lawsuit that claims Australia is misleading investors by failing to
disclose the impact of climate risk in its bonds will proceed after
government lawyers failed to get the case dismissed.

The lawsuit may continue as a class action, but officials from the
Australian Office of Financial Management and Treasury won't be
subject to the suit, Federal Court Justice Bernard Murphy said in
the judgment. The government's argument to strike out or dismiss
the action based on technicalities was rejected by Murphy.

"Australia's government has tried, but failed, to censor bond
investors seeking information about climate risks," Kathleen
O'Donnell, the 24-year-old who brought the claim, said in a
statement. "They can't avoid the scrutiny of this claim, just as
they can't avoid the climate crisis."  

A spokesman for the office of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg declined to
comment.

Lawyers for O'Donnell and the government are to confer over the
next two weeks on the case's next steps, the judgment said. [GN]

BIAGI BROS INC: Alvarez Sues Over Uncomfortable Working Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Alvarez, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
v. BIAGI BROS., INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV33247 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 18, 2021), is
brought against Defendant to recover penalties, and all other
available relief on behalf of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees who suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set
forth in California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.

The Biagi Bros. facility located in Los Angeles, California did not
have A/C or heating at any time during Plaintiff's employment. None
of Biagi Bros.' depots in California had air conditioning or
heating such that the employees therein experienced uncomfortably
cold and hot temperature conditions depending on the time of the
year. The Plaintiff is further informed and believes that to the
extent any of Biagi Bros.' depots in California had some form of
temperature regulation systems within the depots, said systems were
inadequate for the size and shape of the depot, the amount of
employees working therein, and the type of work being performed,
such that the aggrieved employees were forced to endure
uncomfortable and dangerous temperature conditions while working,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked in one of Biagi Bros' warehouses located in
Los Angeles, California.

The Defendant was and is a corporation and at all relevant times,
an employer whose employees were engaged throughout the State of
California, including the County of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan I. Schimmel, Esq.
          Michael W. Parks, Esq.
          Arya Rhodes, Esq.
          Inga Orbeli, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: 818.464.5061
          Facsimile: 818.464.5091


BLUE APRON: Sciabacucchi Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, directly on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff v. JENNIFER CARR-SMITH, PETER FARICY, BRENDA FREEMAN,
ELIZABETH HUEBNER, and LINDA FINLEY KOZLOWSKI, Defendants, and BLUE
APRON HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2021-0867 (Del.
Ch., Oct. 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information
necessary to allow Blue Apron stockholders, including the
Plaintiff, to make a fully informed decision on whether to
participate in a $45 million rights offering.

The lawsuit arises from a series of interrelated transactions,
including two conflict-laden private placements and a backstopped
rights offering. In combination, the transactions force Plaintiff
and other Blue Apron stockholders to decide whether to invest more
money in the Company to maintain their pro rata equity stake or
stand on the sidelines and see their ownership percentage heavily
diluted. The Blue Apron Board has put its stockholders "in a
position where [they] ha[ve] to exercise self-help to protect
themselves" through their potential participation in the rights
offering, but it has failed to disclose a litany of material
information necessary to allow Company stockholders to make an
informed decision at this critical juncture of their investment,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the Company from
consummating the rights offering unless and until Defendants
disclose all material information to public stockholders so that
they can make an informed decision regarding whether to participate
in the said offering.

Blue Apron operates a direct-to-consumer platform that delivers
original recipes and fresh, seasonal ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan A. Cook, Esq.
          Mae Oberste, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 499-3601

               - and -

          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600

               - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108

BOSTON BEER: Faces Huber Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
MARK HUBER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOSTON BEER COMPANY, INC., DAVID A.
BURWICK, FRANK H. SMALLA, and C. JAMES KOCH, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-08338 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2021) seeks to recover compensable
damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting
to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Beer securities between
April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021, inclusive.

Boston Beer is a high-end alcoholic beverage company that produces
hard seltzer, malt beverages (i.e. beers), and hard cider at its
cidery and under contractual arrangements at other brewery
locations.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
allegedly failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Boston Beer's
hard seltzer sales were decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston
Beer was reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that
the Company was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable
to third party brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Boston Beer's financial results would be adversely impacted; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.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

C & K MARKET: Guinto Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA GLORIA F. GUINTO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. C & K MARKET, INC.; and DOES 1
thru 50, inclusive, Case No. SCCV-CVCV-2021-0964, was removed from
the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of
Siskiyou to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00985 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to reimburse
expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices.

C & K Market, Inc. is a supermarket company headquartered in
Medford, Oregon. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Grace Y. Horoupian, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 851-2424
         Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
         E-mail: ghoroupian@fisherphillips.com

                 - and –

         Gregory L. Blueford, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 210-0400
         Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
         E-mail: gblueford@fisherphillips.com

CANADA: Court OKs Day Scholar Abuse Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Toth at topclassactions.com reports that Federal Court
approved a class action settlement that would end a 2012 class
action lawsuit filed by Tk'emlups te' Secwepemc and shishalh Nation
in British Columbia alleging abuse of day scholars in residential
schools.

Each claimant, or his or her descendant, will receive $10,000 as
non-pecuniary general damages, according to the approval. The
settlement includes more than 15,000 class members who attended
residential schools as day scholars. In total, the claim period
will be open for 24 months. There is no limit or cap on the number
of payments that can be made.

Additionally, according to the settlement, Canada agrees to provide
$50,000,000 to the Day Scholars Revitalization Fund to support
healing, wellness, education, language, culture, heritage and
commemoration activities for the survivor class members and
descendant class members.

The plaintiffs claim between 1831 and extending into the 1990s,
Canada's residential school system split indigenous children from
their families and communities, sending them to residential schools
across the nation where they were physically and sexually abused,
malnourished and prevented from speaking their language or
practicing their religion.

"The court is satisfied that the settlement is fair and reasonable
and in the best interests of the survivor and descendant class
members and the settlement is therefore approved," the order of
approval states.

Abused Day Scholars to Receive $10,000 Settlement
The government of Canada still denies any liability in perpetuating
the residential school system. In a news conference held after the
settlement proposal was announced, Crown-Indigenous Affairs
Minister Carolyn Bennett reportedly acknowledged that the
plaintiffs had wanted an official apology from the government and
stated "while this is not part of a settlement agreement, we will
be listening to their concerns as we work together on this
request."

Are you a day scholar who may take part in this class action
settlement? What do you think of the proposal? Tell us in the
comment section below.

Deloitte LLP is appointed as the claims administrator.

The Canadian Day Scholar Class Action Lawsuit is Gottfriedson, et
al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Case No. 2021 FC
988, in the Federal Court. [GN]

CANADA: Discloses Settlement of Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2019, Plaintiffs in the McLean case announced the
Settlement of a nation-wide class action lawsuit against Canada
brought to compensate survivors for harms they suffered while
attending federally operated Indian Day Schools. The Settlement
includes all survivors who attended federally-run Indian Day
Schools, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.

The Settlement followed two years of focused engagement with
thousands of Indian Day School Survivors and community members, as
well as Indigenous leaders across Canada. Importantly, the Indian
Day School Settlement was designed to avoid the re-traumatization
of class members that was often seen in the Indian Residential
School Settlement.

The March announcement marked the beginning of a 60-day "notice
period", during which survivors across Canada could learn about the
Settlement and raise questions leading up to the Settlement
Approval Hearings, scheduled for May. Class Counsel continues to
visit and speak with survivors, Indigenous communities, and leaders
across the country to receive their input on the Settlement.[GN]

CATALONIA CLEANERS: Gonzalez Files Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamilet Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Catalonia at the Gables III, LLC, Maria A.
Pereira and Eduardo Riccio, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-23554 (S.D.
Fla., October 8, 2021), seeks to recover money damages for
retaliation and unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Catalonia Cleaners," a dry-cleaning
establishment that provides laundry services to individuals and
third-party commercial accounts. Gonzalez worked as a non-exempted
full-time laundry attendant from approximately October 01, 2019, to
around August 18, 2021. She claims to have worked more than 40
hours during one or more weeks without being properly compensated;
worked through her meal breaks; uncompensated for off-the-clock
work; and denied wage statements. She also claims to have been
fired for complaining. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CAVALRY SPV I: Steinmetz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Joel B. Steinmetz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05805-DG-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2021).

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

Calvary SPV I LLC -- https://www.cavalryportfolioservices.com/ --
is one of the nation's largest debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com


CFCU COMMUNITY: Odell-Gill Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fee Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA ODELL-GILL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CFCU COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01102-FJS-ML (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021) is a civil action
seeking monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from
the Defendant arising from its improper overdraft fee practices.

The complaint alleges that CFCU charges "overdraft fees" (OD Fees)
on accounts that were never actually overdrawn, in breach of its
contractual promises. The Plaintiff challenges the assessment and
collection of unnecessary and futile overdraft transfer fees (ODT
Fees).

The complaint further asserts that the Defendant charges
accountholders OD Fees for transactions which purportedly overdraw
an account. CFCU also purports to charge ODT Fees to transfer funds
from an accountholder's savings account to his checking account
when doing so is necessary to avoid an OD Fee on the checking
account. However, the Defendant makes such transfers, and assesses
such ODT Fees, even when doing so does not avoid an OD Fee on a
checking account, causing accountholders, including Plaintiff, to
pay both and ODT Fee and an OD Fees on a single transaction, says
the suit.

Ithaca, New York-headquartered CFCU Community Credit Union is
engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CITIZENS BANK: Writ of Mandamus Bid in FLSA Suit Denied in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Petitioner, Case No.
19-3046 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit:

    (i) dismisses in part as moot Citizens' petition for a writ
        of mandamus given the District Judge's withdrawal, and
        refers the matter to the Chief Judge of the U.S. District
        Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for
        reassignment; and

   (ii) denies the remainder of the petition as unnecessary at
        this time.

Background

Twelve current and former mortgage loan officers (MLOs) claim that
Citizens Bank forced them--and more than a thousand of their
colleagues--to work over forty hours a week without paying them the
overtime they were due under state and federal law. They filed a
single complaint bringing a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 207, 216, and parallel
state-law claims that they wished to pursue as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The District Court scheduled a trial on the primary factual issue
in the FLSA opt-in collective action but left unresolved whether it
would certify a class for the state-law opt-out Rule 23 action.
Because the FLSA collective action and the Rule 23 class action
turn on the same facts, Citizens strongly objected to that
procedural order of business. Yet the District Court essentially
ignored Citizens' objections.

With a trial date looming, Citizens filed a petition in the Court
of Appeals for a writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals stayed the
case to decide that petition. The Opinion explains its decision to
issue the stay.

Discussion

In November 2015, three current and former MLOs, Alex Reinig, Ken
Gritz, and Bob Soda, filed a complaint alleging that Citizens
maintains an unofficial policy or practice requiring MLOs to work
off the clock in excess of forty hours per week without paying
overtime wages due in accordance with the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section
207, and Pennsylvania law, 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 260.1 et seq.,
and Section 333.101 et seq.

The Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA
opt-in collective action, which the District Court granted in May
2016. The District Court scheduled a trial for Sept. 25, 2017.
After granting conditional FLSA certification, the District Court
ordered Plaintiffs to notify the potential members of the
collective that they would have 100 days to opt in to the FLSA
action. In accordance with the District Court's order, the
Plaintiffs sent notice to over 1,000 current and former MLOs. Of
those, 351 provided the requisite consent forms allowing them to
opt in.

After the 100-day period expired, the Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding nine named Plaintiffs to the lawsuit, alleging
state law claims arising from the laws of Connecticut, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, and Rhode Island as well as Pennsylvania.4 Shortly after
filing the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification under Rule 23, seeking certification of ten
classes, each of which would pursue claims under the overtime laws
of a particular state. Citizens responded with two related
submissions: one opposing the class certification motion and the
other seeking decertification of the FLSA collective action. The
parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

By stipulation, the parties agreed to the appointment of a Special
Master, who recommended, inter alia, certifying a class for the
Plaintiffs' state law claims under Rule 23, denying Citizens'
motion for decertification of the FLSA collective action, and
granting final FLSA certification. In its objections to the Special
Master's recommendations, and central to the matter before the
Court of Appeals, Citizens argued that the scheduled FLSA trial
date must be postponed because the putative class had not yet been
notified of the Rule 23 certification decision, and therefore had
not been given a chance to opt out.

The District Court adopted the Special Master's report and
recommendations in full. In addition to certifying the Rule 23
state law classes, the District Court granted final FLSA collective
action certification, concluding that the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs
are similarly situated because "the MLOs share the same job
description with similar (if not identical) job duties, are paid
pursuant to the same compensation plan(s), are subject to the same
policies, and assert the same claims for unpaid off-the-clock
overtime wages in this lawsuit." It also rejected Citizens'
objection to proceeding with the previously scheduled FLSA trial.

Citizens timely filed a Rule 23(f) petition objecting to class
certification, and the Court of Appeals granted that petition. In
resolving the petition, it discerned numerous flaws in the District
Court's consideration of the Rule 23 class certification issues.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the
District Court's Rule 23 class certification order, expressing
"serious doubts whether" the Plaintiffs' evidence was "sufficiently
representative of the class as a whole," and instructing the
District Court to "conduct a 'rigorous' examination of the factual
and legal allegations underpinning the claims before deciding class
certification."

In its Rule 23(f) petition, Citizens also asked the Court of
Appeals to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to consider the
District Court's FLSA collective action certification. It declined
to do so. It determined that "Rule 23 class certification and FLSA
collective action certification are fundamentally different
creatures." Because the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to
review it in the interlocutory Rule 23(f) proceeding, the FLSA
certification remained in place.

On remand, despite the Court of Appeals' express instruction to the
District Court to "conduct a rigorous examination of the factual
and legal allegations underpinning the Plaintiffs' claims," the
District Court pressed on with the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective
action, reiterating its plan to proceed with a single-issue FLSA
trial without first deciding whether to certify a Rule 23 class.
The issue to be placed before the jury was to be: "Did Plaintiffs
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Citizens Bank had a
policy or practice that caused mortgage loan officers to not report
all of the hours they worked (i.e., to work 'off the clock')?"

Citizens raised numerous objections to the District Court's planned
FLSA trial, moving to stay it until after a Rule 23 class
certification decision had been made. The District Court declined
to stay the trial and failed to meaningfully address the merits of
the objections. Instead, it characterized Citizens' position as a
delay tactic and an effort to undermine the District Court's
ability to manage its own docket.

Citizens then came to the Court of Appeals seeking a writ of
mandamus. Specifically, Citizens asked it (1) to direct the
District Court to refrain from proceeding with the FLSA collective
action trial until the Rule 23 class certification motion is
decided; (2) if a Rule 23 class is certified, to direct the
District Court to refrain from proceeding with trial until after
class members have been notified and given an opportunity to opt
out; and (3) to reassign the case to a new District Judge. Citizens
also sought a stay pending our decision, which we granted.

The day the Court of Appeals issued its stay, the District Judge
filed a supplemental response to the mandamus petition, joining
Citizen Bank's request that the case be reassigned. Because the
District Judge joined Citizens' request for relief, the Court of
Appeals will now dissolve its stay so that the Chief Judge of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania may
reassign the case. It will dismiss the mandamus petition in part as
moot insofar as it requests reassignment. And given that pending
reassignment, the Court of Appeals expects that the District Judge
who will assume management of the litigation will take into account
our ensuing discussion of the interests at stake and the factors
that motivated its grant of a stay in the first place.

The Court of Appeals is confident that the District Court will heed
its prior direction to "conduct a 'rigorous' examination of the
factual and legal allegations underpinning the claims before
deciding class certification." Such analysis is at the heart of
Rule 23 practice and procedure. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals
will deny the remainder of the petition without prejudice because
it is unnecessary for it to consider at this time.

Conclusion

Having explained its decision to stay the case pending resolution
of the mandamus petition, a stay is no longer necessary.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dissolves the stay, dismisses
Citizens' mandamus petition in part as moot given the District
Judge's withdrawal, and refers the matter to the Chief Judge of the
Western District of Pennsylvania for reassignment.

Given the impending reassignment, the Court of Appeals denies the
remainder of the petition as unnecessary at this time. It expects
both parties to work with the newly assigned District Judge to
resolve this case fairly and expeditiously, including by carefully
considering the numerous procedural complexities of the hybrid
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/77vuyuu from Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Hill -- Tom.Hill@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, 400 South
Hope Street, 8th Floor, in Los Angeles, California 90071.

Brian A. Sutherland -- bsutherland@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, 101
Second Street, Suite 1800, in San Francisco, California 94105.

Christina Tellado -- Christina.Tellado@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight, 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor, in Los Angeles,
California 90071.

Kim M. Watterson -- kwatterson@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, 225
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222,
Counsel for the Petitioner.

Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Joshua S. Boyette
-- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler, 1101 Kings Highway
North, Suite 402, in Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034.

Daniel A. Horowitz, O'Brien Belland & Bushinsky, 509 South Lenola
Road, Building 6, in Moorestown, New Jersey 08057.

Robert D. Soloff -- robert@solofflaw.com --, 7805 Southwest 6th
Court, in Plantation, Florida 33324, Counsel for the Respondents.


CLEAR19 RAPID TESTING: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear19 Rapid Testing
LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Clear19 Rapid
Testing LLC doing business as: Clear19 Rapid Testing, Case No.
1:21-cv-08556 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2021).

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

Clear19 Rapid Testing -- https://www.clear19rapidtesting.com/ -- is
the fastest and largest scale RT-qPCR testing lab resource in the
tri-state area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com



CLIENT SERVICES: Ford Slams Ambiguous Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric R. Ford, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 612802/2021 (N.Y. Sup., October 7, 2021), seeks
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and New York general business laws.

Client Services collects or attempts to collect debts, for profit,
debts allegedly owed by consumers. It contacted Ford (via
collection letter) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt he owes
to Capital One Bank. Ford alleges that Client Services failed to
clearly convey the amount of the debt and failed to clarify the
additional interest and charges. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Barshay, Esq.
      BARSHAY, LIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
      445 Broadhollow Road, Suite CL 18
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 210-7272
      Fax: (516) 706-5055


CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. CLIPPER REALTY, INC., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY, CLIPPER REALTY OP
L.P., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY L.P. CLIPPER REALTY CONSTRUCTION LLC,
CLIPPER 107 CH LLC, d/b/a CLOVER HOUSE, and CLIPPER EQUITY LLC,
d/b/a CLIPPER EQUITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-08502 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15,
2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to time shaving, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying the proper overtime rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in each workweek due to time shaving to the
Plaintiff, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs and Class Members. The
Defendants knew that Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees engaged in work over their lunch break, as Defendants
were the ones to require such work. The Defendants knew that
despite requiring such work they were automatically deducting an
hour lunch break from employees' compensable time. Moreover, the
Defendants knew such employees were manual workers, who are
required to be paid on a weekly basis. The Defendants' violations
in this action were willful, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a porter for one
of the Defendants' developments.

The Defendants are real-estate companies, which buy, sell, develop,
and provide property management for residential and commercial
properties in the New York area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1180
          Fax: 212-465-1181


COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman Wage-and-Hour Suit to Goes S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM WIGHTMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00038124-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on October
18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01784-TWR-DEB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc. is a manufacturer of
search and navigation equipment, headquartered in Lansdale,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Jon Yonemitsu, Esq.
         Noah J. Woods, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101-3577
         Telephone: (619) 232-0441
         Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
         E-mail: jyonemitsu@littler.com
                 nwoods@littler.com

CONDUENT INC: Antonelli Slams Illegally-charged Toll Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Antonelli, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Conduent Inc., Conduent State &
Local Solutions, Inc., and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
and d/b/a New York E-Z Pass Service Center Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-18238, (D. N.J., October 7, 2021), seeks to recover illegally
assessed unwarranted and excessive fees against motorcycle drivers
who use E-Z Pass transponders in breach of contract and for
fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion
and unjust enrichment.

Defendants have allegedly charged Antonelli toll amounts for a
class of vehicle other than motorcycles without providing any
meaningful process to dispute or appeal the charges. Antonelli owns
two motorcycles and has purchased two E-ZPass motorcycle-specific
transponders through Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.

Conduent Inc. owns the E-ZPass toll collection system and is the
parent of Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Tel: (888) 711-9975
     Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
            jbk@sstriallawyers.com

            - and -

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 West University Dr., Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Tel: (248) 841-2200
     Email: epm@millerlawpc.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Mogollon Hits Mislabeled Himalayan Pink Salt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stefany Mogollon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-08361 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2021) arises from the Defendant's
alleged violations of the New York General Business Law, the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act in relation to the marketing of its Ground Himalayan
Pink Salt.

Costco Wholesale Corporation manufactures, labels, markets, and
sells Ground Himalayan Pink Salt, purporting to be sourced from
"the heart of the Himalayan Mountains," under its Kirkland
signature brand.

According to the complaint, Defendant's marketing and advertising
of the product gives consumers, including the Plaintiff, the
impression it sourced from the Himalayans. However, the product is
not from the "heart of the Himalayan Mountains," generally
considered the area of India which borders Tibet and Nepal, but
from Khewra, Pakistan. The representation as from the "heart of the
Himalayan Mountains" renders the labeling misleading because it
expresses a geographical origin which is not true. Moreover, unlike
traditional Himalayan pink salt, the product lacks any mineral or
nutrient content, as shown by the nutrition facts, says the suit.

Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it,
the suit adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          James Chung, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
          43-22 216th St
          Bayside, NY 11361
          Telephone: (718) 461-8808
          E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com

DAL GLOBAL: N.D. Illinois Denies Bid to Dismiss Nseumen BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ERIC NSEUMEN, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. DAL GLOBAL SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 C 2630 (N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Eric Nseumen sued his former employer DAL Global Services, LLC, in
state court, alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/15, and asking to
represent a class of similarly situated employees. DAL removed the
case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) & 1453(b). It has now moved to dismiss
Nseumen's complaint under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

According to Nseumen's complaint, DAL provides airport baggage
handling operations. DAL says it was formerly a subsidiary of Delta
Airlines and is now co-owned by Delta and another entity. For about
eight months in 2018, Nseumen worked for DAL as a forklift operator
and baggage handler in one of its facilities at O'Hare Airport. He
says that while he was working there, DAL implemented biometric
scanning and time-tracking devices and technology to monitor and
manage its workers', including the Plaintiff's, time on the job."

Mr. Nseumen says he was required to provide "biometric scans,"
apparently of his fingerprints, when clocking in and out at the
start and end of his work shift. According to Nseumen, DAL
disseminated information derived from its scans of his biometric
identifiers to others, including vendors for timekeeping, data
storage, and payroll. It failed to advise him and other similarly
situated employees in writing that their biometric information was
being collected, stored, used, or disseminated; it published no
policy about this; and it did not seek or obtain the consent of him
or other employees.

In his complaint, Nseumen asserts claims under several provisions
of BIPA. These include claims for:

   * failure to provide written advance notice of collection and
     storage of biometric information, 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1);

   * failure to inform him of the specific purpose for collection
     of his biometric information, id. Section 15(b)(2);

   * failure to inform him of the length of term for which his
     biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and used,
     id. Section 15(b)(2);

   * failure to obtain a written release, id. Section 15(b)(3);

   * failure to establish a publicly available retention schedule
     detailing how long the biometrics are stored and/or
     guidelines for permanently destroying them, id.
     Section 15(a);

   * failure to obtain consent to disclose or disseminate the
     biometrics, id. Section 15(d)(1); and

   * profiting from his biometrics in violation of id. Section
     15(c).

DAL has moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds. In his
response, Nseumen states that he is not pursuing a claim under BIPA
section 15(c), so the Court will treat any such claim as having
been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

1. Airline Deregulation Act preemption

The Court overrules DAL's contention that Nseumen's BIPA claims are
preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. Under this statute, a
state "may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other
provision having the force and effect of law related to a price,
route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air
transportation." This provision uses the same language as a
parallel express preemption term in the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act, FAAAA, 29 U.S.C. Section
14501(c)(1).

Under the FAAAA--and thus, logically, under the ADA--preemption
occurs at least where state laws have a significant impact related
to Congress' deregulatory and pre-emption-related objectives,
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly opines, citing Rose v. N.H.
Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364, 371 (2008). Conversely, there is
no preemption if the state law affects carrier prices, routes, and
services in only a tenuous, remote, or peripheral manner, the Judge
points out, citing Can's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S.
251, 261 (2013).

The Court agrees with its colleague Judge Andrea Wood, who held
that a similar BIPA claim against an airline carrier was not
preempted by the ADA, see Abudayyeh v. Envoy Air, Inc., No. 20 C
142, 2021 WL 3367173 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2021). BIPA does not
expressly refer in any way, shape, or form to airline-related
services. And its impact on DAL's services or prices is, at most,
remote, Judge Kennelly notes.

DAL says that its use of biometric identifiers affects security by
ensuring that only authorized individuals are involved in handling
air travelers' baggage. Assuming this qualifies as a "service" for
purposes of the ADA, there is no indication that BIPA's
requirements have any impact on it, let alone a significant impact,
Judge Kennelly finds. He adds that DAL's comparison to cases in
which privacy-based claims involving customers' information were
dismissed is inapt, as Judge Wood concluded in Abudayyeh.

2. Illinois Workers Compensation act preclusion

The Court likewise overrules DAL's contention that Nseumen's BIPA
claims are barred by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act, which
makes workers compensation under the Act the "exclusive remedy" for
accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the
employment. Extended analysis is unnecessary; the Court agrees on
this point with its colleagues, who as best as the Court can
determine have uniformly rejected similar arguments regarding BIPA
claims by employees, see, e.g., Burlinski v. Top Golf USA, Inc.,
No. 19 C 6700, 2020 WL 5253150, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2020)
(Chang, J.), et al.

3. BIPA Section 15(a) claims

DAL also argues that Nseumen's claims under BIPA section 15(a) fail
to state a claim. DAL has also moved to dismiss any claim under
BIPA section 15(c), but as noted earlier Nseumen has abandoned any
such claim.

DAL's argument is that Nseumen "fails to allege that any obligation
to destroy data under Section 15(a) has been triggered." But
Nseumen's claims do not involve failure to destroy biometric data;
they involve its collection without the proper disclosures and
without obtaining the required release, Judge Kennelly finds. The
Plaintiff's allegations that DAL collected and possessed his
biometric data without establishing a publicly available retention
schedule for how long data will be stored and/or guidelines for its
destruction are both plausible and sufficient to state a claim for
violation of BIPA section 15(a), Judge Kennelly holds.

In addition, Judge Kennelly finds that there is nothing "unripe"
about this claim, as DAL contends. In fact, DAL's ripeness argument
doesn't make much sense. Section 15(a) says that an entity must
establish guidelines for destroying biometric information once the
purpose for obtaining it has been satisfied no more than three
years after the individual's last interaction with the entity. But
the fact that the policy has to say something about destroying
information no more than three years out doesn't suggest that the
entity may wait those three years to establish its policy.

Judge Kennelly points out that the obligation under section 15(a)
is, under the statutory language, a current obligation that applies
to any entity collecting biometric data--which Nseumen alleges DAL
was already doing. Thus, a claim regarding its failure to establish
a retention and destruction policy involves a current violation,
not a potential future violation, Judge Kennelly holds.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint but, consistent with the
statements in the Plaintiff's response to the motion, dismisses
without prejudice his claim under 740 ILCS 14/15(c). The Defendant
is directed to answer all remaining claims by no later than Nov. 2,
2021. Each side's Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures are due on that same
date.

The parties are directed to confer regarding a discovery and
pretrial schedule and are to file a joint status report with a
proposal, or separate proposals if they cannot agree, by Nov. 9,
2021. The telephonic status hearing set for Oct. 12, 2021, is
vacated and reset to Nov. 16, 2021, at 9:10 a.m., using call-in
number 888-684-8852, access code 746-1053. Counsel should wait for
the case to be called before announcing themselves.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3rtd79hp from Leagle.com.


DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN: Rogers Must File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MICHAEL ROGERS, et al., v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-05248-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle L.
Peterson entered an order granting plaintiffs' extension motion and
motion to amend complaint as follows.

   -- Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within 30
      days of Judge Jones' determination of this Court's
      previous Report and Recommendation that conforms with
      Judge Jones' ruling.

   -- Plaintiffs are further directed to file an accurate
      redline with the submission of their amended complaint.

   -- The Court strikes Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
      without prejudice to refiling upon submission of
      Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

In this case, the Plaintiffs filed claims against the Washington
State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) and DCYF
employees on the basis that Defendants, through DCYF's Juvenile
Rehabilitation Division, are actively engaged in handcuffing and
holding youths in solitary cells to punish or coerce compliance
with DCYF staff.

On July 22, 2021, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending: (1) dismissal of DCYF from this action; (2) that
Plaintiffs' state and federal law claims for damages, as raised
against individually named Defendants in their official capacities,
be dismissed; (3) that Plaintiffs' state law claims for injunctive
relief be dismissed; and (4) that Plaintiffs' federal law claims
for injunctive relief, as raised against individually named
Defendants in their official capacities, be dismissed without
prejudice but that Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend their
federal law claims for injunctive relief.

On August 23, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiffs an extension of
time to join additional defendants, and on September 7, 2021,
Plaintiffs submitted their Motion to Amend Complaint. However,
prior to Plaintiffs' submission of their Motion to Amend Complaint,
the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on September
2, 2021.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DZcUFT at no extra charge.[CC]


DISCOUNT BUSINESS: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discount Business
Funding LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Discount Business Funding LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-08204 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2021).

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

Discount Business Funding -- https://discountbusinessfunding.com/
-- offers Small Business Funding by experts who can customize
funding based on customers' needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


EARGO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 13 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

SLQT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/selectquote-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20376&wire=1
EAR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eargo-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20376&wire=1
APPH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/appharvest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20376&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Selectquote, Inc. (NYSE:SLQT)

SLQT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 20, 2020 -
August 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 15, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/selectquote-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20376&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Selectquote, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SelectQuote's 2019
cohort was underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (3) 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

Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ:EAR)

EAR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 16, 2020
- September 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eargo-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20376&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Eargo,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Eargo had improperly sought
reimbursements from certain third-party payors; (2) the foregoing
was reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; (3) as a
result and because the reimbursements at issue involved the
Company's largest third-party payor, Eargo'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.

AppHarvest, Inc. (NASDAQ:APPH)

APPH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 17, 2021 -
August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/appharvest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20376&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
AppHarvest, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

EARGO INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of December 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Eargo, Inc.
("Eargo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EAR) between February 25, 2021
and September 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than December 6, 2021.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Eargo investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or text or
email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Eargo Securities Class Litigation
Eargo, headquartered in San Jose, California, is a manufacturer of
rechargeable hearing aids.  A major portion of the Company's
revenues depends on reimbursements from third-party payor insurance
companies.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Eargo failed
to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had improperly
billed certain third-party payors, including its largest such
payor; (2) that such actions were likely to lead to regulatory
scrutiny; and (3) that, as a results of the foregoing, Eargo's
positive statements about its business and prospects were false and
misleading and lacked any reasonable basis in fact.

On August 12, 2021, the Company disclosed that claims submitted to
its largest third-party payor had gone unpaid since March 31, 2021,
and that those claims represented 80% of Eargo's gross account
receivables as of June 30, 2021.  On this news, the price of Eargo
common stock fell $8.00 per share, or 24.46%, from its closing
price of $32.70 on August 12, 2021, to close at $24.70 per share on
August 13, 2021, on elevated trading volume.

On September 22, 2021, after market close, the Company reported
that it was "the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice (the 'DOJ') related to insurance
reimbursement claims the Company submitted on behalf of its
customers covered by federal employee health plans."  As a
consequence, Eargo withdrew its financial guidance for fiscal 2021.
On this news, the price of Eargo common stock fell $14.81 per
share, or 68.34%, from its closing price of $21.67 on September 21,
2021, to close at $6.86 on September 22, 2021, on extremely heavy
trading volume.[GN]

EMORTGAGE FUNDING: Bid to Strike Delgado Class Claims Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JACQUELINE DELGADO, v.
EMORTGAGE FUNDING, LLC, Case No. e 2:21-cv-11401-BAF-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Bernard A. Friedman entered an order that
the defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike certain allegations
from plaintiff's amended complaint is denied.

The Court said, "In the amended complaint, plaintiff references
various online posts in which consumers complain that they have
received numerous unsolicited calls from defendant and/or from the
same number that allegedly called plaintiff. Some of the
complainants also state that the caller offered them mortgage
products or services. The Court does not find these historical
allegations to be redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous. Rather, they add to the plausibility of plaintiff's
allegations, address defendant's compliance (or lack thereof) with
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) safe harbor
provisions, and speak to whether defendant knowingly or willfully
violated the TCPA. For these reasons, the Court shall deny
defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations and
references to prior online consumer complaints."

This is a TCPA case. The Plaintiff filed the complaint on behalf of
herself and two proposed classes of similarly situated consumers.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada.

The defendant, eMortgage Funding, LLC, is a mortgage broker
headquartered in Troy, Michigan, with operations in fourteen states
including Nevada.

The Plaintiff states that she registered her landline on the
National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry on June 1, 2006. She alleges
that she received "multiple calls from or on behalf of eMortgage
Funding even when she never gave her phone number to the Defendant,
despite having her landline residential phone number registered on
the DNC to prevent such cold calls and despite making clear
requests to the caller for the calls to stop."


The amended complaint seeks to certify the following classes:

   -- Do Not Call Registry Class:

      "All persons in the United States who from four years
      prior to the filing of this action through trial (1)
      Defendant, or an agent calling on behalf of Defendant,
      called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period,
      (3) where the person's non-business telephone number had
      been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
      least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason
      Defendant called Plaintiff, and (5) for whom the Defendant
      or its agent claims they obtained the person's number in
      the same manner as Defendant or its agent obtained
      Plaintiff's number.

   -- Internal Do Not Call Class:

      "All persons in the United States whofrom four years prior
      to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant
      or its agent called more than one time on the person's
      non-business telephone number (2) within any 12-month
      period (3) for substantially the same reason Defendant or
      its agent called Plaintiff, (4) including at least once
      after the person requested that Defendant or its agent to
      stop calling.

The Plaintiff asserts two claims under the TCPA, one on behalf of
herself and the Do Not Call Registry Class, asserting a violation
of 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c) (DNC registry claim) and another on
behalf of herself and the Internal Do Not Call Class, asserting a
violation of sectiob 64.1200(d) ("internal DNC claim"). The
Plaintiff seeks actual and/or statutory damages and costs, as well
as declaratory and injunctive relief.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vHTsuw at no extra charge.[CC]

EYEBOBS LLC: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY HAMOND MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EYEBOBS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00017 (Erie) (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Richard
A. Lanzillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Certify
Class for Settlement Purposes and for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

I. Introduction

The Amended Complaint in the case raises a putative class action
lawsuit against Defendant Eyebobs, an eyewear company. Plaintiff
Murphy, is visually impaired and brings this action for himself and
others similarly situated. Murphy alleges that Eyebobs failed to
make its digital properties reasonably accessible to visually
impaired persons in violation of the effective communications and
equal access requirements of Title III of the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12181-12189.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

Murphy, acting individually, commenced the action on Jan. 7, 2021.
He alleged that Eyebobs did not have adequate policies and
practices reasonably calculated to cause the website for its online
store (http://www.eyebobs.com)to be fully accessible to blind or
visually disabled individuals in violation of the ADA. Eyebobs
filed an Answer on March 15, 2021.

On Sept. 2, 2021, the Court granted Murphy leave to file an Amended
Complaint asserting claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated, visually impaired individuals
who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
attempting to access Eyebobs' Website from the United States. The
Court docketed Murphy's Amended Complaint the same day.

On Sept. 4, 2021, Murphy filed the unopposed Motion to Certify
Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
Eyebobs consents to the relief requested in the motion. Judge
Lanzillo conducted a hearing on the motion on Oct. 5, 2021.

III. Motion to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes

The Plaintiff seeks the certification of a class of "All blind or
visually disabled individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids
to navigate content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or
been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access,
attempt to access, or be deterred from accessing the Digital
Properties from the United States."

Judge Lanzillo notes that motions to certify a class are governed
by Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 23(a) sets forth four threshold requirements for class
certification, each of which must be met: (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of class members is impracticable
(numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of the class
representatives are typical of those of the class (typicality); and
(4) the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class (adequacy).

Judge Lanzillo finds that the Rules 23(a) and (b) prerequisites are
met. With respect to the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, he finds that
(i) the record establishes that the proposed class significantly
exceeds 40 individuals; (ii) Murphy identifies two principle common
questions: first, "whether class members have been, are being
and/or will be denied full and equal access to the Defendant's
website without proper accommodation; and second, "what actions are
required under the law to ensure Defendant's online store is
accessible to the Plaintiff" and the purported class members; (iii)
the class description and the nature of the accessibility claims
support a finding that Murphy's claims are typical; and (iv) both
Murphy, the proposed lead plaintiff, and Attorneys Tucker,
Abramowicz, Fisher, associates and staff will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the entire class and provide capable legal
representation.

With respect to the Rule 23(b) prerequisites, Judge Lanzillo
concludes that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) have been
met and that class certification is appropriate. First, he finds
that the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief satisfies Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Eyebobs' website and other digital
properties affect all members of the class, and thus the class as a
whole shares the same interest in obtaining the injunctive relief
provided by the settlement -- prospective changes to Eyebobs'
digital properties. Second, for purposes of the anticipated
settlement, the proposed class can properly be certified under Rule
23(b)(2).

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification is granted.

IV. The Court Approves the Proposed Settlement

Murphy next moves for approval of their Proposed Settlement, a copy
of which they have attached to their motion. The Proposed
Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive, 25-page document executed
by "Eyebobs, LLC and Anthony Hammond Murphy, individually and on
behalf of the Settlement Class." It commits Eyebobs to ensuring
"Blind or Visually Disabled individuals full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations provided by and through its Digital Properties."
This commitment includes ensuring that "the U.S. portion of the
Website is Accessible" within twenty-four months of the Effective
Date of the Settlement Agreement. Eyebobs' "Digital Properties" are
its "Website, New Websites, Mobile Apps," and "Subsequently
Acquired Websites and Mobile Apps," as those terms are defined in
the Settlement Agreement. The parties have agreed that the criteria
for determining Eyebobs' compliance with its accessibility
commitments will be "the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1,
including WAI-ARIA."

In addition, the Proposed Settlement commits Eyebobs to several
changes in policy, procedure and personnel to promote accessibility
of its Digital Properties. These changes include (1) Eyebobs'
appointment of one or more employees to comprise an "Accessibility
Coordination Team," (2) the performance of an Accessibility Audit
of its Digital Properties, (3) Eyebobs' adoption of an
Accessibility Policy Statement, (4) Eyebobs' implementation of an
Accessibility Strategy, (5) Eyebobs' providing of Accessibility
Training, and (6) Eyebobs' retention of an "Accessibility
Consultant" to "assist Eyebobs to conduct an Accessibility Audit of
the Website; (b) advise Eyebobs' on how to make the Website
Accessible; (c) verify that the Website is Accessible by the end of
the Agreement Term; (d) ensure any New Websites and Mobile Apps,
and any Subsequently Acquired Websites and Mobile Apps, are
Accessible; and (e) ensure any Third Party Content that may be
required to be Accessible is Accessible."

Each of Eyebobs' commitments is subject to specific time periods
for compliance following the Effective Date of the Settlement
Agreement. Overall compliance is to occur within three years of the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement. If compliance does not
occur within this initial term, the Settlement Agreement provides
for a term extension to four years and, if necessary, to five years
to ensure compliance. The Settlement Agreement also provides for
monitoring of Eyebobs' compliance with its commitments, annual
reporting, and dispute resolution procedures. The Settlement
Agreement further provides for an "Incentive Award" in the amount
of $1,000 to be paid to the Representative Plaintiff, Mr. Murphy,
and the payment of specified attorney's fees and costs to class
counsel, subject to court approval.

In consideration for the foregoing commitments by Eyebobs, Murphy
and all Settlement Class Members will release Eyebobs from any and
all claims for injunctive, declaratory, and non-monetary relief
based on the accessibility of its digital properties and be
enjoined from asserting any such claims.

The Parties ask the Court to approve their proposed class notice
and notice plan, which are attached as exhibits to their motion for
preliminary approval. The Notice Murphy proposes to issue to
potential class members accurately summarizes all material terms of
the Settlement Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that Eyebobs will
have a notice of class action settlement placed on the Settlement
Website. Screen-reading applications will recognize this link and
alert the user to its information before proceeding to any other
part of the website. The link will include alternative text which
reads, "Click to view our ADA Class Action Settlement Notice."

In addition, Eyebobs will request that the National Federation for
the Blind and the American Council of the Blind--as well as eight
other national organizations for the visually impaired--publish a
link to the stipulated class action settlement notice in their
respective electronic newsletters within 60 days of preliminary
approval.

This Notice will state: "A proposed settlement has been reached
that would resolve the class action lawsuit Murphy v. Eyebobs, LLC,
No. 1:21-cv-00017 (W.D. Pa). The lawsuit alleges that Eyebobs, LLC
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section
12101, et seq. by failing to take the necessary steps to ensure its
online store, located at https://www.eyebobs.com/, does not
discriminate against blind or visually disabled consumers who use
screen reader auxiliary aids to access digital content. Under the
settlement, Eyebobs, LLC agrees to take additional steps to make
its website and any new website or mobile application it develops
or acquires accessible to screen reader users. For a more complete
summary of the terms of the proposed settlement, please visit
https://www.eyebobsADAsettlement.com."

Judge Lanzillo finds that the proposed notice is the best
practicable form of notice to inform putative class members of the
settlement and to proceed with the settlement for all claims in a
timely and efficient manner.

Judge Lanzillo also explains that in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153
(3d Cir.1975), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
identified the following factors to be considered in determining
whether a proposed class action settlement agreement is fair,
adequate and reasonable: the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation; the reaction of the class to the
settlement; the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed; the risks of establishing liability; the risks
of establishing damages; the risk of maintaining the class action
through the trial; the ability of the defendants to withstand a
greater judgment; the range of reasonableness of the settlement in
light of the best possible recovery; and the range of
reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in
light of all the possible attendant risks of litigation.

After carefully weighing the Girsh factors along with the relevant
additional factors discussed in Prudential II, Judge Lanzillo
concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. He also concludes that the Girsh factors
favor the approval of the Proposed Settlement as reasonable and
fair to the class members.

V. Conclusion

Judge Lanzillo applies a presumption of reasonableness to the
Proposed Settlement. Further, an application of the Girsh factors,
as well as the relevant Prudential factors leads him to the
conclusion that the Proposed Settlement is fair and reasonable.
Thus, Judge Lanzillo grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
proposed class. A separate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9869nbx from Leagle.com.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Appoints Co-Lead Counsel in Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Slights, II of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
issued an order establishing leadership structure in the case, IN
RE: FACEBOOK, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Consolidated CA. No.
2018-0307 (Del. Ch.).

Two competing teams of stockholder plaintiffs and counsel seek to
be appointed to leadership roles in the consolidated derivative
action that is proposed to be brought on behalf of nominal
Defendant, Facebook.

Under one proposal, California State Teachers' Retirement System
("CalSTRS"), City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
("Birmingham") and Construction and General Building Laborers'
Local Union No. 79 General Fund ("Local 79") would serve as co-lead
plaintiffs. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Prickett, Jones & Elliott,
P.A., and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law would serve as co-lead
counsel.

Under the other proposal, Employees' Retirement System of Rhode
Island and City of Warwick Retirement System would serve as co-lead
plaintiffs. Block & Leviton LLP would serve as lead counsel, and
Heyman, Enerio, Gattuso & Hirzel LLP would serve as additional
Delaware counsel.

Judge Slights explains that when faced with a leadership dispute,
the Court's task is to "establish a leadership structure that will
provide effective representation." To that end, he weighs the
so-called "Hirt factors," so named after Hirt v. U.S. Timberlands
Service Company, LLC.

The six factors can be paraphrased as follows: (i) the quality of
the pleading that appears best able to represent the interests of
the shareholder class and derivative plaintiffs; (ii) the relative
economic stakes of the competing litigants in the outcome of the
lawsuit; (iii) the willingness and ability of all the contestants
to litigate vigorously on behalf of an entire class of
shareholders; (iv) the absence of any conflict between larger,
often institutional, stockholders, and smaller stockholders; (v)
the enthusiasm or vigor with which the various contestants have
prosecuted the lawsuit; and (vi) the competence of counsel and
their access to the resources necessary to prosecute the claims at
issue.

For purposes of analysis, Delaware courts often group the Hirt
factors into categories based on whether they focus more closely on
the proposed lead plaintiff or the proposed lead counsel. Upon
applying the Hirt factors to the competing applications for
leadership in the case, it appears to Judge Slights that the
CalSTRS Group and the RI Group are closely matched. Both groups are
highly qualified and capable of litigating the case.

Judge Slights finds that the CalSTRS Group collectively owns about
4.5 million shares of Facebook common stock. The RI Group owns
about 160,000 shares. Although the CalSTRS Group owns more than 28
times the RI Group's shares, both Plaintiffs own diversified
portfolios that are not disproportionately weighted towards
Facebook. And, of course, neither of the putative lead plaintiffs
owns a significant percentage of Facebook's outstanding stock
relative to the public float, a fact not at all surprising given
that Facebook is one of the largest companies in the world. The RI
Group owns about 0.005%, and the CalSTRS Group owns less than 0.2%.
Thus, even though the CalSTRS Group holds substantially more shares
than the RI Group, the relative economic stake of each group -- as
a percentage of their portfolios and of Facebook's outstanding
shares -- is not materially different. Moreover, both parties own
"a sufficient stake to provide an economic incentive to monitor
counsel and play a meaningful role in conducting the case."

The lead counsel factors favor the CalSTRS Group. Both contestants
have properly utilized Section 220 documents and have revealed
their extensive investigative efforts in thoroughly pled
complaints, although the Court notes that both parties rely more
heavily on the CalSTRS Group's Section 220 documents. Both
complaints span hundreds of pages. While the pleadings share a
similar girth, they do not reflect shared strategic decisions as
evidenced by the claims asserted. In other words, while the CalSTRS
Group pleads wide-reaching claims against many defendants, the RI
Group primarily focuses on the event they believe best typifies
fiduciary misconduct that can be challenged under a
plaintiff-friendly standard of review.

To be sure, Judge Slight holds that the RI Group might make more
detailed allegations against certain Board members, but the CalSTRS
Group casts a wider net to impugn the disinterestedness or
independence of a greater number of Board members in recognition
that the composition of the Demand Board may be disputed.
Trade-offs such as these are the inevitable product of competing
complaints; they do not reveal that the RI Group's complaint is
superior. Because the CalSTRS Group's complaint is more
comprehensive and contains more pathways to recovery, Judge Slights
is satisfied it provides the Plaintiffs the best opportunity to
succeed.

Judge Slights then assesses the competence of counsel and their
access to the resources necessary to prosecute the claims at issue.
He finds that all counsel involved in the dispute are highly
competent, well-funded and very well regarded by the Court. The RI
Group argues that counsel for the CalSTRS plaintiffs is fatally
conflicted by virtue of having pursued direct claims against
Facebook and, therefore, cannot competently represent the CalSTRS
Group.

After careful review of the supposedly conflicted cases, Judge
Slights is satisfied there is no conflict that would prevent
counsel from properly representing the CalSTRS Group. He trusts
that the CalSTRS Group will prosecute the case fairly and
vigorously. He notes however, that even after lead counsel has been
selected, the Court must continue to monitor the adequacy of the
counsel's representation. Should any potential conflicts arise, the
Court can make necessary adjustments at that time, if needed.

Examining the willingness and ability of the contestants to
litigate vigorously on behalf of the class of stockholders they
seek to represent, Judge Slights finds that although the competing
applications for leadership present a close call, because the
CalSTRS Group's complaint is superior, it has presented the better
application. CalSTRS, Birmingham, and Local 79 are designated as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

The law firms of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Prickett, Jones &
Elliott, P.A., and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law are designated as
Co-Lead Counsel.

Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP and Dilworth Paxson LLP are
designated as Co-Chairs of an Executive Committee of shareholders.
The additional members of the Executive Committee are Robbins LLP,
Gainey McKenna & Egleston, Berman Tabacco and Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

The Co-Lead Counsel will set policy for the prosecution of the
litigation, delegate and monitor the work performed to ensure there
is no duplication of effort or unnecessary expense, and initiate
and coordinate the activities of counsel.

The Co-Lead Counsel will have the power and responsibility, with
input from the Executive Committee, to: coordinate and direct the
preparation of pleadings; coordinate and direct the briefing and
argument of motions; coordinate and direct the conduct of discovery
and other pretrial proceedings; conduct any and all settlement
negotiations with counsel for the Defendants; coordinate and direct
the preparation for trial of the matter, and delegate work
responsibilities to selected counsel as may be required; and
coordinate and direct any other matters concerning the prosecution
or resolution of the consolidation action.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint within 30
days of the Order, which will serve as the operative complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/246sbd3d from Leagle.com.


FEDEX GROUND: Corley Seeks to Certify Class of Linehaul Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KAWASKI CORLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-00429-ODW-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All persons who at any time during the Class Period, and
      within the State of California: (1) directly performed, or
      were designated as an authorized / business contact
      responsible for the performance of, the "linehaul"
      transportation of goods for Defendant pursuant to a
      Linehaul Transportation Service Provider Agreement
      ("TSPA"), or similarly titled agreement; and (2) were not
      designated by Defendant as its employees.

      This Definition is intended to supersede the definition in
      the First Amended Class Action Complaint.

   2. certifying a Subclass A comprised of:

      "All persons falling within the Class Definition who were
      designated as 'Authorized Officers' pursuant to a TSPA
      agreement during the Class Period;"

      The Class Period includes the four years preceding the
      filing of the initial complaint in this action, to present
      (i.e. January 09, 2015 - Present.)

      Class Certification is sought on the following claims:

      -- Declaratory Relief- Misclassification

         The Defendant allegedly failed to properly classify
         Plaintiffs and the proposed class as its employees. The
         Plaintiff seeks adjudication by this Court that
         Plaintiff and the Class are Defendant's employees
         pursuant to the definitions set forth by California's
         Labor Code and associated Wage Order No. 9.

      -- Reimbursement of Business Expenses/Unlawful Deductions
         from Wages (Labor Code section 2802, and Wage Order) On
         behalf of Subclass A.

         The Defendant allegedly failed to provide reimbursement
         for necessary and common business expenditures, but not
         limited to, the fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance,
         and other costs/fees required for the linehaul work
         performed.

      -- Failure To Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements
         (Labor Code section 226)

         As a result of its failure to properly classify
         Plaintiff and the Class as FedEx employees, Defendant
         likewise failed to provide required wage statements
         pursuant to Labor Code section 226(a).

      -- Derivative Claims: Unfair Business Practices, Bus. &
         Prof. Code sections 17200, 9 et seq.)

This cause of action flows from the alleged misclassification and
resulting Labor Code & Wage Order violations described above.

The Plaintiff does not seek class certification for the remaining
claims alleged in the operative First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff Kawaski Corley also requests that the Court appoint
him as the Class Representative in this matter, and to appoint
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP as lead class counsel.

The Plaintiff Corley has brought claims on 4 of himself and a
putative class of linehaul workers against FedEx Ground for various
wage and hour violations as alleged within the operative Complaint.
These claims arise via Defendant's systematic practice of
misclassifying him and similarly situated workers, when in
actuality they were performing work as FedEx employees and were
entitled to wage and hour protections which were not provided by
Defendant.

FedEx is an international corporation engaged in the business of
providing transportation delivery services for its clients.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vy4QZH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
          Marissa A. Mayhood, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mmayhood@marlinsaltzman.com

FLUID FLEET: Hoffman Must Submit Phase I Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RODNEY HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARY SITUATED v. FLUID FLEET SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00423-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Xavier
Rodriguez entered an order that:

   -- the parties must submit a proposed Phase I scheduling order,
      including relevant deadlines for discovery and class
      certification briefing no later than October 27, 2021.
      Failure to do so may result in the Court's entering its
      own scheduling order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m1qd2v at no extra charge.[CC]

FLYING FOOD GROUP: Alfaro Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carina Alfaro, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV36766 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 6, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business
practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain
accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to
timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a systematic,
company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for
all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages
in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders;
Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods
in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders,
failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or
missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each
workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and
permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in
compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and
failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest
period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for
necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay
employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium
wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period
specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing
to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked.
Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage
statements containing all the information required by the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a set-up employee from
2013 to August 2021.

The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          Enzo Nabiev, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                 allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
                 enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Consolidated Amended Sayce Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER L. SAYCE, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORESCOUT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00076-SI
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismisses the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Background

Forescout provides cybersecurity services for large computer
networks. Defendant Michael DeCesare is Forescout's President and
CEO and Defendant Christopher Harms was Forescout's CFO
("Individual Defendants").

Prior to the Class Period, the Defendants told investors that
Forescout predicted a 24% revenue growth for the 2019 fiscal year.
During the Class Period, between Feb. 7, 2019 and May 15, 2020,
Forescout produced revenue results indicating the company did not
meet projections for the first, second, and third quarters of 2019.
The Defendants stated Forescout's decline in revenue was caused by
customer order delays, Forescout's shift to a subscription revenue
model, and deteriorating macroeconomic conditions in Europe, Middle
East, and Africa regions.

In October 2019, Forescout produced revenue results indicating
revenue growth. The Defendants also announced Forescout was up for
private sale. On Feb. 6, 2020, Advent agreed to acquire Forescout.
In March 2020, Forescout indicated the company did not meet revenue
projections for the first quarter of 2020. On April 20, 2020,
Advent sent Forescout a letter stating Advent "was reviewing
Forescout's business, operations, future prospects and financial
condition in order to assess whether the conditions to closing the
Acquisition would be met." On April 23, 2020, Forescout stated the
company "continues to expect the transaction to close in the second
calendar quarter of 2020 following the completion of a customary
debt 'marketing period' by Advent." On May 11, 2020, Forescout
disclosed the company failed to meet its predictions for the first
quarter of 2020 because of two discounted hardware deals.

After the Class Period, on May 19, 2020, Forescout filed a
complaint in Delaware against Advent for specific performance of
Advent's agreement to close the Advent Acquisition ("Delaware
Litigation"). On July 15, 2020, Forescout and Advent settled the
Delaware Litigation. On Aug. 14, 2020, Advent acquired Forescout.

On Jan. 1, 2020, Plaintiff Sayce, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed the securities class action
lawsuit against the Defendants. On Dec. 18, 2020, Plaintiffs Sayce,
Meitav Tachlit Mutual Funds Ltd., The Arbitrage Fund, Water Island
merger Arbitrage Institutional Comingled Master Fund LP, Water
Island LevArb Fund, LP, Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund
filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Defendants. On
March 25, 2021, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, finding the consolidated amended complaint
failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter. It held the
Plaintiffs adequately pled loss causation and granted Plaintiffs
leave to amend their falsity and scienter claims.

On May 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the SCAC. According to the
SCAC, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities
Exchange Commission. They allege the Defendants knowingly made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose (1)
Forescout employee layoffs beginning in early 2019, particularly
from the sales department; (2) declined productivity of Forescout's
sales employees; (3) lack of "better visibility into the pipeline";
(4) deals with Forescout that either did not close or were "tech
wins" (5) artificial deals closing dates listed in Clari,
Forescout's deals tracking platform; (6) an objective basis for
Forescout's increased revenue projections; (7) Forescout's channel
stuffing scheme; and (8) Advent's hesitation to acquire Forescout.
The Plaintiffs allege Individual Defendants are liable under 20(a)
of the Exchange Act as Forescout's senior officers in positions of
control and authority.

On June 24, 2021, Forescout and Individual Defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the SCAC. On Aug. 2, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On Aug. 24, 2021, the Defendants
filed replies. On Sept. 17, 2021, the Court heard oral arguments on
the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

Discussion

I. Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful to "use or
employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of
such rules and regulations as the SEC may prescribe as necessary."
A plaintiff asserting a claim under Section 10(b) must adequately
allege "(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the
defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation."

The Defendants argue the SAC fails to adequately plead (A)
actionable misstatements and (B) strong inference of scienter.

A. Actionable Misstatements

1. Forward-Looking Statements

Defendant Forescout argues the Defendants' alleged misstatements
are either forward-looking statements protected by the safe harbor
provision or adequately alleged to be false. The Plaintiffs argue
the statements are based on present or historical facts. They
assert the statements were made with actual knowledge and lacked
adequate cautionary language.

Judge Illston finds that the Defendants' statements regarding
Forescout's sales productivity, pipeline, and deals contain
concrete factual assertions about Forescout's operations that go
beyond assertions of future goals. Accordingly, she finds that the
Defendants' statements contain non-forward looking statements to
the extent the statements involved concrete assertions about their
sales productivity, pipeline, and deals. To the extent the
Defendants' statements are forward-looking statements, Judge
Illston finds the statements were not made with actual knowledge of
falsity and are protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor provision.

2. Falsity

The Defendants argue the SCAC fails to adequately plead how their
alleged misstatements were false. The Plaintiffs argue the SCAC
adequately pleads falsity of statements regarding (a) sales
employee hiring, (b) deals and sales pipeline, (c) Advent
Acquisition, (d) revenue projections, and (e) channel stuffing.

Judge Illston holds that the SAC fails to adequately plead falsity.
She finds that (i) the SCAC fails to adequately plead falsity of
the Defendants' statements regarding employee sales hiring; (ii)
the SCAC fails to adequately plead falsity of the Defendants'
statements regarding deals and the sales pipeline; (iii) the SCAC
failed to adequately plead the Defendants' Advent Acquisition
statements are actionable misstatements; (iv) the SCAC fails to
adequately plead falsity of the Defendants' revenue projections;
(v) the SCAC fails to plead how Linthicum's opinion relates to the
Defendants' use of Clari, Forescout's revenue operations platform
used to predict revenue.

Judge Illston also holds that the SCAC fails to adequately plead
the Defendants engaged in a channel stuffing scheme. For this
independent reason, she grants Defendant Forescout's motion to
dismiss.

B. Scienter

The Individual Defendants argue the SCAC fails to plead a strong
inference of scienter. The Plaintiffs argue scienter is adequately
plead because (1) the Defendants' access to internal reports, (2)
CW statements, (3) the Delaware Litigation, and (4) stock sales
establish a strong inference of scienter.

Whether considered individually or holistically, Judge Illston
finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations do not plead a strong
inference of scienter. She finds that (i) the SCAC fails to
adequately plead the Individual Defendants had access to internal
reports or data; (ii) the SCAC also fails to plead specific
allegations regarding Forescout's internal reports or data; (iii)
the SCAC fails to plead how the CWs, as named account managers and
administrative assistants, would have either known that the alleged
pressure campaign was caused by Individual Defendants or that
Individual Defendants knew about the alleged pressure campaign;
(iv) CW18's statement does not indicate when or to whom the
Individual Defendants' statements about sales employee hiring was
allegedly made; (v) the SCAC fails to plead the actual language of
the sales pipeline report; and (v) the SCAC fails to adequately
plead defendants had actual knowledge of falsity in their alleged
misstatements at the time when the alleged misstatements were made
during the class period.

II. Section 20a of the Exchange Act

The Individual Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Judge Illston finds the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their
Section 20A claims. For this additional reason, she grants the
Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston grants the Defendants'
separate motions to dismiss. She denies the Plaintiffs leave to
amend and dismisses the SCAC with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ts2w8n73 from Leagle.com.


FUTURE MOTION: Jacobson Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISAAC JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FUTURE MOTION, INC. and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 21CV02097, was removed from the Superior
Court in the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
October 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-08092 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; false advertising in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code; breach of an express
warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; unlawful,
fraudulent, and unfair business practices; negligence; strict
products liability for design defect and failure to warn; and
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant's OneWheel XR electric single-wheeled
skateboard has a circuit board defect.

Future Motion, Inc. is an electronics manufacturer based in Santa
Cruz, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Pablo Orozco, Esq.
         John J. Wackman, Esq.
         Daniel J. Supalla, Esq.
         NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
         250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 305-7500
         Facsimile: (612) 305-7501
         E-mail: porozco@nilanjohnson.com
                 jwackman@nilanjohnson.com
                 dsupalla@nilanjohnson.com

GEM RECOVERY: Ginsberg Files Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Sholom Ginsberg, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Gem Recovery
Systems LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-20135-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order for class certification and such
other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Gem Recovery is a third-party collection agency based in New Jersey
that specializes in collecting delinquent medical bills.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ngUOIy
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ, 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 121
          E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Nauman Bid for Class Cert Due Jan. 28, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Nauman v. General Motors LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-05150 (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H.
Settle entered an order resetting deadlines as follows:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by Jan.
      28, 2022;

   -- Response due 60 days later; and

   -- reply due 30 days after response.

General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States. It was founded by William C. Durant on September 16, 1908,
as a holding company, and the present entity was established in
2009 after its restructuring.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.[CC]

GEORGIA: Renewal of Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 17
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BRANDON COBB, et al., etc.,
v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., etc., Case
No. 1:19-cv-03285-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II
entered an order granting parties' joint motion to extend motion
and briefing deadlines as follows:

   -- Renewal of Plaintiffs' Motion for        Nov. 17, 2021
      Class Certification:

   -- Defendants' Motion for Summary           Nov. 19, 2021
      Judgment:

   -- Responses to Motions:                    Jan. 10, 2022

   -- Replies in Support of Motions:           Feb. 7, 2022

The Georgia Department of Community Supervision is an executive
branch agency of the U.S. state of Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30KM8mo at no extra charge.[CC]


GLASSER IMAGES: Ex Clients, Subcontractor Plan to File Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Burbank at kfyrtv.com reports that former clients and
sub-contractors of Glasser Images said they're preparing to file a
class action lawsuit against the company, after it shut down
without notice and without refunding customers.

Minnesota based photographer Emily Santiago says she started
working for Glasser in the Spring and always had trouble receiving
payments. She said four couples have reached out to her because
they never received their finished photos and legally, she doesn't
know what to do.

"I have these images and they are safe but I can't do anything with
them. I can't give them to the people who paid for them already,"
said Santiago.

More than 75 people have joined a list to form a class action suit.
Jack Glasser's new attorney said this wasn't malicious and the
pandemic's economic impact on the business was too great.

"This is the reality of business, sometimes they close. Sometimes
they don't they don't work as anticipated. There's nothing evil,
there's nothing premeditated," said

O'Keeffe said they've reached out to the North Dakota Attorney
General's Office and said his firm hasn't heard from them yet.

He said they're coming up with a plan over the next few days.

According to the director of ND Consumer Protection & Antitrust
Division, the North Dakota Attorney General's Office has received
more than 172 complaints against Glasser Images on allegations of
defrauding consumers. The North Dakota-Minnesota Better Business
Bureau is investigating more than 10 complaints.

Anyone who wants to dispute a transaction can file a claim with the
Consumer Complaints Division. [GN]

HAWX PEST: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
A Fayetteville, North Carolina resident claims in a proposed class
action that Hawx Pest Control has placed more than 100 robocalls to
her cell phone after she requested that the company stop calling
her.

The 10-page suit alleges the "incessant" calls and text messages
concerned a purported debt that the plaintiff says she never owed
and for which Hawx was allegedly unable to provide substantiation.

The lawsuit claims Hawx has unlawfully failed to maintain adequate
policies to ensure compliance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of automated
telephone dialing technology to place certain types of calls
without a recipient's consent to do so. According to the case, Hawx
knew its collection calls violated the TCPA yet "continued to
employ them to maximize efficiency and profits at the expense of
Plaintiff and the Putative Class."

The plaintiff claims to have initially signed up for Hawx's pest
control services in early 2020 before quickly discovering that they
were "ineffective." According to the case, the plaintiff "noticed
more bugs after Defendant commenced its services than prior to the
commencement of Defendant's services," and eventually informed Hawx
that she no longer needed its services and declined the company's
offer to send another technician to her home. Hawx then confirmed
the woman's cancellation request and advised the plaintiff that she
owed no money and would not be billed, according to the complaint.

In September 2020, however, Hawx allegedly sent another technician
to the plaintiff's home "for reasons unknown" to her. After
receiving an email that stated a technician was on the way to her
home, the plaintiff "immediately called" Hawx and was informed that
"the system must not have been updated properly," the lawsuit
relays. When the technician arrived, the plaintiff sent him away
without allowing him to take any pictures of her property,
according to the complaint.

The plaintiff claims to have then sent Hawx a letter relaying that
she had canceled her services and requested that the defendant no
longer come to her home, email her, call her or "contact her in any
way." Nevertheless, the plaintiff began to receive collection calls
in October 2020 concerning an allegedly unpaid balance on her Hawx
account, the suit says.

Although the plaintiff disputed the alleged debt and asked for
substantiation, the defendant "was unable to provide Plaintiff with
an itemization or otherwise substantiate the balance that Defendant
sought to collect from Plaintiff," according to the filing. Despite
the plaintiff's dispute, Hawx allegedly continued to place
"erroneous collection calls" to the consumer's phone that contained
the following 22-second prerecorded message:

"Hello, this is Hawx Services calling in regards to the balance on
your account. We would love to help you take care of this. Please
give us a call at [phone number] or pay on your online portal at
hawx.pestportals.com. That's Hawx, h-a-w-x.pestportal.com. Thank
you."

The plaintiff claims to have also received text messages from the
defendant in an attempt to collect on the purported debt.

Although the plaintiff sent another cease-and-desist letter in June
2021, the letter "fell on blind eyes," and Hawx continued to place
the prerecorded calls, according to the complaint.

Per the suit, the plaintiff has received more than 100 calls and
messages from the defendant since her initial request that the
company stop contacting her. According to the case, the calls
violated the TCPA in that Hawx did not have the plaintiff's prior
express written consent to contact her using a prerecorded voice.

The plaintiff looks to represent anyone in the U.S. to whose cell
phone Hawx placed or caused to be placed a call using an artificial
or prerecorded voice without obtaining the consumer's consent
within the past four years and until the date of class
certification. [GN]

HEALTH-ADE LLC: Johnson-Jack Sues Over Mislabeled Kombucha Product
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON JOHNSON-JACK and MICHAEL XAVIER, on behalf of themselves,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs
v. HEALTH-ADE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-07895 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive
marketing of its "Health-Ade" Beverages in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Defendant Health-Ade LLC has marketed and sold a line of kombucha
or kombucha-inspired beverages branded as "Health-Ade" for several
years.

According to the complaint, by branding the products in this
manner, Defendant expressly represents that the Health-Ade
Beverages will aid health, i.e., are beneficial to health when
consumed. Because the Health-Ade Beverages contain a high amount of
added sugar, however, Defendant's representations are allegedly
false and misleading, since consuming beverages sweetened with high
amounts of added sugar, like the Health-Ade Beverages, increases
the risk of metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, type 2
diabetes, and liver disease, and is further associated with
increased all-cause mortality.

Plaintiffs and the Class lost money as a result of Defendant's
deceptive claims, omissions, and practices in that they did not
receive what they paid for when purchasing the Health-Ade
Beverages, adds the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LEVINS. et al., v. HEALTHCARE
REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00928
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order
granttng the request to extend the deadline for the filing of
dispositive motions and class certification motions to no later
than December 10, 2021

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

HRRG also known as Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group is a
legitimate debt collection agency, specializing in the collection
of medical debt.[CC]

HONEST COMPANY: Gambino Suit Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. Gambino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Honest Company, Inc.,
Nikolaos Vlahos, Kelly Kennedy, Jessica Warren, Katie Bayne, Scott
Dahnke, Eric Liaw, Jeremy Liew and Avik Pramanik, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-08033, (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2021), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Honest produces diapers and wipes, skin and personal care and
household and wellness products. On May 6, 2021, it filed its
prospectus with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. In the IPO, the company sold 6,451,613 shares of common
stock, plus an additional 3,871,050 shares of common stock pursuant
to the underwriter’s option to purchase additional shares at a
price of $16.00 per share.

Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, before
the market opened, Honest issued a press release of its Second
Quarter 2021 Financial Results. Therein, Honest reported a net loss
of $20 million for the second quarter of 2021, as compared to a net
loss of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020. Honest
disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the second
quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by an estimated
$3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in diapers and
wipes in the prior year period. On this news, the company's stock
price fell $3.98 per share, or 28%, to close at $10.07 per share on
August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On August 19,
2021, its stock price closed at an all-time low of $9.16 per share,
a nearly 43% decline from the $16.00 per share IPO price.

Gambino alleges that the Registration Statement omitted the
COVID-19 stock-up impact for products in the Diapers and Wipes
category and Household and Wellness category. Consequently, he
purchased Honest common stock pursuant to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the company's IPO, and suffered
damages as a result of the federal securities law violations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 405-7190
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

INNOVAGE HOLDING: McLeod Sues Over Nearly 69% Drop of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY MCLEOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVAGE HOLDING CORP., MAUREEN HEWITT,
BARBARA GUTIERREZ, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL
INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY,
L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., CAPITAL ONE SECURITIES, INC., LOOP
CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, and ROBERTS
& RYAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02770 (D.
Colo., October 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, InnovAge filed a materially false and
misleading registration statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the company's March
2021 initial public offering (IPO). The registration statement
omitted to state: (1) that certain of InnovAge's facilities failed
to provide covered services, provide accessible and adequate
services, manage participants' medical situations, and oversee use
of specialists; (2) that, as a result, the company was reasonably
likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); (3) that, as a
result, there as a significant risk that CMS would suspend new
enrollments pending an audit of the company's services; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $2.90 per
share, or 25%, to close at $8.75 per share on September 22, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this
action, the company's stock was trading as low as $6.61 per share,
a nearly 69% decline from the $21 per share IPO price. As a result
of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

InnovAge Holding Corp. is a healthcare delivery platform company
with its principal executive offices located in Denver, Colorado.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is a securities brokerage company,
headquartered in New York, New York.

Barclays Capital Inc. is a brokerage firm and investment advisor,
headquartered in New York, New York.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services corporation, headquartered
in New York, New York.

Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated is an American multinational
independent investment bank and financial services company,
headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

William Blair & Company, L.L.C. is American multinational
independent investment bank and financial services company based in
Chicago, Illinois.

Piper Sandler & Co. is an American independent investment bank and
financial services company, headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

Capital One Securities, Inc. is a brokerage services firm based in
New Orleans, Louisiana.

Loop Capital Markets LLC is a full-service investment bank,
brokerage and advisory firm based in Chicago, Illinois.

Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC is a full-service investment
banking and financial services company, headquartered in New York,
New York.

Roberts & Ryan Investments, Inc. is an investment banking firm
based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
         Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
         Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN: Faces Jane Doe Suit Over Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DARREN K. INDYKE; RICHARD D. KAHN, as
EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; and LESLEY GROFF,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08469 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2021) is an
action seeking some measure of justice for the abuse Epstein
inflicted on the Plaintiff and the class.

According to the complaint, in 2017, the Plaintiff was in her early
20s and living in Moscow, finishing her education and trying to
launch her career, when Jeffrey Epstein targeted and lured her into
his world, falsely advertising a job, then promising career and
other opportunities and buying and making travel arrangements to
fly her to France and the United States.

After trafficking the Plaintiff to New York, France, Florida, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands with the experienced assistance of Lesley
Groff, Epstein brutally raped and sexually assaulted her numerous
times at his homes in Paris, Palm Beach, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Epstein directed the Plaintiff to massage him, then
proceeded, without consent, to grope her genitals with his hands
and a vibrator and to masturbate himself to completion, alleges the
suit.

According to the complaint, Epstein forced the Plaintiff to perform
oral sex on him, pushing her down onto her knees after she tried to
resist doing so. Epstein forcibly had sexual intercourse with the
Plaintiff. He did all this after repeatedly flouting his power and
wealth, and telling her that it was her fault if she did not see
the advantages and opportunities that he could give her, all after
luring her with and promising her repeated work opportunities.

Epstein's abuse has caused the Plaintiff physical and emotional
pain and suffering, including severe, permanent emotional harm,
anxiety, and depression, and physical pain including exacerbating
the symptoms of an underlying disease. Even after Epstein's death,
the Plaintiff still experiences nightmares and unwanted flashbacks
to Epstein's conduct and remains fearful every day as a result of
his abuse, the suit added.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mariann Meier Wang, Esq.
          Daniel Mullkoff, Esq.
          CUTI HECKER WANG LLP
          305 Broadway, Suite 607
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 620-2603

               -and-

          Gloria Allred, Esq.
          ALLRED MAROKO & GOLDBERG
          305 Broadway, Suite 607
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 202-2966

JUICIFY INC: Shanahan Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Terrence Shanahan, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Juicify, Inc. doing business as
Juicify, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 8:21-cv-00243 was
removed from the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Oct. 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-05483 to the
proceeding.

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

Juicify -- https://juicify.com.my/ -- offers cold press
juices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 South Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: (650) 781-8000
          Fax: (650) 648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karen S. Hockstad, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          191 W. Nationwide Blvd., Suite 300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 628-6930
          Email: karen.hockstad@dinsmore.com

              - and -

          Michael A. Paul, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LAW FIRM - DENVER
          1775 Sherman Street, Suite 2500
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 831-6976
          Email: Michael.Paul@dinsmore.com


JUPITER, FL: Bid for Collective Action Status Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JEFFREY BERNSTEIN, VINCENT
CURCIO and JOHN ANGELONE, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, a municipal
corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-81215-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for certification of collective
      action and for permission to send court supervised notice
      is denied without prejudice.

      -- The Plaintiffs may file an amended Motion pursuant to
         the instructions in this Order by October 20, 2021.

   2. The Defendant's motion to strike notice of filing notices
      of consent to join, or dismiss without prejudice, Opt-in
      Plaintiffs Referenced in Notice of Filing Notices of
      Consent to Join is denied.

Judge Middlebrooks said, "The Plaintiffs have obtained some factual
information about the opt-ins which Plaintiffs did not seek to
supplementarily file in support of this motion. Specifically, I
note that Plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim includes an
attached document listing dates and amounts of alleged denial of
overtime for several opt-in plaintiffs. Given the apparent
existence of additional relevant information acquired during the
pendency of this Motion for Certification of Collective Action, and
in light of the inefficiency which would result if this matter were
to proceed by way of separate actions for each opt-in if they are
in fact similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs, I will afford
Plaintiffs one opportunity to renew this motion. In their renewed
motion, should they choose to file one, Plaintiffs may attempt to
set forth their arguments in support of certification with reliance
upon any newly acquired specific information bearing on the
question of whether the putative class members are similarly
situated under the applicable standard. Thereafter, I will revisit
the applicability of the two-step process for determining whether
an FLSA collective action should be conditionally certified for the
purpose of issuing notice. If Plaintiffs' renewed motion continues
to be premised on broad and unsubstantiated allegations, it will be
denied."

The Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), to recover for alleged unpaid overtime.

The Plaintiffs are current or former law enforcement officers for
Defendant, the Town of Jupiter.

The Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit in state court on June 2,
2021. The Defendant removed the action to this Court on July 9,
2021. The provisions of the FLSA allow for an employee to bring a
collective action for unpaid overtime compensation on behalf of
himself and other employees similarly situated.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of
themselves and "a class of other employees similarly situated."
They "seek to represent a class including all:

   "current and former law enforcement officers of Jupiter
   Police Department wheresoever located" who were deprived of
   proper overtime pay in the last three years."

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DZ1QbR at no extra charge.[CC]

KAMAN INDUSTRIAL: Bennett Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bennett, individually, and on behalf of 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 in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 6, 2021, and assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-08049-CAS-JPR.

The Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Defendant setting
forth the following eight (9) causes of action: (1) Discrimination
Based on Gender in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA"); (2) Harassment – Hostile Work Environment in Violation
of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (4) Failure to
Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of
FEHA; (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (7) Violation of the
Equal Pay Act (Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5); (8) Failure to Pay Wages
(Cal. Lab. Code 201, 218.5), and (9) Waiting Time Penalties (Cal.
Lab. Code 203).[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
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Thomas.mackey@jacksonlewis.com


KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that
purchasers of Katapult Holdings, Inc. ("Katapult" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: KPLT) between December 18, 2020, and August 10, 2021, have
until October 26, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion.
The filed complaint alleges that Katapult Holdings, Inc. made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
that: (1) Katapult was experiencing declining e-commerce retail
sales and consumer spending, (2) despite Katapult's assertions that
it was clear and compelling value proposition to both consumers and
merchants, transforming the way nonprime consumers shop for
essential goods and enabling merchant access to this underserved
segment, Katapult lacked visibility into its consumers' future
buying behavior; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis.

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

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

Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

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

KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kellermeyer
Bergensons Services, LLC. The case is styled as Gloria Martinez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public v. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0009660 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 15, 2021).

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

Kellermeyer Bergensons Services (KBS) --
https://www.kbs-services.com/ -- delivers essential facility
services from hygiene through to exterior maintenance support
services that help customers and employees stay safe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
          28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
          Phone: (818) 293-5623
          Fax: (888) 850-1310
          Email: roman@OLFLA.com


KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Boudreau Suit Moved From D. Mass. to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PRINNA BOUDREAU, MARY CAMPBELL, RICARDO CAMPOS,
JEFF ECK-LONDON, NORA FREEMAN, STEPHEN GRICE, BETH RODGERS, and
MATTHEW SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11095, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on October 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01385-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violations of state unfair trade practices
and consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiffs' CPAP devices are now worthless. The Plaintiffs will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available, says the suit.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
         Richard A. Silver, Esq.
         Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
         Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
         Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
         SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
         184 Atlantic Street
         Stamford, CT 06901
         Telephone: (203) 325-4491
         Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
         E-mail: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
                 rsilver@sgtlaw.com
                 sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                 isloss@sgtlaw.com
                 zrynar@sgtlaw.com

KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Shrack Suit Moved From D. Del. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS SHRACK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00989, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on October 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01389-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, medical monitoring, and violations of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and
the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available, says the suit.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
         NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
         919 N. Market Street, Suite 1801
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 330-8025
         E-mail: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Griffin Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brenda Linette Griffin, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holdings USA, Inc.,
Philips RS North America LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11077 was removed
from the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01382-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          Makenna F. Cox, Esq.
          Thomas L. Watts, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Fax: (415) 981-4846
          Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
                 dsharp@girardsharp.com
                 jason@blockesq.com
                 mcox@girardsharp.com
                 tomw@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Fax: (617) 507-6020
          Email: jason@blockesq.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel S. Savrin, Esq.
          Emma D. Hall, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 951-8674
          Email: daniel.savrin@morganlewis.com
                 emma.hall@morganlewis.com

              - and -

          Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: (215) 963-4824
          Fax: (215) 963-5001
          Email: franco.corrado@morganlewis.com


LABOR SOURCE: Certification of Manual Laborer Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned WILLIAM SLEIGHT, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LABOR SOURCE,
LLC, Case No. 4:21-CV-112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. granting his motion for conditional certification and
      facilitate a Court-approved notice of this lawsuit to all
      manual laborers:

      "all current and former non-exempt manual laborers of
      Defendant Labor Source, LLC who were employed by Labor
      Source in the United States from August 12, 2018 through
      the present;" and

   2. equitable tolling for the putative collective members'
      Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims, an expedited
      ruling, as well as approval of the proposed Notice and
      Consent forms and the proposed notice administration plan
      (i.e., sending notice by First Class Mail, email, text
      message, posting the notice on a neutral website, allowing
      a 90-day opt-in period, and sending reminder postcards,
      emails and text messages to workers who have not yet
      joined at the 45-day point of the opt-in period).

Labor Source, Inc is a staffing company committed to providing
companies with high quality workers on a temporary, long-term or
permanent basis.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct.
13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3AWnSKh at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff, Class, and Collective Members, are:

          Michael K. Burke, Esq.
          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  mburke@schneiderwallace.com
                  whogg@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

LATIN BRANDS: Pajarito Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO PAJARITO, CARLOS PEREZ, and JONATHAN SANCHEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LATIN
BRANDS RESTAURANT GROUPS INC. (D/B/A SALSA BEMBE), LUCAS LUCIDO,
DEVIS BERATI, and ALEX ARIZMENDI, Defendants, Case No.
7:21-cv-08343 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2021) arises from the alleged
unlawful labor practices of the Defendants in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
and class members minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide
spread of hours pay, failed to furnish written wage notices and
wage statements, failed to reimburse business cost and expenses,
and misappropriated a portion of Plaintiffs' tips that were
received from customers.

The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants who served
as waiters/servers and busboys at the restaurant located in
Yonkers, New York.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Puerto Rican restaurant
in Yonkers, New York under the name "Salsa Bembe."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Shafer Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny R. Shafer, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LIGHTNING EMOTORS, INC., TIMOTHY RICHARD
REESER, and TERESA P. COVINGTON, Case No. 1:21-cv-02774-REB (D.
Colo., Oct. 15, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Lightning eMotors securities between May 7, 2021
and August 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials, with regards to the Defendants'
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies which resulted to the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

According to the complaint, on May 6, 2021, Lightning eMotors
consummated a business combination with Lightning Systems, Inc.
pursuant to a certain Business Combination Agreement, dated as of
December 10, 2020, by and among GigCapital3, Project Power Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), and Lightning Systems. In connection with
the consummation of the Business Combination, the Company changed
its name from GigCapital3, Inc. to Lightning eMotors, Inc. On May
7, 2021, the Company's common stock and warrants began trading on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbols "ZEV" and "ZEV.WS",
respectively.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company would
record a substantially greater net loss per share in the second
quarter of 2021 compared to the second quarter of 2020 and would
pull its full year guidance for the remainder of 2021; (ii)
accordingly, the Company materially overstated its financial
position and/or prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On August 16, 2021, post-market, Lightning eMotors announced the
Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2021,
including a net loss per share of $0.79 compared to a loss of $0.10
in the second quarter of 2020. The Company also pulled its full
year financial guidance for the remainder of 2021, just days after
announcing a multi-year agreement with Forest River, a Berkshire
Hathaway company. On this news, Lightning eMotors's stock price
fell $1.63 per share, or 16.93%, to close at $8.00 per share on
August 17, 2021. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Lightning eMotors securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Lightning eMotors designs, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles. The Company produces electric fleet medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles, including delivery trucks, shuttle buses,
passenger vans, chassis-cab models, and city transit buses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com


LOANDEPOT.COM: Rhyoo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Rhyoo, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21VECV01419
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 18, 2021), is brought
pursuant to California Labor Code for failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage
Orders; failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, failure to pay split shift
wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, failure to
pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, and failure to reimburse necessary,
business-related expenses in violation of Labor Code.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 8, and in excess of 12,
hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. the Defendants
routinely required the Plaintiff to perform work tasks before
and/or after their scheduled shifts, and/or during off-the-clock
meal breaks, and/or during rest breaks. As a consequence, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff all of the wages
to which they were entitled due to the company-wide failures of the
Defendants, the Plaintiff were forced to work off-the-clock before
and/or after their scheduled work shifts, and/or during rest
breaks, and/or during meal breaks. the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wage for this time and/or falsified timekeeping
records to hide this fact, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Loan Officer on October 2019.

The Defendants are a Delaware Limited Liability Company that are a
holding company that sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com


LOUISIANA: Plaisance Class Status Bid Due March 25, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BROOK PLAISANCE, ET AL., v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., Case No. 3:21-cv-00121-JWD-EWD (M.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order granting
in part the joint motion to adopt joint amended limited scheduling
order as follows.

-- Filing all discovery motions and       November 1, 2021
    completing all discovery except
    experts relative to Class
    Certification and Preliminary
    Injunction:

-- The Plaintiffs' deadline for Expert    December 1, 2021
    Disclosures and Reports Relative to
    Class Certification and Preliminary
    Injunction:

-- Defendant's deadline for Expert        January 14, 2022
    Disclosures and Reports Relative
    to Class Certification and
    Preliminary Injunction:

-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures and        February 25, 2022   
    Reports Relative to Class
    Certification andPreliminary
    Injunction:

-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class           March 25, 2022
    Certification due by:

-- Defendant's Opposition brief due by:   April 29, 2022

-- Plaintiffs' Reply brief due by:        May 27, 2022

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jjxoBm at no extra charge.[CC]

MAGNOLIA FLOORING: $21.6K Class Deal in Ross Suit Has Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINCENT ROSS, JUSTIN JACKSON, and DEVANTE FRANKLIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. MAGNOLIA FLOORING MILL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-1075 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado
Division, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

Background

The Plaintiffs and the Defendant have agreed, subject to Court
approval, to settle the litigation pursuant to the terms and
conditions stated in their Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release, filed with the Court on March 13, 2020. On June 23, 2021,
the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Notice to the Settlement
Class. On Sept. 23, 2021, the Court held a final approval hearing
on the instant motion.

On Dec. 14, 2018, all the named Plaintiffs filed the Original
Complaint-Class and Collective Action bringing claims against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA"), Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-201, et seq., for unpaid
overtime wages.

On March 13, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Notice to the Settlement
Class. The parties attached the Settlement Agreement to that
motion. The parties sought to settle the matter through the class
action procedures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On June 23, 2021, the Court granted the parties' request for
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed
Class for settlement purposes, and the proposed means of providing
notice to the settlement Class. As part of its Preliminary Approval
Order, the Court conditionally certified for settlement purposes
only a Class defined as follows: "All current or former hourly-paid
production employees who work or worked at the Magnolia Flooring
manufacturing facility located in Hamburg, Arkansas, at any time
between May 26, 2016, and Jan. 19, 2018, and who earned a bonus in
at least one week in which they worked more than 40 hours. These
individuals have been identified in Exhibit A to the Parties'
Settlement Agreement.

The Preliminary Approval Order appointed Josh Sanford of the
Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as the Class Counsel. It approved the
Notice of Proposed Settlement and the Opt-Out Form contained in the
Settlement Agreement, as well as the proposed manner for which
class members could object to the proposed settlement upon notice.
It also set a final approval hearing regarding the Settlement
Agreement for Sept. 23, 2021. The parties were directed to file a
motion for final approval of all terms of the Settlement Agreement
prior to the final fairness hearing.

On Sept. 16, 2021, the parties filed their Final Motion for the
Court's approval of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The
$21,638.25 Settlement Fund stipulated in the Settlement Agreement
provides fair monetary relief to the Class. The $300 service awards
to the three named Plaintiffs, for a total of $900, are
appropriate. The remaining $20,738.25 is appropriately dispersed
among the settlement class according to calculated unpaid overtime
and liquidated damages, as detailed in the Exhibit A of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Class Members who did not timely file and serve an objection in
writing in response to the Notice of Settlement in accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement and mandated
in the Preliminary Approval Order are deemed to have waived any
such objection through any appeal, collateral attack, or
otherwise.

On the basis of the matters presented in this Lawsuit and the
provisions of the Stipulation, Judge Hickey is of the opinion that
the Proposed Settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate
compromise of the claims against Defendant, pursuant to Rule 23.
Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
oral findings of fact articulated at the Final Approval Hearing
referenced therein, and pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, final certification of the Class is confirmed for
the purpose of the Settlement, in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Hickey granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and all provisions and terms of the
Settlement Agreement are finally approved in all respects. The
Parties to the Settlement Agreement are directed to consummate the
terms of the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms, as
may be modified by subsequent orders of the Court.

The Final Order and Judgment will be immediately entered as to all
claims in the suit between the Representative Plaintiffs and Class
Members and Defendant, and Final Judgment is entered approving and
adopting all terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement,
fully and finally terminating all claims of the Representative
Plaintiffs and the Class in the suit against the Defendant, on the
merits and with prejudice without leave to amend. Judge Hickey
expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay in
entering this Final Order and Judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiffs Vincent Ross, Justin Jackson, and Devante
Franklin are appointed as the Representative Plaintiffs for the
Class, and the following counsel are appointed as counsel for the
Class: Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, One Financial Center,
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211.

Pursuant to Rule 23(h), Judge Hickey awards the Class Counsel
$15,352.17 in attorney's fees and $490 in costs. In addition, she
awards the Representative Plaintiffs a service award of $300. She
finds that these amounts are fair and reasonable. The Defendant
will pay such fees to the Class Counsel and the service award to
the Representative Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. The Defendant will not be responsible for and
will not be liable with respect to the allocation among Class
Counsel or any other person who may assert a claim thereto, of
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court.

Payments to the Class Members will be made in the amounts and in
the manner described in Exhibit A of the Settlement Agreement.

Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonably necessary extensions of time to implement any of the
provisions of the Stipulation.

The suit is dismissed in its entirety on the merits, with prejudice
and without leave to amend, without fees or costs to any party
except as otherwise provided therein.

Without in any way affecting the finality of the Final Judgment,
the Court will retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the
Action for purposes of: enforcing the Settlement Agreement; hearing
and determining any application by any party to the Settlement
Agreement for a settlement bar order; and any other matters related
or ancillary to any of the foregoing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Final Order & Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pt7eu6t from Leagle.com.


MANITOBA: Class Action Lawsuit Over Breach of Duties Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Weremy, a former resident of the Manitoba Developmental
Centre in Portage la Prairie, commenced a class action against the
Government of Manitoba, alleging it breached various duties in
regards to the operation and management of the Manitoba
Developmental Centre, resulting in the widespread physical, sexual
and mental harm of residents.

On May 29, 2020, the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench certified the
proceeding as a class action. The Defendant's request to appeal
that decision was denied by the Court of Appeal on April 8, 2021.
Therefore, this action will continue as a certified class action.

The class includes all persons who resided at MDC between July 1,
1951 and May 29, 2020, and who were alive as of October 31, 2016.

The Court has yet to determine whether the allegations are proven.
[GN]

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Class Cert. Denial in Aronstein Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case Nos. 20-2103, 20-2135 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit affirms the district court's denial of class
certification, entry of judgment for Aronstein, and award of
prejudgment interest.

Background

In 2003, MassMutual decided to cut the minimum guaranteed interest
rates -- the lowest rates annuities can earn -- paid to purchasers
of some of its annuities. For the New York version of its "Odyssey"
annuity, MassMutual reduced the rate from 3.0% to 1.5%. To effect
that change, MassMutual considered two options: Updating the entire
certificate or attaching an amendment to the certificate, called an
endorsement or rider, to override the certificate's terms.
MassMutual chose the latter option, despite internal documents
stating that creating such a conflict between the endorsement and
the certificate would be "confusing to the client." MassMutual
entitled this rider the "GUARANTEED INTEREST RATE ENDORSEMENT." It
also changed references in its internal documents from "guaranteed
interest rate" to "guaranteed minimum interest rate." But
MassMutual did not make a similar clarification in the endorsement
to educate all of its consumers.

New York regulators approved the interest rate change in July 2003,
and MassMutual put the changed interest rate into effect for
annuities sold after Dec. 31, 2003. In the lead-up to that change,
MassMutual communicated about the new, reduced interest rate with
both its own salesforce and affiliated salespeople. It provided
them with new marketing materials for the Odyssey, which did not
reference the 3% rate (or the 1.5% rate).

Before purchasing the annuity, in December 2003, Aronstein met with
a third-party salesperson authorized to sell MassMutual annuities
at his local bank. Aronstein told the salesperson that he was
looking for a secure investment with better interest rates than the
bank was advertising for certificates of deposit. The salesperson
steered Aronstein towards the Odyssey, which he described as
offering a 3% minimum interest rate. The salesperson also gave
Aronstein one of MassMutual's marketing brochures reflecting the 3%
rate. The salesperson did not tell Aronstein that the minimum
guaranteed interest rate would soon be halved. Had Aronstein bought
the annuity that day, he would have received a certificate
guaranteeing him a 3.0% return. But by the time Aronstein had
reviewed the materials with his wife and decided to purchase the
annuity, MassMutual had lowered the interest rate. And when
Aronstein returned to purchase the annuity, the salesperson did not
tell him about the change. Aronstein executed the papers to
purchase the annuity believing that he would always receive at
least 3.0% annual interest.

When Aronstein received in the mail from MassMutual a package of
the key documents, he reviewed it. But he did not notice the
single-page endorsement tucked between the certificate and a copy
of his application. He read the 19 pages of the certificate, and he
specifically noted that the certificate listed the minimum
guaranteed interest rate as 3.0%. He then "thumbed through" the
four pages of the copy of his application at the end of the
package. He did not catch the endorsement sandwiched between the
certificate and the application materials. In fact, Aronstein did
not notice the endorsement until years later when, upon receiving
an annual statement, he realized that MassMutual had credited him
less than 3% interest for several years. Even then, he only
discovered it attached to his certificate after a MassMutual
employee sent him a copy and Aronstein matched the copy against the
one in his materials. After discovering the endorsement, Aronstein
obtained counsel who sued on behalf of Aronstein and a purported
class of similarly situated customers. He alleged causes of action
for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Following discovery, the district court allowed in part and denied
in part MassMutual's motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the
unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, holding that it was
time barred. It allowed the breach of contract claim to continue to
trial, holding that the meaning of the certificate was ambiguous.
The district court then denied Aronstein's motion for class
certification, permitting him to pursue his individual claim.
Relying on its earlier determination that the contract was
ambiguous, it concluded that extrinsic evidence would be needed to
determine what interest rate each class member believed the annuity
guaranteed. Thus, the district court held that common issues did
not predominate over individual ones, precluding class
certification. The district court then tried Aronstein's individual
claim without a jury and entered judgment for Aronstein. It also
awarded Aronstein prejudgment interest.

Aronstein appealed from the denial of class certification.
MassMutual cross-appealed from the judgment against it and
conditionally cross-appealed from the grant of prejudgment
interest.

Discussion

I.

The First Circuit begins with MassMutual's challenge to the
district court's judgment for Aronstein. MassMutual argues that the
annuity unambiguously sets the minimum guaranteed interest rate at
1.5%, entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. That argument
fails, the First Circuit finds.

A.

The annuity contract, composed of several documents, was ambiguous
under New York law as to the Odyssey minimum guaranteed interest
rate at the time Aronstein purchased it, the First Circuit finds.
It identifies three elements of the certificate and the endorsement
that create ambiguity.

First, the certificate promises that "the interest rate credited to
this Certificate will never be less than the Minimum Guaranteed
Interest Rate shown above." The minimum guaranteed interest rate
shown above that paragraph is 3%. The definitions section of the
certificate similarly defines the minimum guaranteed interest rate
by reference to the rate "shown on the Certificate Schedule." A
consumer could construe those representations to mean that the rate
actually printed on the certificate schedule, not the rate in the
endorsement, controls. This would be reasonable because the
endorsement does not actually say that the rate in the certificate
and the rate in the endorsement conflict.

Second, the heading of the endorsement is misleading. The
endorsement is entitled "GUARANTEED INTEREST RATE ENDORSEMENT," but
the policy guarantees multiple interest rates.

Third, a consumer could understand the endorsement as not modifying
the guaranteed interest rate. The lone reference to a "rider" in
the certificate informs the consumer that there is a "GUARANTEED
INTEREST RATE ENDORSEMENT," but as the First Circuit has concluded,
that language is itself misleading. The certificate's table of
contents omits the endorsement entirely.

The three elements render the certificate's minimum guaranteed
interest rate susceptible to two reasonable interpretations. A
consumer could reasonably read the certificate as MassMutual does
and conclude that the minimum guaranteed interest rate was 1.5%.
But he could also reasonably read it as Aronstein did and conclude
that he was entitled to a 3% interest rate. Therefore, the
provisions setting the minimum guaranteed interest rate are
ambiguous.

B.

Where, in the case, the language of a contract is ambiguous, its
construction presents a question of fact under New York law. So the
First Circuit must determine whether the district court's
construction of the contract was clearly erroneous. When a contract
is ambiguous, New York courts look to extrinsic evidence of the
parties' intent. If that evidence does not resolve the ambiguity,
then New York courts resolve the ambiguity against the insurer.

Based on the extrinsic evidence, the district court found that each
party believed that the certificate provided for a different
minimum guaranteed interest rate. Because the extrinsic evidence
did not resolve the ambiguity, the district court construed the
ambiguity against MassMutual as drafter of the contract.

The First Circuit finds no error. Indeed, MassMutual has waived any
argument to the contrary by failing to raise it in its briefs.

II.

The First Circuit turns next to the district court's denial of
Aronstein's motion for class certification. It reviews legal
questions de novo, factual determinations for clear error, and the
district court's overall class certification decision for abuse of
discretion.

Mr. Aronstein argues that New York courts would, but have not yet,
recognize two doctrines of contract interpretation, each of which
would render extrinsic evidence irrelevant. If extrinsic evidence
were irrelevant, then the district court's class certification
determination would be weakened, as it held that individualized
inquiry into extrinsic evidence would destroy predominance over
common questions of fact and law. The district court ruled against
the argument, and the First Circuit finds no error. To apply the
substantive law of New York to this dispute, the First Circuit
looks foremost to the decisions of the New York Court of Appeals.

A.

Mr. Aronstein first argues that New York courts would construe an
"intentionally ambiguous" contract against its drafter. That is not
the present state of New York law, the First Circuit holds. The
most important factor in predicting whether New York courts would
adopt a rule is what New York courts have to say on the matter. In
the case, they are silent. And no other court has adopted
Aronstein's proposed rule either.

B.

Mr. Aronstein next argues that New York courts would construe
standard-form contracts in the same manner for all parties. He
derives that rule from Section 211(2) of the Restatement (Second)
of Contracts, which provides that a standardized contract is
"interpreted wherever reasonable as treating alike all those
similarly situated, without regard to their knowledge or
understanding of the standard terms of the writing."

The First Circuit need not address whether New York courts would
adopt that provision of the Restatement; even if they would, the
provision provides no aid to Aronstein. After all, the purpose of
Section 211 is to give consumers the bargain they "reasonably
expected." The purpose is not to allow consumers to obtain benefits
they never expected by creative legerdemain. While the provision
may provide an "advantage" to "some sophisticated customers who
contracted with knowledge of an ambiguity or dispute," it cannot
reasonably be construed to allow a host of customers to exploit a
provision they fully understood.

What is more, Aronstein did not establish that he is similarly
situated to most other Odyssey purchasers as application of the
Restatement provision would require. As the district court
explained, although Aronstein was never told that MassMutual
reduced the interest rate to 1.5%, MassMutual produced evidence
that it "engaged in an extensive marketing campaign to inform sales
agents of the minimum guaranteed interest rate change, its
marketing materials were modified to reflect this change, and sales
agents generally explained this key interest rate to potential
purchasers orally." And Aronstein has adduced no evidence to show
that many Odyssey purchasers were confused by the interest rate
they obtained. Indeed, the record contains evidence of only one
Odyssey purchaser who was not informed that the rate had been
lowered: Aronstein himself. Thus, he cannot show that application
of Section 211(2) would allow for common interpretation of the
endorsement across the proposed class.

III.

Finally, the First Circuit addresses MassMutual's appeal of the
district court's award of prejudgment interest. MassMutual
conditionally cross-appealed from the award. In its opening brief,
MassMutual stated that it would drop the issue if the First Circuit
either affirmed the denial of class certification or reversed the
judgment for Aronstein. Because it affirms the denial of class
certification, MassMutual has waived its challenge to prejudgment
interest.

Conclusion

The decisions are affirmed. Costs awarded to Aronstein.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dfmt27bt from Leagle.com.

Kevin B. Love -- klove@cridenlove.com -- with whom Ian McLoughlin
-- imcloughlin@shulaw.com -- Adam Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com   
-- Criden & Love, P.A., and Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP were on
brief, for the Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Eric S. Mattson -- emattson@sidley.com -- with whom Robert N.
Hochman, Heather Benzmiller Sultanian, John P. Pucci --
jpucci@bulkley.com -- Jodi K. Miller -- jmiller@bulkley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP, and Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP were on
brief, for the Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


MCDONALD'S USA: Kim Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEONG-SU KIM, HUE-SOUNG JUN, and JONG MIN LEE on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
McDONALD'S USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
McDONALD'S CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05287 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2021) arises out of the April
15, 2021 data hack and data breach of McDonald's that the company
announced in June of 2021, whereby delivery customers' addresses,
phone numbers, and e-mail addresses were stolen by attackers.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, in order to: (1) seek
redress for Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members'
personal information, which Defendants collected and maintained;
(2) remedy Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs and Class
Members timely notice that their personal information had been
subject to the unauthorized access and acquiring by an unknown
third-party; and (3) obtain all other relief from Defendants'
unlawful conduct relating to the data breach.

The Plaintiffs, who were residents in the Republic of Korea,
further bring this claim under South Korea's Personal Information
Protection Act, the Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Headquartered in Illinois, McDonald's USA LLC operates a chain of
restaurants. The Company offers products such as burgers,
sandwiches, chicken, salads, shakes, smoothies, coffee, and
beverages. McDonald's serves customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street 36th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: smm@CliffordLaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery St. #3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeld.com
                  mlehmann@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Jane I. Shin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, N.W. Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  jshin@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Young-Ki Rhee, Esq.
          WE THE PEOPLE LAW GROUP
          6F Jin-Yang Bldg., 47 Kyonggidae-ro
          Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea 03752
          Telephone: +82-2-2285-0062
          Facsimile: +82-2-2285-0071
          E-mail: ykrhee@wethepeople.co.kr

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER
          Ten North Dearborn Street Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kent City Slams Opioid Marketing Strategy
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF KENT, on behalf of itself and similarly situated counties
and cities, Plaintiff v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., UNITED STATES
and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01375
(W.D. Wash., Oct. 8, 2021) arises from the alleged deceptive
marketing strategy of management consulting firm McKinsey to expand
opioid use in violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The lawsuit concerns McKinsey's work for American privately held
pharmaceutical company Purdue Frederick Company and its owner, the
Sackler family, beginning at least as early as 2004, and in
particular McKinsey's work in the years after the 2007 guilty plea
relating to Purdue's sales and marketing strategy for its opioids.
By June 2009 McKinsey was advising Purdue on precisely the same
sales and marketing strategy and practices for OxyContin that were
the subject of the Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA).

According to the complaint, McKinsey knew of the dangers of opioids
and of Purdue's prior misconduct, but nonetheless accepted the
assignment to design and implement the strategy for boosting opioid
sales, and by June 2009 McKinsey and Purdue were working together
to maximize OxyContin sales. McKinsey devised a plan to work around
the requirements of the CIA, suggesting a specific sales and
marketing strategy based on McKinsey's own independent research and
unique methodologies, and Purdue adopted that strategy. McKinsey
then worked intimately with Purdue on an ongoing basis to implement
its plan. Despite the strictures imposed by the CIA, OxyContin
sales began to multiply, says the suit.

Because of Defendant's alleged misconduct, Plaintiff City of Kent
and other counties and cities in Washington State are experiencing
a severe public health crisis and have suffered significant
economic damages, including but not limited to increased costs
related to public health, opioid-related crimes and emergencies,
the counties' and cities' own self-insured health care, criminal
justice, and public safety. Kent, like other counties and cities in
Washington, has incurred substantial costs in responding to the
crisis and will continue to do so in the future, added the suit.

McKinsey & Company is a management consulting firm, founded in 1926
by University of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises
on strategic management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur "Pat" Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
          220 Fourth Avenue South
          Kent, WA 98032
          Telephone: (253) 856-5770
          Facsimile: (253) 856-6770

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          David J. Ko, Esq.
          Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
          Matthew M. Gerend, Esq.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384

MDL 2437: Memo Issued on Cy Pres Award in Drywall Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum on cy pres award in
the case, DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. IN RE: INDIRECT
PURCHASER CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, MDL No. 13-2437 (E.D. Pa.).

The Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs advised the Court
that a substantial sum of money remains unclaimed after the
distribution of the settlement proceeds to the class members and
payment of all outstanding expenses and fees, etc., in the amount
of $295,405.46.

As the Court indicated in a prior Order, since it is an antitrust
case and there were substantial allegations of price-fixing by
manufacturers of drywall, (albeit most of the cases were settled
without any adjudication of liability except for one case still
pending), and the settlement amounts were significant, the Court
concluded that the unclaimed funds should be awarded to a
non-profit organization under the cy pres doctrine.

Because the MDL proceeding was transferred to the District by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under 28 U.S.C. S. 1407
and many of the attorneys involved in the case practiced in the
District, the Court has determined that the cy pres award should be
awarded to a Philadelphia based non-profit organization that
fosters entrepreneurship and business ownership, particularly for
disadvantaged communities and minority individuals.

Through the good offices of David Thornburgh, Executive Director of
the Committee of Seventy, a leading civic organization in
Philadelphia over many years, the Court became aware of the
Enterprise Center, which fosters ownership, entrepreneurship, and
business development among minority individuals, and is
headquartered in the West Philadelphia area. The Enterprise Center
has a substantial history of success. After the Court reached out
to Ms. Della Clark, as recommended by Mr. Thornburgh, Executive
Director of the Enterprise Center, she responded with a detailed
letter dated Aug. 9, 2021, attached to this Memorandum, which the
Court considered as an appropriate application for the cy pres
award in the case.

The Court has examined its financial statements, certain tax
returns, and other documents, and concludes that it is a competent,
capable, and responsible organization to use the cy pres award to
further its goals. Ms. Clark testified at the hearing on this
matter, which took place on Oct. 5, 2021.

As Ms. Clark's letter requested, Judge Baylson approves these funds
for these specific projects working with minority businesses with
funding gaps: (i) operation of a food truck; (ii) renovation of a
property at 5241 Market Street; (iii) market business development
which will involve hiring an individual for one full time staff
position and additional funds to purchase computers and business
tools for the outreach vehicle; and (iv) funds for the purchase of
computer equipment and software for the capital infrastructure --
all of which are described in further detail in the letter from
Mrs. Clark.

As previously indicated, Judge Baylson appoints Honorable Michael
J. Stiles as the Special Master to oversee the appropriate
disbursement of these funds.

Mrs. Clark will consult with Judge Stiles as necessary on the
expenditure of these funds from time to time and will prepare
appropriate reports and discuss them with Judge Stiles, so they can
be filed with the Court once every three months of this award and
then at the conclusion of the expenditures, which the Court
envisions taking place within one year, unless extended if
necessary.

Any additional expenditures will be requested by letter to
Chambers.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order Closing
the Settlement Fund, which Judge Baylson grants. Notwithstanding
recommendations by the Plaintiffs' counsel that the funds go to two
other organizations, neither of which have substantial operations
in the District.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5yzkz5e4 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2543: Co-Lead Counsel to Address Lewis' Concerns on Class Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION,
Case No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered
the Co-Lead Counsel to promptly take steps to address the class
member's concerns and will file a letter updating the Court on such
efforts within 30 days.

The Court has received an email from alleged class member Kathy
Lewis, attached as Exhibit A, expressing concerns about the class
action settlement administrator and requesting additional
information regarding the payment of her settlement claim. The
Co-Lead Counsel will serve a copy of the Order on the class member
at the email address provided.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5frdnezu from Leagle.com.


MDL 2924: Bid to Dismiss AMMC in Zantac Liability Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended
Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint.

Background

Twenty-seven named Plaintiffs bring the Amended Consolidated
Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint ("AMMC") on behalf of
themselves and various proposed classes. The Plaintiffs are
individuals who purchased and used the Defendants' ranitidine
products. Each Plaintiff alleges how frequently he or she used
ranitidine, the duration of use, the dosages used, whether the
ranitidine was OTC or prescription, the manufacturers of the
ranitidine used, the medical conditions for which he or she used
ranitidine, and the jurisdictions in which he or she purchased and
used ranitidine.

The Plaintiffs allege 98 counts in the AMMC. Each count falls
within one of four general causes of action: (1) Failure to Warn
through Warnings and Precautions; (2) Failure to Warn through
Proper Expiration Dates; (3) Negligent Product Containers; and (4)
Negligent Storage and Transportation.

The Plaintiffs propose several state- and defendant-specific
classes. There are eight prescription medical monitoring classes,
each of which alleges claims against only Defendant GlaxoSmithKline
("GSK") (e.g., California GSK Prescription Medical Monitoring
Class). The remainder are over-the-counter ("OTC") medical
monitoring classes that allege claims against one of the Defendants
(e.g., Arizona Sanofi OTC Medical Monitoring Class).

The various classes are comprised of individuals who used one of
the Defendants' prescription or OTC ranitidine products while
residing in a particular state and who have not been diagnosed with
a Subject Cancer. The Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Cancers
"include serious and potentially fatal bladder, breast,
colorectal/intestinal, esophageal, gastric, kidney, liver, lung,
pancreatic, and prostate cancers."

The Defendants named in the AMMC are "entities that designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged, handled,
stored, and/or sold OTC Zantac."There are four Defendants: GSK,
Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi.

The Defendants now move to dismiss all of the claims in the AMMC.

Discussion

The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs do not allege a
threshold level of NDMA exposure that creates a significantly
increased risk of the Subject Cancers. While the Plaintiffs
reference the FDA's acceptable daily limit ("ADI") of 96 nanograms
(ng), they do not equate that with the threshold level; they
instead call it "unacceptable and harmful by definition." But
regulatory thresholds do not constitute the levels at which
individuals are subject to significantly increased risks of health
conditions. Additionally, the various studies cited by the
Plaintiffs do not indicate a threshold level of NDMA exposure.

Second, the Plaintiffs do not plead the amount of NDMA in each
Zantac dose. While the Plaintiffs rely on the FDA's testing of
Sanofi's products, the results revealed NDMA levels above and below
the ADI, and which cannot be imputed to the other Defendants. The
same issues are true of the testing conducted by GSK and Sanofi
themselves.

Third, the Plaintiffs do not allege how frequently each Plaintiff
consumed branded Zantac versus generic ranitidine. Allegations of
significant generic ranitidine use but sparse brand Zantac use from
many years ago impacts whether the Plaintiffs have pled a
significantly increased risk of cancer based on the Defendants'
products.

The Plaintiffs first respond that they do not need to quantify the
threshold level of NDMA exposure that triggers a significantly
increased risk of a Subject Cancer.  Rather, their allegations
about "exposure, toxicity, regulatory activity, product testing, a
variety of scientific studies (including human studies), and the
chemical nature of ranitidine together demonstrate a significantly
increased risk of harm."

Second, the Plaintiffs do not need to quantify the amount of NDMA
in each dose of ranitidine. Doing so is not required based on
medical monitoring precedent, and the Defendants' argument is
disingenuous given that they have not provided the Plaintiffs any
product to test.

Third, the Defendants' argument regarding the Plaintiffs' brand
versus generic use fails on its merits. Pursuant to the "eggshell
plaintiff" rule, if the Defendants' branded products proximately
caused the Plaintiffs' increased risk of Subject Cancers, the
Defendants are liable even if the generic ranitidine products
exacerbated the Plaintiffs' injuries beyond what was foreseeable.
It is the Defendants' burden to apportion the harm caused to the
Plaintiffs.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' general causation experts will eventually
provide scientific detail to support the allegations of
significantly increased risk.

In the Motion before the Court, Judge Rosenberg finds that the
Defendants read the Court's prior Order of dismissal to say that
the Plaintiffs must quantify a particular level of NDMA that is
necessary to cause a significantly increased risk, the amount of
NDMA per dose, and the frequency of the Plaintiffs' ranitidine use.
She says, this premise underpins their arguments in the Motion.

The Plaintiffs do not need to quantify a particular level of NDMA
to satisfy plausibility. The caselaw cited by the Plaintiffs is
illustrative. The case the Defendants rely upon -- Riva v. Pepsico,
Inc., 82 F.Supp.3d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2015) -- does not stand for the
proposition that a plaintiff must quantify levels of exposure to
survive a motion to dismiss.

Unlike the Plaintiffs' response in the prior round of motions to
dismiss, Judge Rosenberg holds that the Plaintiffs have now
provided the Court with argument to refute the Defendants' Motion
that is supported by ample citations to their complaint. They
allege that NDMA is a known human carcinogen. They identify the
frequency and dosage of each Plaintiff's ranitidine use and the
medical conditions for which they used ranitidine, as well as
levels of NDMA in ranitidine (as detected by the FDA) that were
above the FDA's acceptable daily limit. Although the Plaintiffs
acknowledge that the FDA initially concluded that the levels of
NDMA detected in ranitidine were relatively low, at the motion to
dismiss stage, they are entitled to the inference that the FDA
subsequently changed its mind about the levels of NDMA in
ranitidine (and corresponding risk of cancer) because the FDA
called for a voluntary nationwide recall of ranitidine. Finally,
the Plaintiffs identify several studies linking ranitidine to the
Subject Cancers.

Judge Rosenberg must accept all of these allegations as true and
view all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs. She
holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to plead
"significantly increased risk" at this time.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants will file their Answers to the
Amended Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint
within 20 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/xzn8cjhd from Leagle.com.


MDL 2924: The Brands' Bid to Dismiss Zantac Liability Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin
L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida denied the Brand OTC Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The matter is before the Court on the Brand OTC Defendant's Rule 12
Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Economic Loss
Class Complaint ("SAELC") as Preempted by Federal Law ("Motion to
Dismiss"). The Court held a hearing on the Motion on Oct. 4, 2021
("the Hearing").

Background

The Plaintiffs named in the SAELC are individuals who purchased
brand-name prescription and over-the-counter ("OTC") ranitidine
products over varying periods of time. They contend that they were
deceived into purchasing ranitidine products that break down into
the cancer-causing molecule N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"),
information that the Brands, the manufacturers of brand-name
ranitidine, failed to include on product labeling.

The Plaintiffs bring the SAELC on behalf of themselves and various
proposed classes, raising nearly 400 counts under the laws of U.S.
states and Puerto Rico for violations of state consumer protection
statutes, unjust enrichment, breach of quasi-contract, and breach
of implied warranty. Among their requested relief, the Plaintiffs
seek refunds for their purchase of brand-name prescription and OTC
ranitidine products.

The Brands now move to dismiss the claims in the SAELC related to
OTC ranitidine products.

Analysis

The Brands argue in the Motion to Dismiss that obstacle pre-emption
bars all claims in the SAELC for refunds for the purchase of OTC
ranitidine products. The Brands contend that the Court ruled in its
second order addressing express pre-emption that the only OTC
refund claims not expressly pre-empted are those premised on a
theory that the labeling for OTC ranitidine products never should
have been FDA-approved, and was misbranded, because the FDA did not
have full and accurate information due to the Brands deceiving the
FDA by withholding information about the dangers of ranitidine. The
Brands further contend that the Plaintiffs have conceded that their
OTC refund claims are premised on the theory that the Brands
deceived the FDA. Because the only OTC refund claims to survive
express pre-emption are based on deception (that is, fraud) of the
FDA, the claims are like those that the Supreme Court ruled were
pre-empted in Buckman.

The Plaintiffs dispute: (1) that they have conceded that their OTC
refund claims are based on the Brands' deception of the FDA; (2)
that they have pled OTC refund claims that are based on FDA
deception; and (3) that the Court ruled that only claims to survive
express pre-emption are those based on FDA deception. The
Plaintiffs argue that their OTC refund claims are like the claims
at issue in Wyeth and are not pre-empted because the claims are
brought under traditional state law (not for violation of federal
law) and are based on a defect in the warnings to consumers (not a
defect in the Brands' communications with the FDA).

Judge Rosenberg holds that both breach of implied warranty and
unjust enrichment are traditional state-law legal claims, as are
the remaining legal claims in the SAELC. Accurately warning
consumers about product dangers is a traditional area of state-law
concern. The Brands have not argued otherwise. Upon her review of
Counts 111 and 186 and the incorporated paragraphs, Judge Rosenberg
finds no allegations address withholding information from or fraud
on the FDA. It does not appear on the face of the pleading, and the
Brands have not argued, that the existence of the FDCA or the FDA,
much less fraud on the FDA, is a necessary element of the
implied-warranty claim, the unjust-enrichment claim, or any of the
Plaintiffs' other legal claims under any state's law. Judge
Rosenberg concludes that obstacle pre-emption does not bar the
Plaintiffs' OTC refund claims in the SAELC as they are pled.

Finally, Judge Rosenberg addresses one additional matter that the
Brands raised in their Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss
and during the Hearing. The Brands contend that the Plaintiffs'
pleading in the SAELC fails to comply with the Court's Order
dismissing with prejudice as pre-empted "any OTC claim not based
upon a false or misleading label" and requiring the Plaintiffs to
"omit claims not premised on a false or misleading label from
future pleading." The Brands assert that the SAELC contains "not
only labeling claims, but also a range of already-dismissed
allegations relating to manufacturing, expiration dates, storage,
product containers, etc."

The Court stated in its prior Order that, "to the extent the
Defendants believe that any future amended pleading improperly
includes OTC counts that are not based upon a false or misleading
label, that is a matter the Defendants may raise at such time as
the Court hears arguments on state-specific matters." Thus, this is
not an issue that the Court will take up at this stage of the
litigation.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg denied that the Brand
OTC Defendant's Rule 12 Partial Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants
will file their Answers to the Second Amended Economic Loss Class
Complaint within 20 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/79ujk8kr from Leagle.com.


MEDCURSOR INC: Court Dismisses Casey Suit Upon Parties' Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the parties' behest, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California dismisses the lawsuit styled CHAD CASEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDCURSOR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00711-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

The matter is before the Court on the parties' stipulation to
dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, with the Plaintiff's individual claims
being dismissed with prejudice and the Plaintiff's putative class
claims being dismissed without prejudice.

Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), an action may be voluntarily dismissed
by the parties by the filing of a stipulation of dismissal signed
by all parties who have appeared. However, voluntary dismissals
under Rule 41 are still subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In particular, Rule 23(e) governs the dismissal of
class actions, even before class certification has occurred,
District Judge Dale A. Drozd notes, citing Diaz v. Tr. Territory of
Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, under Diaz, the "district court must ensure that the
representative plaintiff fulfills his fiduciary duty toward the
absent class members" and "inquire into the terms and circumstances
of any dismissal or compromise to ensure that it is not collusive
or prejudicial." Although the Court "does not need to perform the
kind of substantive oversight required when reviewing a settlement
binding upon the class," it must determine whether class members
would be prejudiced by:

   (1) class members' possible reliance on the filing of the
       action if they are likely to know of it either because of
       publicity or other circumstances;

   (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file other
       actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of
       limitations; and

   (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made by
       the class representative or counsel in order to further
       their own interests.

Regardless, "in no pre-certification dismissal would the court
reject the dismissal and require anything more than notice to the
class and an opportunity to intervene."

Applying the three Diaz factors in the case, the Court concludes
that dismissal of the Plaintiff's putative class claims without
prejudice will not harm any putative class members. First, there is
no evidence that any putative class members are relying on this
action, in which the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated
state consumer protection laws with regard to representations of
express warranties on the packaging of their electronic massage
products. Second, given that this action was filed in February 2021
based on the Plaintiff's purchase of the Defendant's massage
products on Dec. 15, 2020, and the fact that the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act has a four-year statute of limitations, see
California Commercial Code Section 2725, the Court notes that
putative class members would not be barred from filing their own
individual or class claims by a statute of limitations.

In addition, Judge Drozd notes that any individual claims have been
tolled since this action was filed in February 2021. Finally, the
settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant resolves only
the Plaintiff's individual claims--because the parties are only
requesting dismissal of the class claims without prejudice, leaving
putative class members free to pursue a new class action, no class
interests are being conceded.

The Court, therefore, deems the Diaz factors satisfied. Because
there is no risk of prejudice, notice to putative class members is
not required.

Accordingly:

   1. The parties' stipulation to dismiss the Plaintiff's
      individual claims with prejudice and the Plaintiff's
      putative class claims without prejudice is granted;

   2. The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with
      prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii);

   3. The Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed without
      prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) and Rule 23(e); and

   4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3dnnty2p from Leagle.com.


MH MOBILE 300: Singh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kulwinder Singh and Bikramjit Singh, on their own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. MH MOBILE 300 INC d/b/a
Meadow Hill Mobil Mart, Case No. 7:21-cv-08499 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising
from the Defendants' various willfully and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs,
minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff their lawful overtime
compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Plaintiff
alleges pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL that they is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and/or attorney's fees and cost, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as Gas
Station Minimart Attendants.

The Defendants operate Meadow Hill Mobil Mart in Newburgh, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


MIAMI SCAFFOLD: Ceballos Seeks Damages for Illegal Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Ceballos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Miami Scaffold Rental LLC and Jose Miguel
Castro, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-23559 (S.D. Fla., October 8,
2021), seeks to recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a rental company providing a full line of scaffold
equipment and accessories where Ceballos worked as non-exempted,
full-time, hourly-paid laborer. He claims to have worked more than
40 hours during one or more weeks without being properly
compensated. He also claims to be terminated for complaining about
this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Smith's Petition for Habeas Corpus
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DERRICK LEE SMITH, Petitioner v. PROBABLE CAUSE
CONFERENCE DIRECTOR, ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 1:21-cv-794
(W.D. Mich.), Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division,
enters a judgment dismissing Smith's petition for habeas corpus.

Background

The case is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner
under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Promptly after the filing of a
petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." If
so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. A dismissal under
Rule 4 includes those petitions that raise legally frivolous
claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are
palpably incredible or false.

Petitioner Smith is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections at the Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF) in
Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan. The Petitioner is serving
multiple sentences imposed in separate criminal proceedings in the
Wayne County Circuit Court in 1998, 2008, and 2019.

MDOC's Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) indicates that
the Petitioner is serving the following terms of imprisonment: four
concurrent sentences of 17 years, 6 months to 35 years for four
counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), imposed on
May 2, 2019; eight concurrent sentences of 22 years, 6 months to 75
years for six counts of CSC I and two counts of kidnapping, imposed
on October 29, 2008; and two concurrent sentences of 6 to 15 years
for two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC III),
imposed on May 26, 1998. The Petitioner pleaded guilty to the
charges for which he was sentenced in 1998. He pleaded nolo
contendere to the charges for which he was sentenced in 2008 and
2019.

The Petitioner has filed many, many habeas corpus petitions in the
Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. Each of his prior petitions has been denied, dismissed,
or transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as second
and/or successive. The Court provided a detailed listing of the
Petitioner's prior petitions and their dispositions in Smith v.
Steward, No. 1:21-cv-124 (W.D. Mich.) (Op., ECF No. 3,
PageID.8-11.) The Smith v. Steward petition was dismissed as
deficient on its face.

The present petition raises one issue: The trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the Petitioner and his prosecution because the
district court failed to conduct the probable cause conference
required by Michigan Court Rule 6.108. Although the petition is
only a few sentences long, the Petitioner's identification of the
issue provides much of the information necessary to resolve the
petition.

Because the Petitioner contends that the district court failed to
conduct the probable cause conference required by Michigan Court
Rule 6.108, it is apparent that he is attacking his 2019
convictions. Rule 6.108 was adopted in January of 2015 following
the statutory creation of the probable cause conference requirement
by amendment of Mich. Comp. Laws Section 766.4 during May of 2014.
The Petitioner's 2019 convictions are the only convictions that
occurred after the requirement was created; therefore, those
convictions are the only convictions that are implicated by the
constitutional challenge he raises.

The Petitioner's 2019 convictions only recently became final. He
entered his nolo contendere plea on April 18, 2019. He was
sentenced on May 2, 2019. He filed a delayed application for leave
to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That court denied leave
initially (People v. Smith, No. 353503 (Mich. Ct. App. May 12,
2020)), and upon reconsideration.

The Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal to the
Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in lieu of granting
leave, remanded the matter to the court of appeals, noting that he
initially sought leave to appeal the trial court's May 2, 2019
judgment of sentence and the trial court's Nov. 13, 2019 order
denying his motion to withdraw his plea.

On remand, the court of appeals reopened Petitioner's appeal; but
the panel denied Petitioner's application for leave to appeal --
not because it was late, but because it lacked merit. The
Petitioner sought reconsideration, but the court denied that relief
as well.

The Petitioner did not file a timely application for leave to
appeal that decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. Under Michigan
law, a party has 56 days in which to apply for leave to appeal to
the Michigan Supreme Court. Accordingly, the denial of the
Petitioner's conviction became final on April 6, 2021, 56 days
after the court of appeals issued its order denying reconsideration
of the order denying leave to appeal.

The Petitioner filed motions for relief from judgment in the trial
court. It appears all of his motions were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. The Petitioner sought leave to appeal the trial
court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment. On July 6,
2021, the court of appeals has denied leave. The Petitioner has not
sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, and his time
for seeking that relief has expired.

The Petitioner notes that he has "argued and articulated" his
jurisdictional arguments, but he does not state whether he did that
in his initial appeal or in the appeal relating to his
post-judgment motions for relief.

Discussion

The Petitioner's contention that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction was "argued and articulated" in the state courts.
Whether he raised it on his direct appeal or his appeal relating to
his motion for relief from judgment, the Petitioner's argument was
rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

First, Judge Berens holds that the Court is bound by the state
appellate court's determination that the Petitioner's challenges
were without merit. Moreover, the Court is bound by a state court
determination that the trial court had jurisdiction over the
Petitioner and his criminal prosecution. Specifically as to
jurisdictional issues, the Sixth Circuit has stated that "a state
court's interpretation of state jurisdictional issues conclusively
establishes jurisdiction for purposes of federal habeas review,"
citing Strunk v. Martin, 27 F. App'x 473, 475 (6th Cir. 2001). The
Petitioner's claim that his guilty plea is invalid because the
state court did not have jurisdiction has been conclusively decided
against him. Therefore, the jurisdiction issue affords the
Petitioner no grounds for habeas relief.

Next, Judge Berens opines that because the Petitioner is an
incarcerated pro se litigant -- and because his claim has no merit
-- he is not an appropriate representative of a class. It is well
established that pro se litigants are "inadequate class
representatives." Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for class
certification will be denied.

Finally, Judge Berens finds that reasonable jurists could not
conclude that the Court's dismissal of the Petitioner's claims was
debatable or wrong. Therefore, she will deny the Petitioner a
certificate of appealability. However, although the Petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution and has failed to make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right, Judge Berens does not conclude
that any issue Petitioner might raise on appeal would be
frivolous.

Conclusion

After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, Judge Berens
concludes that the petition must be dismissed because it fails to
raise a meritorious federal claim. Accordingly, she will enter a
judgment dismissing the petition, an order denying the Petitioner's
request to certify a class, and an order denying a certificate of
appealability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/8t52y89x from Leagle.com.


MICHIGAN: Smith Files Petition in W.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against an Unknown Party #1,
et al in Michigan. The case is styled as Derrick Lee Smith #267009,
named as Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith, #267009 and 37,000 similarly
situated prisoners, Petitioner v. Unknown Party #1, named as
Probable Cause Conference Director; Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1, named
as All 83 Michigan County Circuit Court Judges; Unknown
Part(y)(ies) #2, named as All 83 County Chief Prosecutors for
Michigan; Unknown Part(y)(ies) #3, named as All 83 County City
District Court Judges; Unknown Part(y)(ies) #4, named as All 83
County City Magistrate Judges; Unknown Party #2, named as State
Court Administrators Probable Cause Conference Supervisor; Unknown
Party #3, named as Bond Supervisor for State of Michigan; Unknown
Part(y)(ies) #5, named as All Michigan Dep't of Corrections
Wardens; Unknown Part(y)(ies) #6, named as All State Appellate
Court Judges; Kim L. Worthy, Wayne County Prosecutor; Heidi
Washington, Director of the MDOC; Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00885-RSK (W.D. Mich., Oct. 15, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner: Habeas Corpus for
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State).

Kym Loren Worthy is the current prosecutor of Wayne County,
Michigan, home to the city of Detroit.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Stromberg Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SUSAN J. STROMBERG, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-09288-ES-MAH
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23.

Midland Funding is owners of unpaid debts. Midland Funding owns
accounts that have been charged off by the original lender. Charge
offs happen after a lender doesn't receive payments for a period of
time or payments are less than the minimum amount due.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vulQzY
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117

MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Rodriguez Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SANDRO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL CARBON FIBER AND
COMPOSITES, INC.; MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL HOLDINGS AMERICA, INC.;
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2021-01219814-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court in the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
October 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-01711 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages and overtime, failure to
provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to pay vacation
wages, failure to provide safety devices, failure to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, and
unfair business practices.

Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc. is a
chemicals company based in Sacramento, California.

Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc. is a chemicals company
based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Mitsubishi Chemical America, Inc. is a chemicals company based in
Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Julie A. Totten, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
         Telephone: (916) 447-9200
         Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
         E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com

                 - and –

         Annie H. Chen, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
         Telephone: (213) 629-2020
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
         E-mail: annie.chen@orrick.com

MORTGAGE LENDERS: Charbonneau Entitled to Get $1.2MM Atty's Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BEAU CHARBONNEAU, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. MORTGAGE LENDERS OF
AMERICA L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02062-HLT (D. Kan.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs are entitled to $1,298,006.13 in attorneys'
      fees and $131,128.15 in costs and expenses for a total
      award of $1,429,134.28.

   2. The Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a hearing as the
      Court finds the record is sufficiently developed and a
      hearing would not meaningfully advance resolution.

   3. The Defendants' motion for leave is granted. The Court
      considered the sur-reply is resolving Plaintiffs' motion.

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case that the parties
settled after three years of contentious litigation. The parties
agree in the settlement agreement that Defendants should pay
Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, but they
disagree on that amount. Plaintiffs thus move for an award of about
$2.2 million in attorneys' fees and about $131,000 in costs. The
Defendants contend the proper amount is less than $1.0 million in
attorney' fees and about $30,000 in costs.

Lending America provides unsecured lines of credit and unsecured
term loans to provide financing for your education.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b2HG48 at no extra charge.[CC]


MP PLASTIC PLUS: Garcia Slams Discrimination, Illegal Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MP Plastic Plus Inc., Mohep Muheisen, Maher
Muheisen, Ibrahim H. Muheisen, and Husam H. Muheisen, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-18256, (D. N.J., October 8, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully
withheld wages, statutory penalties, and damages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit was also filed pursuant to
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law seeking monetary damages;
penalties under New Jersey Law against Discrimination, New Jersey
Workers' Compensation Law and New Jersey common law for
discrimination; and ultimately, for termination and for failure to
accommodate Plaintiff's disability and discharging him in
retaliation for seeking to exercise his rights.

Garcia worked as a packer for the Defendants at their Paterson NJ
location. He contends that Defendants paid him a day rate basis,
regardless of how many hours he worked and without paying overtime
compensation for hours worked over forty in a workweek. On February
22, 2020, Garcia severely cut his finger when the machine fell. He
was hospitalized and needed at least three weeks to a month off
from work to recover from his injury, which would require physical
therapy and potentially surgery. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      Michael Groh, Esq.
      Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 273-1054
      Fax: (215) 525-0210
      Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
             mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


MUSHIANA TRANSPORT: Harden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mushiana Transport
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ashton Harden, on behalf of the
General Public and all others similarly situated v. Mushiana
Transport Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00309320-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

Mushiana Transport Inc. is located in Sacramento, CA, United States
and is part of the Freight Transportation Arrangement
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM, PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 205
          San Diego, CA 92108-1631
          Phone: 619-234-2833
          Fax: 619-234-4048
          Email: jvecchi@maralawfirm.com


NATIONAL SPINE: Court Enters Amended Case Management, Sched Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a
Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN
CENTERS LLC, SPINE CENTER OF FL, LLC and PAIN MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Case No.
2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. McCoy
entered an amended case management and scheduling order as
follows:

                      Deadline                     Date

  -- Disclosure of any Expert Report
                           Defendant:           Nov. 4, 2021
                           Rebuttal:            Nov. 29, 2021

  -- Discovery and Motions to Compel            Dec. 16, 2021
     Discovery

  -- Mediation                                  Dec. 17, 2021

  -- Motions for Class Certification            Jan. 18, 2022
     (if applicable)

  -- Respond in opposition to a                 Feb. 15, 2022
     motion for class certification

  -- Dispositive and Daubert Motions            Jan. 1, 2022

  -- Final Pretrial Meeting                     May 25, 2022

  -- Motions in Limine                          June 10, 2022

  -- Joint Final Pretrial Statement,            June 10, 2022
     Proposed Jury Instructions and
     Verdict Form, and Trial Briefs (if
     applicable)

  -- Final Pretrial Conference                  June 24, 2022

  -- Monthly Trial Term                         July 5, 2022

  -- Estimated Length of Trial                  10 days

  -- Jury or Non-Jury                           Non-Jury

All other provisions of the Court's prior scheduling orders remain
in effect, says Judge McCoy.

National Spine provides health care services. The Company offers
pain management, joint injections, and platelet rich plasma
therapies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B8L4VH at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL UNION: Towers Watson Wins Bid for Partial Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOWERS WATSON & CO. n/k/a WTW DELAWARE HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-810 (AJT/JFA) (E.D. Va.),
Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Background

In this insurance coverage action, Plaintiff Towers Watson has sued
the Defendants for their refusal to provide indemnity coverage for
any settlements or adverse judgments in two underlying litigations:
(1) In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation, Case No.
1:17-cv-01338 (AJT/JFA) (E.D. Va.) ("Virginia Action"), an action
alleging a violation of the proxy solicitation rules under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78(a) et seq; and (2) In re Towers Watson & Co.
Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2018-0132-KSJM (Del.
Ch.) ("Delaware Action"), consolidated shareholders' derivative
actions alleging a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Towers
Watson's chief executive officer. The Underlying Actions have now
been settled.

A. The Underlying Actions

1. The Virginia Action

On Nov. 21, 2017, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Court against Defendants Towers Watson,
Willis Group Holding plc, n/k/a Willis Towers Watson plc, ValueAct
Capital Management, L.P., WTW, John Haley (post-merger CEO of WTW),
Dominic Casserley (Willis' pre-merger CEO), and Jeffrey Ubben (a
former Willis director and CEO of ValueAct). By order dated Feb.
20, 2018, Regents of the University of California was appointed as
the Lead Plaintiff, with that action captioned In re Willis Towers
Watson plc Proxy Litigation, Docket No 1:17-cv-1338 (E.D.Va. Nov.
21, 2017). On March 9, 2018, Regents filed an Amended Complaint.

The Virginia action alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Briefly summarized, the
lawsuit alleged that Haley, as lead negotiator on behalf of Towers
Watson, met with Ubben, CEO of ValueAct, who described his
compensation philosophy and outlined a compensation package for
Haley if the Merger were consummated and Haley assumed the role of
CEO of WTW. The action alleges that this material piece of
information was omitted from the proxy materials, distributed in
October and November of 2015 in connection with the Merger and that
"as a result of these materially untrue statements and omissions in
the proxy materials, Towers shareholders accepted consideration
from the merger that was well below fair value for their Towers
shares"; and "in the merger, Towers Watson shareholders received
consideration lower than the true value of their shares."

By Order dated Sept. 4, 2020, as amended on Nov. 4, 2020, the Court
certified a class consisting of all persons and entities that were
TW shareholders of record or beneficial owners as of both Oct. 1,
2015, the record date for Towers shareholders to be eligible to
vote on the Merger, and Jan. 4, 2016, the date the Merger closed,
and who were damaged thereby.

During the course of the litigation, Lead Plaintiff Regents
advanced a theory of "out of pocket" damages based on the
assumption that upon fulsome disclosure of the September 2015
meeting between Haley and Ubben, the Towers Watson stockholders
would have voted against the Merger, the two companies would have
gone their separate ways, and the price of the publicly traded
Towers Watson stock would have "reverted" back to its publicly
traded price immediately before the announcement of the Merger on
June 30, 2015. Under this theory, TW shareholders were damaged as a
result of proxy rule violations in an amount equal to the
difference between the value they received in the Merger and the
value their TW stock would have had absent the Merger, an amount
calculated as between $172.5 and $377 million, depending on the
valuation date used to calculate the hypothetical value of publicly
traded TW stock, had the Merger not been approved.

2. The Delaware Action

On Feb. 27, 2018 and on March 8, 2018, putative class actions for
breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting those breaches
in connection with the Merger were filed in Delaware Court of
Chancery. On April 2, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery
consolidated those actions into In re Towers Watson & Co.
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2018-0132-KSJM (Del. Ch.). These
actions alleged Delaware state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against
defendant Haley, ValueAct and Ubben based on essentially the same
allegations as in the Virginia Action.

B. The Policies

Towers Watson purchased $80 million in insurance coverage for the
policy period Jan. 1, 2015 through Jan. 1, 2016, consisting of a
primary policy issued by AIG ("Primary Policy" or "Policy") and six
layers of excess coverage provided by the other defendant carriers
("Excess Policies"). The Excess Policies "follow form" to the terms
and conditions of the Policy and adopt all terms, conditions and
definitions of the Policy.

C. The Coverage Dispute

The Policies provide coverage for the claims alleged in the
Underlying Actions. Specifically, the Sections 14(a) and 20 claims
in the Virginia Action constitute a "Securities Claim"11 for a
"Wrongful Act,"12 for which there is coverage for any "Loss"13
arising out of that "Wrongful Act." Likewise, the common law breach
of fiduciary duty claims in the Delaware Action constitute a
"Claim"14 for a "Wrongful Act," for which there is coverage for any
Loss arising out of that "Wrongful Act."

After receiving notice of the Underlying Actions, Defendants
acknowledged that the Underlying Actions qualify as Claims under
the Policies and agreed to advance defense costs incurred in the
Underlying Actions. However, the Defendants prospectively denied
coverage for any settlement or judgment in those actions based on
the Bump-Up Exclusion.

D. The Settlements

The Virginia Action and the Delaware action settled for a total of
$90 million: $75 million for the Virginia Action class members and
$15 million for the Delaware Action class members.

On Jan. 15, 2021, the Regents filed in the Virginia Action a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, which the Court
preliminarily approved on Jan. 21, 2021, and finally approved on
May 21, 2021. On Jan. 15, 2021, the parties in the Delaware Action
filed a Proposed Order and Final Judgment to Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, which was approved on June 8, 2021.

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that the settlement amounts in the Underlying Actions
are within the scope of the coverage afforded by the applicable
policies issued by the Defendants and are not otherwise excluded by
the definition of a covered Loss.

Discussion

Judge Trenga opines that there is no dispute that the Settlements
are covered under the general scope of coverage afforded under the
policies.

Rather, the dispositive issue is whether the Settlements are
excluded from the definition of a covered "Loss" under what is
referred to as the "Bump-up" Exclusion, which provides: "In the
event of a Claim alleging that the price or consideration paid or
proposed to be paid for the acquisition or completion of the
acquisition of all or substantially all the ownership interest in
or assets of an entity is inadequate, Loss with respect to such
Claim will not include any amount of any judgment or settlement
representing the amount by which such price or consideration is
effectively increased; provided, however, that this paragraph will
not apply to Defense Costs or to any Non-Indemnifiable Loss in
connection therewith."

Judge Trenga finds that the Bump-Up Exclusion does not
unambiguously apply to the Settlements; and under applicable
Virginia law principles of insurance contract interpretation, the
Bump-Up Exclusion, as an exclusion from coverage otherwise
applicable, must be construed narrowly based on the reasonable
interpretation most favorable to the insured, Towers Watson. When
those principles of contract interpretation are applied to the
policies, the Settlements reached in the Underlying Actions are not
excluded from the definition of Loss under the Bump-Up Exclusion.

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

The dispositive coverage issue is whether the Bump-Up Exclusion
unambiguously applies to the Settlements, and therefore excludes
the Settlements from the definition of a covered Loss, or whether
there is a reasonable construction of the Bump-Up Exclusion that
makes it inapplicable to the Settlements. That determination
depends on whether the Bump-Up Exclusion unambiguously includes
within its scope (1) the Merger as "the acquisition of all or
substantially all the ownership interest in an entity," (2) the
Underlying Actions as a "Claim alleging that the price or
consideration paid for the acquisition is inadequate;" and (3) the
Settlements as an "amount representing the amount by which such
price or consideration for "the acquisition" is effectively
increased."

In sum, Judge Trenga opines that the issue is not whether the
Bump-Up Exclusion can be reasonably understood to include the
business combination between Towers Watson and Willis but whether
that is the only reasonable reading. Based on the Policy language,
the structure of the Merger and the recognized differences between
a takeover acquisition and a merger under Delaware law, there is a
reasonable, narrow reading of the Bump-Up Exclusion that excludes
the Merger; and under Virginia's applicable principles of insurance
contract interpretation, that narrow construction prevails as the
construction providing broader coverage.

B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Ripeness and ADR
Motion

The Defendants concede that in light of the Settlements, their
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Ripeness is effectively moot. With
respect to the ADR Motion, all the Defendants, except U.S.
Specialty, which "agrees to waive compliance with the mediation
requirement in its policy so that this lawsuit may proceed," have
moved to dismiss or stay this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the
Plaintiff has failed to complete the mandatory mediation process,
as prescribed in the Primary Policy.

Judge Trenga holds that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
regardless of whether the parties have satisfied any contractually
imposed mediation requirement. The ADR Motion is therefore denied
to the extent it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); and to
the extent it seeks a stay the ADR motion is denied based on all
the facts and circumstances presented in the record, including the
substantial mediation process that in fact took place, and the
parties' conduct relative to that mediation process, the already
completed course of this litigation and the Settlements reached in
the Underlying Actions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Trenga granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. He declared that
there is coverage under the Policies for the Settlements reached in
the Underlying Actions.

Judge Trenga denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Ripeness. He denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, or Stay the Complaint, for Failure to Abide
by the Policies' Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Clause.

Within 14 days of the Order, the parties, jointly if possible,
otherwise separately, file a notice advising the Court concerning
what issues, if any, remain to be decided before the entry of a
final order.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all
counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r9aeecm from
Leagle.com.


NCAA: Johnson, et al. Seek Conditional Certification of FLSA Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON,
STEPHANIE KERKELES, NICHOLAS LABELLA, CLAUDIA RUIZ, JACOB
WILLEBEEK-LEMAIR, ALEXA COOKE, RHESA FOSTER, LAURA HAMILTON,
ZACHARY HARRIS, MATTHEW SCHMIDT, TAMARA SCHOEN, GINA SNYDER,
ESTEBAN SUAREZ and LIAM WALSH, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, a/k/a the NCAA, and the following NCAA Division I
Member Schools as representatives of a Defendant Class of all
private and semi-public NCAA Division I Member Schools: CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, DREXEL UNIVERSITY, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE
COLLEGE, SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY, VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, TULANE UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, PURDUE UNIVERSITY,
DUKE UNIVERSITY and MARIST COLLEGE, Case No. 2:19-cv-05230-JP (E.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of their claims under
      the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this action to
      similarly-situated persons;

   3. expediting disclosure by Defendants to Plaintiffs of the
      identity and contact information of all similarly-situated
      persons; and

   4. awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief that the
      Court seems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vDKz51 at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Counsel for the Members of the
Proposed FLSA Collective, the Proposed Pennsylvania Class, the
Proposed New York Class, the Proposed Connecticut Class, the
Proposed North Carolina Class, the Proposed Oregon Class, the
Proposed Louisiana Class, the Proposed Arizona Class, and the
Proposed Indiana Class.

          Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
          Renan F. Varghese, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
          rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
          PL MCDONALD LAW LLC
          1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 238-3835
          Facsimile: (267) 238-3801
          E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com

NISSAN NORTH: Court Initially Certifies Stringer Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned TERESA STRINGER, KAREN
BROOKS, WILLIAM PAPANIA, JAYNE NEWTON, MENACHEM LANDA, ANDREA
ELIASON, BRANDON LANE, DEBBIE O'CONNOR, MICHELLE WILLIAMS and WAYNE
BALNICKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., and NISSAN MOTOR CO.,
LTD., Case No. 3:21-cv-00099 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William
L. Campbell entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted.

   2. The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class,
      for settlement purposes only, consisting of two sub-
      classes.

      -- Subclass A shall be comprised of current and former
         owners and lessees of 2014-2018 model year Nissan Rogue
         vehicles equipped with a continuously variable
         transmission ("CVT") who purchased or leased Class
         Vehicles in the United States or its territories
         including Puerto Rico.

      -- Subclass B shall be comprised of current and former
         owners and lessees of 2015-2018 model year Nissan
         Pathfinder and 2015-2018 model year Infiniti QX60
         vehicles equipped with a CVT who purchased or leased
         Class Vehicles in the United States or its Territories.

         Collectively, the current and former owners and lessees
         of Subclass A and Subclass B vehicles shall be referred
         to as the "Settlement Class" and the vehicles of which
         they are comprised shall be referred to as the "Class
         Vehicles."

         Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) NNA, any
         entity or division in which NNA has a controlling
         interest, its/their legal representatives, officers,
         directors, assigns and successors; (2) any judge to
         whom this case is assigned and the judge's clerks and
         any member of the judge's immediate family, and any
         judge  of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; and (3)
         government  purchasers and lessees.

   3. The the have made an adequate showing at this stage that
      the class action settlement set forth in the Settlement
      Agreement is substantively and procedurally proper; the
      Class Representatives and Co-Lead Class Counsel have
      adequately represented the Class in negotiating the
      Settlement; the Settlement is within the range of likely
      final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the
      Class; the Settlement is the product of arm's-length and
      informed negotiations and was negotiated with the
      assistance of a well-regarded independent mediator; the
      Settlement provides adequate relief for the Class, taking
      into account the cost, risks and delay of trial and
      appeal, the proposed methods of distribution, attorneys'
      fees, and its fair and equitable treatment of all Class
      Members relative to each other; and that the Settlement is
      presumptively fair, reasonable and adequate, subject only
      to any objections that may be raised at the Final Approval
      and Fairness Hearing.

   4. Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC shall serve as Settlement
      Administrator.

   5. The Notice to the Class is warranted, and has considered
      the Notice provisions in the Settlement Agreement, the
      Notice methodology set forth in the Declaration of Carla
      Peak, and the Long Form Notice and Summary Notice.

   6. The Court appoints the following individuals as
      representatives of the Settlement Class: Teresa Stringer,
      Karen Brooks, William Papania, Jayne Newton, Menachem
      Landa, Andrea Eliason, Brandon Lane, Debbie O’Connor,
      Michelle Williams, and Wayne Balnicki.

   7. The Court appoints the following attorneys as Co-Lead
      Class Counsel: Mark S. Greenstone, Greenstone Law APC,
      Marc L. Godino, Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP, and J.
      Gerard Stranch IV, Bransetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC. In
      addition to Co-Lead Class Counsel, the Court appoints the
      following attorneys as Executive Committee counsel:
      Stephen R. Basser, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Lawrence
      Deutsch, Berger Montague PC, and Ryan McDevitt, Keller
      Rohrback L.L.P. The Court finds that Co-Lead Class Counsel
      and Executive Committee Counsel have demonstrable
      experience litigating, certifying, and settling class
      actions, and will adequately represent the Settlement
      Class.

Nissan North America Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The
Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles and
distributes them.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jsliWx at no extra charge.[CC]

OHIO SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gordon Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATEASE GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OHIO SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a OSS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01956 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 14, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Gordon was employed by the Defendant as security
officer.

Ohio Security Systems Inc. was founded in 1967. The Company's line
of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com

ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of Thompson v. OCTA
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case titled HARVEY J. THOMPSON III, Plaintiff and
Appellant v. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G059301 (Cal. App.), the Court
of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division Three,
affirms the trial court's dismissal of the underlying case.

Background

Section 31490 of the Streets & Highways Code was enacted in 2010 to
protect the "personally identifiable information" of motorists
using toll roads. The multi-part statute details some of the ways
the Legislature sought to accomplish this goal: For instance, by
requiring transportation agencies to develop privacy policies,
purge old consumer data, and largely refrain from marketing
"products or services" to nonsubscribers. But there is only one
place in the statute providing a remedy if it is violated:
Subdivision (q). This subdivision allows "a person whose personally
identifiable information has been knowingly sold or otherwise
provided in violation of" section 31490 to bring an action to
recover, "in addition to any other remedies provided by law,"
either a $2,500 penalty per violation or actual damages.

Appellant Harvey J. Thompson III must have been quite surprised one
day in late 2018 when he received a notice of toll evasion from the
91 Express Lanes connecting Orange and Riverside Counties in
Southern California. The 91 Express Lanes are jointly owned by two
tolling authorities, the Respondents Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC). OCTA and RCTC employed a third-party contractor, Respondent
Cofiroute USA, LLC (CUSA) to operate the toll lanes.

The notice stated Thompson had been on the lanes on November 26,
2018 without a valid FasTrak(R) account. The problem with this
assertion is that Thompson lives in Northern California and had
been "nowhere near" the 91 Express Lanes on said date. He protested
the notice, and on Jan. 4, 2019, received a letter entitled
"Results of Administrative Investigation" issued under Vehicle Code
sections 23302 et seq. and 40250 et seq. As its title would
suggest, the letter informed Thompson of the outcome of an
administrative investigation completed at his request. OCTA and
RCTC were dismissing the notice of toll evasion violation for which
he had been cited. Thompson was offered "sincere apologies" for the
"inconvenience." The letter closed with an invitation: "If you do
not have a FasTrak(R) account, we would be happy to establish an
account for you." Thompson was given the website and phone number
to utilize if he wished to establish an account.

Mr. Thompson did not wish to establish an account. Quite to the
contrary, he served RCTC and OCTA with class action damage claims,
alleging the letter illegally solicited his business in violation
of section 31490. RCTC and OCTA denied his claims, and he filed a
class action lawsuit against both entities as well as CUSA in
October 2019 for declaratory relief and "penal fines."

The Respondents immediately filed the first of what would be two
demurrers, arguing, amongst other things, that the letter did not
give rise to a cause of action under section 31490 because there
was no improper disclosure of personally identifiable information
to a third party. The trial court ultimately sustained their
demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend,
finding the claim was untimely and failed to state a cause of
action.

Discussion

Mr. Thompson appeals the trial court ruling in both respects. The
Court of Appeals finds he did not state a cause of action under
section 31490.

To resolve the appeal, the Court of Appeals need only construe
section 31490 in connection with another relevant provision,
Vehicle Code section 40255. Its review is de novo, not just because
"it exercises its independent judgment to determine whether a cause
of action has been stated as a matter of law" on demurrer, but also
because the issue is one of statutory construction.

Mr. Thompson contends he is entitled to statutory penalties,
attorney fees, and costs because he was a nonsubscriber and his
personally identifiable information -- name and address, to be
exact -- was "otherwise provided" to the United States Postal
Service (USPS) to deliver the letter containing an invitation for
him to join the FasTrak(R) program.

The Court of Appeals opines that the language of section 31490,
subdivision (q) is somewhat ambiguous. The relevant dictionary
definition for the word "provide" is "to supply for use." In the
most technical sense, then, Thompson's name and address were indeed
supplied to USPS for use. But, as the trial court correctly
observed, the term "provided" must be construed in the context in
which it is used, keeping in mind the Legislature's purpose in
enacting the statute.

Section 31490, subdivision (q) allows penalties where personally
identifiable information is "knowingly sold or otherwise provided
in violation of" the statute. In enacting section 31490, the
Legislature aimed to prevent the disclosure of personal information
to third parties for marketing purposes; hence, the prohibition on
knowingly selling such information. Disclosure of Thompson's
information to the USPS for purposes of sending him an official
letter is not a marketing purpose, and thus does not fall within
the class of conduct the statute was designed to prohibit.

The Court of Appeals is also mindful of our duty to construe
statutes, if possible, to avoid absurd results. It says, Vehicle
Code section 40255 required the Respondents to mail the letter to
Thompson, and the letter contained the results of the
administrative investigation they had to perform.5 Unless USPS
personnel opened the envelope -- a proposition for which it has no
allegation or evidence -- it would have no way of knowing that the
letter also contained arguably illegal marketing language under
section 31490, subdivision (k) or that Thompson was a
nonsubscriber. Adoption of Thompson's construction of section
31490, subdivision (q) would thus require us to penalize the
Respondents for merely mailing the letter; that is, carrying out a
duty they were required by law to perform. The Court of appeals
does not believe the Legislature intended section 31490,
subdivision (q) to operate in such a manner.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal. The Respondents to
recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/83ppnem7 from Leagle.com.

McGrane, William McGrane and Matthew Sepuya --
matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com; Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel and Daniel
J. Mulligan -- dan@jmglawoffices.com -- for the Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, M. Lois Bobak -- lbobak@wss-law.com --
and Patrick M. Desmond -- pdesmond@wss-law.com; Best Best & Krieger
and Scott William Ditfurth -- pdesmond@wss-law.com; Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith and Stephen Heald Turner for the Defendants and
Respondents.


OREGON MUTUAL: Nari Suda Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nari Suda, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Nari Suda LLC, Pakin
Corporation, on behalf themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01476, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 21, 2020, the
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such
other relief from breach of contract.

Nari Suda LLC, operates as "Nari" while Pakin Corporation operates
as Kin Khao. They are San Francisco restaurants that infuse
traditional Thai recipes with modern California techniques and
ingredients. Both purchased all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from Oregon Mutual for protection in the event of property
loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic,
they were denied coverage despite that their respective policies do
not contain exclusions for pandemic and/or virus-related losses.  

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated September 6, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Nari Suda, LLC, et al. v. Oregon
Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 21-35846, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Nari Suda, LLC and Pakin Corporation Mediation
Questionnaire was due on October 14, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 5, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on December 6, 2021;

   -- Appellants Nari Suda, LLC and Pakin Corporation opening brief
is due on January 14, 2022;

   -- Appellee Oregon Mutual Insurance Company answering brief is
due on February 14, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants NARI SUDA, LLC, a Delaware corporation, DBA
Nari; and PAKIN CORPORATION, a California corporation, on behalf
themselves and all others similarly situated, DBA Kin Khao,
represented by:

          Peter Roldan, Esq.
          EMERGENT LLP
          5 3rd Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 894-9284

Defendant-Appellee OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon
corporation, is represented by:

          Clarke Benbow Holland, Esq.
          PACIFIC LAW PARTNERS, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 950
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (510) 841-7777
          E-mail: cholland@plawp.com  

               - and -

          Lind Stapley, Esq.
          SOHA & LANG, PS
          1325 4th Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-1800
          E-mail: stapley@sohalang.com

ORGANOGENESIS HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 12
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Organogenesis Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGO)
resulting from allegations that Organogenesis may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Organogenesis 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-2177.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: On October 12, 2021, Value Investors Club
issued a report alleging issues at Organogenesis, indicating that
the Company has been improperly billing the federal government for
$250 million annually. The Company also set the price for its new
wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high[,]" which Medicare
reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for doctors to use
through large rebates.

On this news, Organogenesis shares fell $1.70, or 14%, to close at
$10.35 per share on October 12, 2021, damaging investors.

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.

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

Contact Information:

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

OWLET INC: Howard G. Smith Investigates Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith continues its investigation on
behalf of Owlet, Inc.  ("Owlet" or the "Company") (NYSE: OWLT)
investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible
violations of federal securities laws.

On October 4, 2021, Owlet revealed that it had received a warning
letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), which
stated that "the Company's marketing of its Owlet Smart Sock
product . . . renders [it] a medical device requiring premarket
clearance or approval from FDA." Owlet has not obtained such
clearance or approval. Moreover, the FDA "requests the Company
cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock for uses in
measuring blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate where such metrics
are intended to identify or diagnose desaturation and bradycardia
using an alarm functionality to notify users that measurements are
outside of preset values."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.29 per share, or
23%, to close at $4.19 per share on October 4, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

If you purchased Owlet securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Joseph Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
REGINO JOSEPH, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., a Texas
profit corporation; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC.,
a Florida profit corporation; FLORIDA STAFFING SERVICE, INC., a
Florida profit corporation; and, TAMPA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., a
Florida profit corporation each d/b/a PACESETTER; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE; PACESETTER PERSONNEL
SERVICES; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC; PPS; and/or FW
SERVICES, Case No. 1:21-cv-23539-JEM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime and
federal minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the Miami-Dade County area
as general laborer at various times within the three years
preceding the filing of the action.

Pacesetter, though its various corporate entities and d/b/a
entities, is a personnel staffing or "temporary labor" company
operating in several states and in the business of employing
general "unskilled" laborers and deploying them to work for
third-party corporate and governmental entity clients across the
southeast United States, including in the states of Florida,
Georgia, and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
          CASSATA LAW, PLLC
          Boca Crown Centre
          7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (954) 364-780
          E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013    
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Class Cert. Filing Extended to April 15, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned EDDIE LEE LEMMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PIERCE COUNTY, a Washington municipality, Case No.
3:21-cv-05390-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend deadline for
plaintiff's motion for class certification to April 15, 2022.

On July 13, 2021, the Court entered an Order setting October 14,
2021 as Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification.

The parties agree they have additional discovery to complete and
further independent investigations to undertake before  they are
prepared to brief class certification. The parties therefore
stipulate and request that the Court extend Plaintiff's deadline to
file his motion for class certification by six months to
April 15, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vtXXZj at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Eric R. Nusser, Esq.
          Sarah E. Smith, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC  
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          Email: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                 eric@terrellmarshall.com
                 ssmith@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Breanne Schuster, Esq.
          Julia Mizutani, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF  
          WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 2728
          Seattle, WA 98111-2728
          Telephone: (206) 624-2184
          Facsimile: (206) 624-2190
          E-mail: bschuster@aclu-wa.org
                  jmizutani@aclu-wa.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Fred B. Burnside, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: (206) 757-8016
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7016
          E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Hamilton, Esq.
          Donna Y. Masumoto, Esq.
          PIERCE COUNTY PROSECUTOR / CIVIL
          955 Tacoma Avenue South, Suite 301
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 798-7746
          Facsimile: (253) 798-6713
          E-mail: dan.hamilton@piercecountywa.gov
                  donna.masumoto@piercecountywa.gov

PIONEER NATURAL: Wilkerson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Wilkerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No.
7:21-cv-00192 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2021), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week. But despite having been sued in the past for
failing to pay overtime as required by law, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime. Instead,
the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and the Putative Class members
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those hours
over 40 in a week (or, "Straight Time for Overtime"). The
Defendants also failed to pay for certain compensable hours
altogether, improperly reducing the number of regular and overtime
hours it paid the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. The
Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime wages, and other damages the Defendants
owes to these workers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Pantelic worked for the Defendants as an hourly
employee from March 2021 to July 2021.

National Hood is in the business of commercial kitchen maintenance
and provides a variety of commercial and residential exhaust hood
cleaning and fire protection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


PLAINS ALL: Illinois Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Morr Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL MORR and DAVID MEDLOCK, On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAINS ALL
AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., and PLAINS PIPELINE L.P., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-163-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Background

Plaintiffs Morr and Medlock, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, filed the instant putative class action
against Defendants Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains
Pipeline, L.P. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Oil Pollution
Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 2701, et seq. and state law claims for
negligence, nuisance, and trespass arising from an oil spill that
occurred on July 10, 2015.

The case arises from a July 10, 2015 spill of approximately 100
barrels of crude oil from a failed tubing fitting at Plains'
Pocahontas Pump Station. The Pump Station is located approximately
2.6 miles west of Pocahontas, Illinois and 6 miles northeast of the
residential areas of Highland, Illinois. Following the spill,
approximately 56 barrels were recovered as a result of Plains'
cleanup efforts. The spill response and cleanup were overseen by
regulators including, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("USEPA"), Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"), and
the City of Highland.

The Pump Station is surrounded by rural land. The pathway of the
spill stayed confined in a ditch leading away from the Pump
Station, a tributary into which the ditch fed, and Silver Creek.
The oil did not extend beyond the Pump Station property or the
Silver Creek shoreline. The Release physically touched
approximately 19 residential properties along the banks of a creek
that widened behind a dam to form Silver Lake further downstream.

More than 2,000 air monitoring readings were taken following the
spill. According to USEPA, no readings had elevated levels of
contaminants from the spill. In Fall 2015, 76 sediment locations
were sampled covering the entire flow path, and none of those
locations exceeded IEPA cleanup levels. Soil and sediment samples
showed that there were only 3 sets of man-made structures within
1,000 feet of any location where crude oil-related concentrations
exceeded IEPA default cleanup levels.

More than 130 surface water and drinking water samples were also
collected and USEPA concluded that the "final results showed no
detections of crude oil constituents." At no point during or after
the spill was the City of Highland's drinking supply impacted.
Within 26 days of the spill, USEPA noted that there were "no
observed sheens" on the creek or lake, indicating removal of
residual oil within the watershed.

The communities of Highland, Pocahontas, and Grant Fork are more
than 2.5 miles away from the locations that had elevated
concentrations of crude oil constituents. None of the residential
properties in Pocahontas or Highland have any shoreline on the flow
path, and the majority of properties in Grant Fork lack such a
shoreline as well. No property of any kind (whether residential,
agricultural, or otherwise) exceeded IEPA cleanup levels following
the cleanup.

There are no beach, swimming, water-skiing, or other similar
recreational water sports on Silver Lake. Anyone may boat or fish
on the lake, regardless of where they live or whether they own
property, but only after purchasing a boat permit from the City of
Highland. Neither of the named Plaintiffs has ever purchased such a
permit. Immediately after the spill, the boat ramp and use of the
lake for boating and fishing was closed for approximately 12 days
to facilitate access by the response crews, but the shoreline park
and other amenities remained unaffected.

The City of Highland owns all the shoreline property surrounding
Silver Lake. There are 19 residential properties, including the
Plaintiffs' properties, connected to the portion of the spill
pathway that includes the ditch running adjacent to the Pump
Station, an unnamed tributary that receives flow from the ditch,
and Little Silver Creek. There is no evidence of physical injury to
any property.

The Plaintiffs' environmental expert, Gary Rand, testified that he
does not have any evidence that the spill adversely affected the
City of Highland's water supply or ambient air, or that crude oil
or oil degradation products from the spill are currently present in
Little Silver Creek or Silver Lake. Plains' ecological
toxicologist, Dr. Keith Tolson, conducted a site assessment using
USEPA protocols and found no adverse ecological impacts from the
spill. According to Tolson, properties without shoreline on the
flow path could not have suffered any contamination because it is
physically impossible for oil to flow uphill outside of the bed and
banks of the creek.

IEPA, the Plaintiffs' experts, and Plains' experts all took soil
samples and performed laboratory analyses to assess potential
environmental impacts from the Release. In March 2018, sampling was
conducted on the named Plaintiffs' properties which are located on
a small inlet upstream from Silver Creek. Seven soil/sediment
samples were collected from Plaintiff Morr's property -- all in the
vicinity of the shoreline. Four samples were taken on Plaintiff
Medlock's property. All samples taken near Silver Creek detected
only trace-level polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs")
concentrations -- far below any levels requiring cleanup under IEPA
standards. Two samples from Medlock's property, one taken from a
location adjacent to Highway 160 and the other taken from a
location adjacent to the shared asphalt driveway, revealed
concentrations 10 times higher than the creek-side locations;
however, even those concentrations were only slightly above the
IEPA cleanup levels. On April 15, 2016, IEPA closed its file on the
spill, sent a closure letter to Plains, and concluded that Plains'
response had "addressed the causation and remediation issues
associated with this release.

Plains implemented a claims process following the spill through
press releases, a website, and a toll-free phone number. The
toll-free line was operated by Plains' third-party claims
processing contractor, Worley Claims Services, LLC. In total,
Worley settled three claims on Plains' behalf totaling $350, all
for the reimbursement of an annual Silver Lake boat pass due to the
temporary closure of Silver Lake after the spill.

Worley referred calls about real property issues to Brad Ethridge,
a Plains employee who reported to the Pocahontas area the day after
the spill to identify and resolve claims from property owners
potentially impacted by the spill. The owners of 8 residential
properties along the creek reached settlements with Plains for
claims related to the spill. Plains did not negotiate settlements
with 11 of the residential property owners, including the
Plaintiffs No other property owners have filed actions against
Plains or made additional claims against Plains through the claims
process in the intervening 3 years following the spill since
mid-2016.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action lawsuit seeking to
recover for the following claims: violation of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq. ("OPA") (Count I);
trespass (Count II); negligence (Count III); negligence per se
(Count IV); public nuisance (Count V); and continuing public
nuisance (Count VI).

They move for class certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seek to represent the
following class: "All owners or lessees of residential properties
in the Pocahontas, Grant Fork, and Highland Illinois communities,
from July 10, 2015 to present."

I. Identifiable Class

To establish that a class is ascertainable, a plaintiff must offer
a class definition that is (1) precise, (2) defined by objective
criteria, and (3) not defined in terms of success on the merits. A
class that is defined too vaguely fails to satisfy the "clear
definition" component. The definition must identify a particular
group, harmed during a particular time frame, in a particular
location, in a particular way.

The class proposed by the Plaintiffs consist of individuals who
owned or leased "residential properties in the Pocahontas, Grant
Fork, and Highland Illinois communities from July 10, 2015 to
present."

Judge Yandle finds that the proposed class definition does not
identify a specific harm suffered during a particular time frame or
in a particular way; class membership requires nothing more than
living in the geographic area since July 2015. As such, she says,
the definition is overbroad -- it fails to create class membership
that is contingent on any objectively ascertainable factors. This
is problematic because it may include individuals who lack standing
to maintain the action on their own behalf.

The fact that a spill occurred is, by itself, not sufficient to
justify including everyone who lives or owns property in the
vicinity of the spill path in the class. Significantly, the
Plaintiffs' proposed class of 4,400 households is populated almost
entirely by property owners without any shoreline along the pathway
of the spill and who could not have suffered a legally recognized
injury or harm and Plaintiffs' expert witnesses do not provide
evidence of physical injury to any property. Because the Plaintiffs
have failed to identify a sufficiently definite class,
certification of the proposed class is improper.

II. Rule 23(a)

"All class actions, no matter what type, must meet the four
explicit requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of
the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class (typicality); and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy
of representation)."

Judge Yandle holds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class action
satisfies the requirement for commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation, but fails with respect to numerosity. She finds
that the Plaintiffs maintain the proposed class includes 4,400
properties based on an estimate of how many residential properties
are in the communities of Highland, Pocahontas, and Grant Fork.
However, given the overbroad class definition and the lack of
evidence that the spill affected the proposed class area, the
Plaintiffs' numerosity argument fails. The evidence shows that only
11 residential properties are located along the spill pathway with
unresolved claims and Plaintiffs provide no evidence that joinder
is impracticable for the absent class member property owners.

III. Rule 23(b)

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to fully satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Yandle need not address whether
under Rule 23(b)(3) common issues of law and fact predominate over
individualized issue or whether a class action is superior to other
vehicles available for adjudicating this controversy.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Yandle denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs are to proceed as
individuals.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3327mhkn from Leagle.com.


PNC BANK: Akins Sues Over Breach of Deferral Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Roy Akins and Rachael Latini, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:21-cv-02558-GLR (D. Md., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought concerning
PNC's practice of taking advantage of homeowners who were unable to
make their mortgage payments during the COVID-19 pandemic in
violation of the federal Truth-In-Lending Act and the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly
situated consumers in the United States entered into COVID-19
Payment Deferral Agreements with PNC. Under the terms of the
Deferral Agreements, PNC agreed to bring their mortgages current
and delay repayment of certain past-due monthly principal and
interest payments, as well as other amounts advanced by PNC in
connection with their missed payments. PNC further agreed that the
deferred payments would not accrue interest, and that the
Plaintiffs and the Class would not be responsible for paying the
past-due amounts until the earlier of (a) the maturity date of the
mortgage; (b) the sale of the property or (c) the payoff or
refinance of the mortgage loan. PNC represented and agreed that the
Deferral Agreements would not change any other terms of the
mortgage loan.

In breach of the Deferral Agreements, PNC added the total past-due
amounts to the outstanding principal balance on the loan. This
double-charged the Plaintiffs and the Class for their past-due
principal payments and improperly increased the amount of their
mortgages. In addition, the Plaintiffs and other members of the
Class who subsequently paid the deferred amounts early (i.e.,
before paying off the loan in full) were double-charged the amount
of past-due interest that PNC agreed to defer. This practice
constitutes a breach of the Deferral Agreements because PNC is
improperly increasing the outstanding principal balance on the
mortgage loan and overcharging Plaintiffs and the Class, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs entered into a mortgage loan with PNC on June 1,
2017 for their home residence in Idlewylde, Maryland.

PNC Bank, N.A. has been a national association bank chartered in
the State of Delaware with its corporate headquarters located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles S. Fax, Esq.
          Liesel J. Schopler, Esq.
          Stephen Kuperberg, Esq.
          RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON, LLC
          4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 820
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Phone: (301) 951-0150
          Email: cfax@rwllaw.com
                 lschopler@rwllaw.com
                 skuperberg@rwllaw.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Frank, Esq.
          Scott H. Sims, Esq.
          Andrew D. Stolper, Esq.
          FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
          19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 201-2400
          Email: jfrank@lawfss.com
                 ssims@lawfss.com
                 astolper@lawfss.com


PORTAGE, WI: Refusal to Reopen Discovery in O'Grady Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL O'GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DANIEL
GARRIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-3357 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the district court's order declining O'Grady's request to reopen
discovery.

Plaintiff O'Grady appeals the judgment against him in what began as
a putative class action against more than three dozen people and
entities connected to events at the high school his daughters
attended. The district court pared down the claims and parties
until only O'Grady's claims remained. After a contentious discovery
period, the court denied O'Grady's request to reopen discovery so
he could take in-person depositions and entered summary judgment
for the Defendants. O'Grady appeals the refusal to reopen
discovery.

Officials at Portage High School in Wisconsin partnered with local
law enforcement agencies to conduct a sweep for drugs on the school
grounds, including the parking lot. To obtain a permit to park in
that lot, students and their parents must consent to unannounced
searches. During one such search on Dec. 19, 2017, a K-9 unit
alerted on O'Grady's car, which his eldest daughter had driven to
school. After a police detective interviewed the daughter and
obtained the keys from her, another officer searched the car and
found no contraband.

Later the same day, O'Grady came to the school in search of a
cafeteria worker to resolve an issue with his daughters' lunch
accounts. He encountered the dean of students, and a heated
argument ensued. The dean accused O'Grady of repeatedly arriving
unannounced at the school and harassing staff, while O'Grady
demanded that his daughters be summoned immediately. He spoke to
them a few minutes later.

Mr. O'Grady -- who had a long history of conflict with both school
and Portage officials -- sued local law enforcement agencies and
personnel, the school district, and school staff members over the
events of December 19, as well as multiple other incidents and
school policies. The district court eventually consolidated two of
O'Grady's lawsuits into the instant case, in which O'Grady alleged
that law-enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights
by conducting a warrantless search of his car and that school
officials unlawfully seized him and interfered with his parental
rights when he could not immediately see his children during the
school day.

In the months after the original lawsuit was filed in May 2018,
many of the Defendants sought and obtained injunctions limiting
O'Grady's contact with them. They satisfied a Wisconsin court that
O'Grady had engaged in a years-long pattern of harassment including
in-person intimidation and frivolous legal filings.

Once the parties were at issue, the district court set a deadline
for dispositive motions; that date was extended twice to an
ultimate deadline of Aug. 17, 2020. In the meantime, the parties
conducted discovery, which involved multiple disputes giving rise
to motions to compel and for sanctions.

In April 2020, O'Grady served notices of deposition on several
Individual Defendants and the City of Portage. In light of the
restraining orders against O'Grady, the Defendants proposed that he
take depositions by video conference. They also asked him to
identify the topics for a deposition of the City's representative
under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When
O'Grady failed to respond, they moved for an order requiring
remotely conducted depositions and to quash the notice for the City
until O'Grady complied with Rule 30(b)(6). O'Grady then informed
the Defendants he would suspend depositions while he sought relief
from the restraining orders.

The district court granted the Defendants' motion before learning
of O'Grady's decision; it deemed video depositions appropriate
because of both the restraining orders and the COVID-19 pandemic.
As far as the record reveals, O'Grady made no further attempts to
take depositions in any format.

In two groups -- the school-district Defendants, and the municipal
and law enforcement Defendants -- the Defendants moved for summary
judgment on Aug. 17, 2020. O'Grady substantively responded to both
summary-judgment motions, and the Defendants filed reply briefs.
Only then did O'Grady move under Rule 56(d) for the district court
to "withhold judgment" until he conducted more discovery. He
asserted that he did not "have access through deposition" to
necessary evidence because he was enjoined from contact with the
defendants.

In an omnibus decision addressing all pending motions in three of
O'Grady's lawsuits, the district court declined to reopen
discovery, explaining that "O'Grady does not provide a good
explanation for why he has failed to collect the evidence he needs"
in two years of litigation. O'Grady further failed to specify "what
evidence he thinks he would obtain through additional discovery or
how the evidence would alter the outcome" of his claims, which, the
court continued, largely "have no basis in fact or law." On the
merits, the court determined that O'Grady raised no genuine issue
of material fact about whether the search of his car or his
encounter with the dean violated his rights.

Mr. O'Grady now appeals, challenging only the denial of his Rule
56(d) motion. He maintains that he should have been allowed extra
time to take depositions because the restraining orders hindered
his ability to litigate.

The Seventh Circuit reviews the district court's ruling for an
abuse of discretion. It holds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying O'Grady's belated request for additional
discovery. The Seventh Circuit explains that a Rule 56(d) movant
must provide a "compelling argument why discovery should be
continued." O'Grady gives no persuasive reason why he could not
have completed depositions before the (extended) discovery
deadline. He was free to depose the Defendants by video conference
and has neither explained his failure to do so nor argued that
video conferencing was inadequate. Despite his vigorous motion
practice throughout discovery, moreover, O'Grady did not actually
move for a discovery extension until summary-judgment briefing was
complete, and he has not justified that delay.

The Seventh Circuit has considered O'Grady's other arguments, and
they are without merit.

In light of the foregoing, the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kxnwtb5p from Leagle.com.


QUALITY TRAILER: Vo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Bao Q. Vo, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. QUALITY TRAILER SERVICES, LLC, a Tennessee
Limited Liability Company, f/d/b/a QUALITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02653-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 18, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act including collective claims for unpaid overtime.

The Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours per week for Defendant during
all times material to this action. The Plaintiff would only be paid
their straight time hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
per week. The Defendant has had a common policy, plan, and practice
of only paying straight time for all hours worked over 40 per week
and failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated mechanics
one-and one half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all
overtime hours within weekly pay periods during all times material
to this collective action. The Defendant willfully failed to
compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated mechanics at their
regular hourly rates of pay for all hour worked over 40 within
weekly pay periods during all times material to this Complaint,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt mechanic.

The Defendant provides mechanic services to trailers by repairing
and maintaining body panels, braking systems, etc. to over the road
truck trailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Aviles Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Riverside
Sheriff's Department, et al. The case is styled as Dean Himbler
Aviles, all others similarly suited and situated v. County of
Riverside Sheriff's Department, County of Riverside, Case No.
5:21-cv-01701-JGB-JPR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD or RSD) --
https://www.riversidesheriff.org/ -- also known as the Riverside
Sheriff's Office (RSO), is a law enforcement agency in Riverside
County, in the U.S. state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ROTO PASS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roto Pass, LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Roto Pass, LLC doing business
as: RotoPass, Case No. 1:21-cv-05762 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2021).

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

Roto Pass -- https://rotopass.com/ -- provides fantasy football
sites and resource.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUTTER'S INC: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE RUTTER'S INC. DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00382-CCC-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting his unopposed motion for
an enlargement of time to file his motion for class certification.

Rutter's is a chain of convenience stores and gas stations with
locations in Central Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DX60kr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
          & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  seh@chimicles.com
                  amk@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500

SCRIPPS HEALTH: S.D. California Consolidates 3 Data Breach Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL RUBENSTEIN AND RICHARD MACHADO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SCRIPPS HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 21cv1135-GPC(MSB), No.
21cv1143-GPC(MSB)., 21cv1238-GPC(MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P.
Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an order:

   a. granting the Majority Group Plaintiffs' Motion and
      consolidates the Related Cases of Rubenstein, et al.
      v. Scripps Health, 3:21-cv-01135-GPC-MSB; Rasmuzzen
      v. Scripps Health, 3:21-cv-01143-GPC-MSB; and Garren
      v. Scripps Health, 3:21-cv-01238-GPC-MSB and designates
      In re: Scripps Health Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
      3:21-cv-01135-GPC-MSB as the lead case, and all further
      filings will be made in that case;

   b. denying the Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to
      consolidate any and all related cases subsequently filed,
      transferred or removed to the district;

   c. granting the Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to appoint
      William B. Federman as interim lead class counsel for the
      Plaintiffs; and

   d. denying the Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to appoint a
      Steering Committee and Liaison Counsel.

Discussion

Before the Court are Plaintiffs Michael Rubenstein, Richard
Machado, Kate Rasmuzzen, and James Garren's joint motion to
consolidate related cases as well as the appointment of interim
lead class counsel pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42
and 23(g) and Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules. No opposition was filed.
The Majority Group Plaintiffs represent that Defendant Scripps
Health agrees to consolidation of all cases and the proposed
initial case schedule and takes no position on the appointment of
the Majority Group Plaintiffs' proposed interim lead class
counsel.

A. Motion to Consolidate

The operative class action complaints brought by the Majority Group
Plaintiffs all concern the ransomware attack and data breach
suffered by Scripps Health around April 29, 2021. Due to the data
breach, the cyber hackers gained access to personal and medical
information of over 147,000 individuals stored on Defendant's
computer servers. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed
to adequately protect its network servers. Accordingly, because all
cases involve the same underlying facts and substantially similar
questions of law, consolidation would promote the interest of
judicial efficiency and avoid duplication in the prosecution or
resolution of the cases. As such, Judge Curiel grants the Majority
Group Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate the related cases
of Rubenstein v. Scripps Health, 3:21-cv-01135-GPC-MSB; Rasmuzzen
et al. v. Scripps Health, 3:21-cv-01143-GPC-MSB, and Garren v.
Scripps Health, 3:21-cv-01238-GPC-MSB.

The Majority Group Plaintiffs also move to consolidate any and all
related cases subsequently filed, transferred or removed to this
district. At this time, because any "future" cases are speculative,
Judge Curiel denies the Majority Group Plaintiffs' request.
Instead, if a case arising out of the same questions of law and
fact is filed, transferred or removed to this district, and
qualifies as a related case, he says, it will be transferred to him
based on the low number rule. Once transferred to him, the parties
may move for consolidation.

B. Motion for Appointment of Interim Lead Class Counsel, Steering
Committee and Liaison Counsel

The Majority Group Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint William B.
Federman of Federman & Sherwood as the Interim Lead Class Counsel,
to appoint one attorney from each of the other filed cases to
establish the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, and if the Court
chooses, to appoint Bibianne Fell of Fell Law as the Liaison
Counsel. No opposition has been filed.

Rule 23(g)(3) provides that a court may designate an interim
counsel prior to certifying a class. Rule 23(g)(1)(A) requires that
courts consider the following factors in appointing class counsel:
"(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the
applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to
representing the class." Rule 23(g)(4) also requires that class
counsel "must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class."

Judge Curiel finds that Mr. Federman has four decades of experience
in complex litigation such as class actions and include data breach
litigation. He also has knowledge about complex e-discovery issues.
He currently serves as co-lead counsel in a consolidated,
multi-party medical records data breach case in this district, In
Re: Solara Med. Supplies Data Breach Litig., Case No.
19-cv-2284-H-KSC. He has also worked with defense counsel in other
similar data breach matters and other complex cases.

In the instant litigation, Mr. Federman and his firm has already
used substantial resources to investigate the facts surrounding the
data breach, such as its cause, the Defendant's public statements
after the breach, potential and actual damages caused by the data
breach and consumer experiences concerning information compromised
in the breach. He has also spent significant time researching the
law to draft a detailed complaint and interviewed multiple
potential plaintiffs as well as potential expert witnesses. He and
his firm continue to conduct work on the case by reviewing consumer
complaints about the data breach, communicating with putative class
members, continuing investigation of the data breach and the scope
of its consequences and coordinating with defense counsel to ensure
efficient prosecution of the three cases including an initial
agreed upon case schedule, preparing and circulating for comment a
proposed ESI protocol and proposed protective order.

Based on this, Judge Curiel finds that the Rule 23(g) factors have
been satisfied and grants the Majority Group Plaintiffs' joint
motion to appoint William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood as the
Interim Lead Class Counsel.

Majority Group Plaintiffs also seek the appointment of a Steering
Committee to include the counsel in the other two cases, Scott Cole
of Scott Cole & Associates, PA CV, and Kelly Keenan Moran of
WeissLaw LLP.

Steering Committees are most commonly needed when group members'
interests and positions are sufficiently dissimilar to justify
giving them representation in decision making." In the case, the
Majority Group Plaintiffs seek the appointment of a Steering
Committee to include one attorney from each filed action because it
will clarify the attorneys' roles and responsibilities and formally
designate them to act in the best interests of the proposed class
and assures defense counsel that they are dealing with the correct
representatives of the proposed class. Establishing a Steering
Committee will also provide gender and geographic diversity.

Judge Curiel holds that the reasons provided do not justify the
need for a Steering Committee. The appointment of a Steering
Committee would not be economical and not benefit the proposed
class. The lead counsel is already "charged with formulating (in
consultation with other counsel) and presenting positions on
substantive and procedural issues during the litigation."
Including a counsel from each of the consolidated cases would
defeat the purpose of appointing an Interim Lead Class Counsel. In
conclusion, Judge Curiel denies the Majority Group Plaintiffs'
motion to appoint a Steering Committee.

The Majority Group Plaintiffs also propose that "if the Court
chooses to appoint a liaison counsel," then it should select
Bibianne Fell of Fell Law. Judge Curiel holds that the Majority
Group Plaintiffs fail to provide any reasons why liaison counsel
should be appointed and he does not see the justification for one
at this time. The three consolidated cases arise out of the same
facts and involve similar causes of action. The consolidated action
is not complex or unwieldly involving many lawsuits with an
unmanageable number of attorneys and does not justify
administrative support by a liaison counsel. Thus, Judge Curiel
denies the Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to appoint liaison
counsel.

Accordingly, the following Related Actions are consolidated for all
pre-trial proceedings (the Consolidated Action): Rubenstein et al.
v. Scripps Health 3:21-cv-01135-GPC-MSB June 21, 2021; Rasmuzzen v.
Scripps Health 3:21-cv-01143-GPC-MSB June 21, 2021; and Garren v.
Scripps Health 3:21-cv-01238-GPC-MSB July 8, 2021.

Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action must be filed
solely in Case No. 21cv1135-GPC(MSB) and will bear the following
caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA In Re: SCRIPPS HEALTH DATA SECURITY BREACH Case No.
3:21-cv-01135-GPC-MSB LITIGATION ______________________________
CLASS ACTION."

The Plaintiffs will file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
within 14 days of the Order, with the Defendant's anticipated
Motion to Dismiss to be filed within 30 days of the filing of the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the Plaintiffs' reply
brief to be filed 14 days thereafter.

Judge Curiel, in accordance with Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, appoints William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood as the Interim Lead Counsel.

The responsibilities pertaining to Mr. Federman as Interim Lead
Counsel are forth as follows:

      a) To determine and present (in briefs, oral argument, or
such other fashion as may be appropriate, personally or by a
designee) to the Court and opposing parties the position of
Plaintiffs and putative class members on all matters arising during
pretrial proceedings;

      b) To coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery on
behalf of Plaintiffs and putative class members, consistent with
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 26(b)(2), and 26(g),
including the preparation of joint interrogatories and requests for
the production of documents and the examination of witnesses in
depositions;

      c) To coordinate discovery efforts with other counsel to
ensure that discovery is conducted in an efficient, orderly, and
non-duplicative manner;

      d) To conduct settlement negotiations on behalf of Plaintiffs
and putative class members, and, where appropriate, to present any
proposed settlements to the Court on behalf of putative class
members;

      e) To delegate specific tasks to other counsel, in a manner
designed to ensure that pretrial preparation for Plaintiffs and the
putative class is conducted efficiently and effectively;

      f) To enter into stipulations with opposing counsel (after
such consultations with other counsel as may be appropriate) as
necessary for the conduct of the litigation;

      g) To prepare and distribute status reports to any other law
firms that might seek to represent the putative class;

      h) To maintain adequate time and disbursement records
covering services for all Plaintiffs' counsel in the proposed
Consolidated Action;

      i) To monitor the activities of any other law firms that
might seek to represent putative class members to ensure that
schedules are met, and unnecessary expenditures of time and funds
are avoided;

      j) To perform such other duties as may be incidental to the
proper prosecution and coordination of pretrial activities on
behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class or authorized by further
order of the Court; and

      k) With court approval, appoint additional committees, as
necessary, including but not limited to, expert, discovery, trial,
and settlement committees.

Conclusion

Judge Curiel grants the Majority Group Plaintiffs' Motion and
consolidates the Related Cases of Rubenstein, Rasmuzzen, and
Garren. He designates In re: Scripps Health Data Breach Litigation,
Case No: 3:21-cv-01135-GPC-MSB as the lead case, and all further
filings will be made in that case.

Judge Curiel denies the Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate any and all related cases subsequently filed,
transferred or removed to the district. Furthermore, he grants the
Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to appoint William B. Federman as
the interim lead class counsel for the Plaintiffs and denies the
Majority Group Plaintiffs' motion to appoint a Steering Committee
and a Liaison Counsel.

The hearing set on Oct. 8, 2021, is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f8czdw8u from Leagle.com.


SENSORY CLOUD: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sensory Cloud, Inc.
The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sensory Cloud,
Inc. doing business as: FEND, Case No. 1:21-cv-08552 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 18, 2021).

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

Sensory Cloud doing business as FEND -- https://www.hellofend.com/
-- is a Cambridge-based technology startup company that provides
designing solutions to healthcare and wellbeing problems through
pioneering discoveries at the frontiers of respiratory biology and
olfaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com



SENTINEL INSURANCE: Academy Swim Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentinel Insurance
Company, Limited. The case is styled as Academy Swim Club, Inc., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Sentinel
Insurance Company, Limited, Case No. 5:21-cv-01757 (C.D. Cal., Oct.
18, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. doing business as The Hartford --
https://www.thehartford.com/legal-notice -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company provides property and casualty
insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


SESEN BIO: Faces Markman Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MARKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SESEN BIO, INC., THOMAS R. CANNELL, and
MONICA FORBES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08308 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
7, 2021) seeks to recover compensable and punitive damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The Plaintiff's claims are brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Sesen Bio, Inc. between December 21, 2020 and August 17, 2021,
inclusive, and were damaged by the alleged conduct.

Sesen Bio is a late-stage clinical company developing targeted
fusion protein therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer. The Company's lead drug or "program" as the Company refers
to it, is Vicineum, also known as VB4-845. Vicineum was developed
to treat high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects which should have been disclosed to make
its statements not misleading. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: 1) Sesen's Bio's bladder cancer study
showed that Vicineum had led to dangerous elevations in liver
enzymes that are associated with organ failure and death; 2) Sesen
Bio's bladder cancer study for Vicineum, which enrolled
approximately 130 patients, had more than 2,000 violations of trial
protocol; 3) Independent monitors reported three of Sesen Bio's
clinical investigators to the FDA for particularly egregious
violations and they were found guilty of "serious noncompliance,"
"continued noncompliance," and actions that "placed subjects at
risk of harm;" 4) Sesen Bio submitted the tainted data in
connection with the BLA for Vicineum despite being advised that
"the data from these affected centers cannot be used in any data
analysis;" 5) As a result of the foregoing issues, the Company's
BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be approved; 6) As a result of
the foregoing issues, there was a reasonable likelihood Sesen Bio
would need to conduct additional clinical trials to support the
efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and 7) 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.

Because of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Telephone: (917) 983-9321
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Telephone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
                  BBrown@4-Justice.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

SMG/LONG BEACH: Acosta Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Elia Paredes Acosta, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMG/LONG BEACH CONVENTION AND ENTERTAINMENT
CENTER, a business entity form unknown; ASM GLOBAL FRESNO, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV36919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 6, 2021), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act,
Labor Code ("PAGA"), and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
10 as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay all overtime wages
and minimum wages,

The Defendants regularly, systematically, and impermissibly rounded
and/or shaved the time worked by Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees in Defendants' favor. This time shaving/rounding practice
utilized by Defendants was not-even handed over time and would
round and shave in Defendants' favor such that Plaintiff was
routinely underpaid for her time worked. Due to Defendants'
timekeeping policies and practices that fail to compensate for all
hours worked, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were deprived
of all required minimum wages. Further, on occasions when Plaintiff
worked over eight hours in a day and/or forty hours in a workweek,
this process of time-shaving or rounding also deprived her of all
overtime wages owed. As such, Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees were not compensated for all required minimum and
overtime wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee since March 2018, although she has been on a leave of
absence since July 2019.

The Defendants own and operate the Long Beach Convention and
Entertainment Center in Long Beach, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                 amcintosh@haineslawgroup.com


SPECTRUM PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum Pharmaceuticals" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Spectrum Pharmaceuticals common stock
between December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in
this class action, you must move the Court no later than November
1, 2021.

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

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

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

Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

                  About Johnson Fistel

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

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Terreta Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------
Amber Terreta and Debra Rayner, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
0:21-cv-62148-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 15, 2021), is brought for
reimbursement requiring Spirit to refund all ticket purchases for
canceled flights during the applicable time period, make whole all
class members for all costs, inconveniences, economic losses
associated therewith, attorney fees.

According to the complaint, During the peak of summer travel
season, Spirit, Inc. left tens of thousands of passengers stranded
at airports throughout the country when it fraudulently and
deceptively induced customers to purchase tickets for flights the
Company knew would not fly. Spirit, notorious for its low prices
and no-frills flying experience, was well aware it could not handle
the glut of tickets sold. Nevertheless, the Company continued to
sell tickets to unwitting customers, leaving them stranded without
recompense or communication. Between July 30, 2021 and August 9,
2021, Spirit canceled approximately 2,826 flights, accounting for
more than half of the Company's scheduled flights on multiple
days.

Spirit cancelled flights during this time because it had a severe
labor shortage caused by the Company's knowing failure to hire and
maintain sufficient staffing levels necessary to provide promised
services to its customers. Thousands of customers, like Plaintiffs,
purchased tickets relying on Spirit's promise to handle the traffic
of its scheduled flights only to be left stuck for hours or days on
end in airports with little or no communication from the Company.
These travelers would likely not have purchased flight tickets from
Spirit had they known the true status of Spirit's labor shortages
and its inability to accommodate the purchased travel
arrangements.

Instead, Spirit ignored its customers, refusing to compensate
passengers for cancelled flights, and failing to make alternative
travel arrangements on other airlines or provide hotel
accommodations. Spirit's actions directly caused their customers
immense stress and discomfort, incur increased travel fees, and to
miss thousands of family and business events. To date, Spirit
continues to hold the Plaintiffs' and tens of thousands of other
passengers' money used to purchase tickets for the cancelled
flights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are adult residents of the state of Pennsylvania who
purchased tickets form the Defendants.

The Defendant Spirit is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Miramar, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus W. Corwin, Esq.
          Stephen L. Conteaguero, Esq.
          MARCUS W. CORWIN, P.A. d/b/a CORWIN LAW
          6001 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: 561.482.3636
          Facsimile: 561.482.5414
          Email: mcorwin@corwinlawfirm.com
                 sconteaguero@corwinlawfirm.com


SUMMIT PYSCHOTHERAPY: Lal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Pyschotherapy
Associates, APC, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Shareen Lal,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Summit
Pyschotherapy Associates, APC, Does 1 - 10, Case No.
34-2021-00309339-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
6, 2021).

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

Summit Psychological Services --
https://www.summitpsychologicalservices.com/ -- is a premier
psychological practice with two office locations, Cranberry
Township area and Pittsburgh area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: (213) 232-3128
          Fax: (213) 232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


SYNIVERSE CORPORATION: Baron Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Baron, Olivia Enloe, Marco Lerra, and John Pels, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SYNIVERSE
CORPORATION, Case No. 8:21-cv-02349-SCB-SPF (M.D. Fla., Oct. 5,
2021), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard private and personally identifiable
information that Defendant stored on and/or processed through its
Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) environment, including, without
limitation, call records and message data, such as call length and
cost, caller and receiver's numbers, the location of the parties in
the call, as well as the actual content of SMS text messages
("personally identifiable information" or "PII").

According to the complaint, Syniverse explicitly promises security
for its customers and their users' data. On September 27, 2021,
however, Syniverse, through M3 Brigade Acquisition II Corp. ("M3
Brigade"), informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that an
unauthorized actor had exploited a vulnerability in Syniverse's
systems (the "Data Breach"). Syniverse revealed that, during the
Data Breach, the unauthorized actor had access to Syniverse's
systems beginning in May 2016, but the company did not discover the
breach until May 2021. And even though Syniverse knew of the Data
Breach since May 2021, it only chose to inform the public six
months later as it prepared to go public again via a merger with
M3-Brigade, a special purpose acquisition company. The transaction
implies an initial enterprise value for Syniverse of $2.85
billion.

By obtaining, collecting, processing, using, and deriving a benefit
from the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, the Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals, including the duty
to protect and safeguard their PII. The exposed PII of the
Plaintiffs and Class Members can be sold on the dark web and
subjects the Plaintiffs to imminent and unreasonable harm. Hackers
can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII
to criminals. The Plaintiffs and Class Members face a lifetime risk
of identity theft, blackmail, or other harm, which is heightened
here by the loss of sensitive text message data that may also
contain financial account or other sensitive information. This PII
was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts
and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiffs and
Class Members.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiffs and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and
appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of
Plaintiffs and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to
an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are cellular phone customers.

Syniverse's carrier customers consist of mobile network operators,
mobile virtual network operators, multiple-system operators, and
other communications service providers, and include some of the
biggest global telecommunications carriers in the world, including
AT&T, T- Mobile, Verizon, Vodafone, China Mobile, and others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                 rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 357-1100
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          James A. Ulwick, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 214-7900
          Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 julwick@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Weintraub, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          360 Central Avenue, Suite 1450
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Phone: 727.894.6745
          Fax: 727.894.2649
          Email: mweintraub@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202.463.2101
          Fax: 202.463-2103
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
                 llederer@baileyglasser.com


T-MOBILE USA INC: Bensen Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Bensen, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-06628 (W.D. N.Y., October 7, 2021), seeks to recover
damages and other relief resulting from a data breach, including
but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of costs
and declaratory judgment. The lawsuit further seeks injunctive
relief resulting from negligence, breach of express and implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and for violations of the
Federal Trade Commission Act and various states' consumer
protection acts.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a nationwide telecommunications company
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, headquartered in Bonn, Germany.
T-Mobile collects a significant amount of data from its current and
former customers, often including sensitive personal information
such as Social Security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers,
dates of birth, bank account numbers, credit card numbers,
financial transaction records, credit ratings and driver's license
numbers.

On August 19, 2021, T-Mobile announced a "Notice of Data Breach" on
its website that it had learned on August 17, 2021.

Bensen alleges that T-Mobile failed to safeguard the confidential
information of millions of current and former T-Mobile USA, Inc.
customers. The confidential information stolen appears to encompass
names, birthdays, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, phone numbers, and account PINs, among other Personal
Identifying Information, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      Facsimile:(585) 272-0574
      Email: jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com


TENNESSEE: Gov. Lee More Concerned About "Right Wing Creeds"
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Case at fox17.com reports that in a FOX 17 News Investigates
follow up, new developments are unfolding in a class action lawsuit
against Governor Bill Lee and the Tennessee Labor Commissioner.

FOX 17 News was first to report this summer when the grassroots
Facebook group "Tennesseans Against Ending Benefits Early"
initiated the lawsuit to get federal pandemic unemployment
reinstated.

ALSO READ: Tennessee Gov. Lee and labor commissioner face
class-action lawsuit over unemployment

Governor Lee stopped nearly $800 million in federal unemployment,
he says to push people back to work.

Attorney Gary Blackburn says he made a win-win settlement offer to
the administration the governor shot down.

He says, "We would have gotten money in the hands of people who are
truly suffering. We would have gotten landlords paid. I proposed
reducing my own fee to get this done and I could not even get a
conversation. It tells me the governor is more concerned about
right wing creeds than he is about the people of Tennessee."

Governor Lee's spokesperson has not yet responded.

The suit contests Governor Lee's authority to stop the federal
funds based on a 1947 U.S. law.

Workers in at least three other states have used this same legal
argument and won. Similar suits are pending in at least 15 other
states right now. [GN]

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing Schedule in King County Suit Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KING COUNTY and CITY OF TACOMA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
and TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order
regarding briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The parties seek the Court's approval of a briefing schedule and
enlarged page limitation for briefing on the Defendants'
anticipated Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed their putative class action Complaint against
the Defendants on April 8, 2021. Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva
Neuroscience were served with a summons and the Complaint shortly
thereafter. Following the Court's approval of a Stipulated Motion
to Extend the Deadline for Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva
Neuroscience to respond to the Complaint, Teva Pharmaceuticals and
Teva Neuroscience moved for leave to file an over-length Motion to
Dismiss, which the Court granted on June 22, 2021.

Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience filed their Motion to
Dismiss on July 2, 2021. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants stipulated to a briefing schedule on the Joint Motion to
Dismiss, which the Court approved on July 7, 2021.

On July 6, 2021, a summons and the Complaint were served upon TPI
in Tel Aviv, Israel. TPI believes that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over it. Further, TPI wished to adopt the arguments
made by Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience in the Joint
Motion to Dismiss.

Given the pendency of the Joint Motion to Dismiss, the Parties
proposed a briefing schedule for TPI's Motion to Dismiss. Under
that briefing schedule, the Plaintiffs would file an omnibus
response to the Joint Motion to Dismiss and TPI's Motion to Dismiss
and Defendants would file an omnibus reply in support of those
motions. Further, the combined length of the Joint Motion to
Dismiss and TPI's Motion to Dismiss and the length of the
Plaintiffs' omnibus response to those motions could be up to 60
pages. The Court approved the Parties' Stipulated Motion Regarding
Briefing on the Motions to Dismiss on July 22, 2021. TPI filed its
Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 30, 2021.

After TPI's filing of its Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs elected to
amend their Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Parties conferred and agreed that the
deadline for Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint should be extended
to Sept. 28, 2021, and that upon filing of an amended Complaint the
pending Motions to Dismiss should be denied as moot. The Parties
stipulated to that effect, and the Court approved the Parties'
stipulation on September 20, 2021. See Order Extending Deadline to
Amend Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed their FAC on Sept. 28, 2021.

For the reasons set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva
Neuroscience's Motion for Over-length Brief and because TPI intends
additionally to move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
the Parties have conferred and agree that, subject to the Court's
approval, additional pages should be granted and the briefing
schedule should be enlarged for the Defendants' anticipated Motion
to Dismiss the FAC.

The Parties propose that:

      1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be filed no later than
Nov. 17, 2021, and that the page limitation be 55;

      2. The Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendants' anticipated
Motion to Dismiss be filed no later than Jan. 17, 2022, and that
the page limitation be 55; and

      3. The Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
be filed no later than Feb. 16, 2022, and that the page limitation
be 27.

Additionally, as the Parties agreed in their Joint Status Report
and Discovery Plan, the Parties believe that the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification should not
be set until after the Court resolves the Defendants' anticipated
Motion to Dismiss. The Parties believe good cause exists to extend
the deadline for class certification under LCR 23(i)(3) due to the
anticipated pendency of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the
complexity of the transactions involved, and the size of the
proposed class.

Accordingly, the Parties agree, subject to the Court's approval, to
the following:

      1. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed 55 pages,
will be filed no later than Nov. 17, 2021;

      2. The Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, not to exceed 55 pages will be filed no later than Jan.
17, 2022;

      3. The Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss,
not to exceed 27 pages, will be filed no later than Feb. 16, 2022;

      4. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be noted for Feb.
18, 2022; and

      5. Good cause -- specifically the anticipated pendency of the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the complexity of the transactions
involved, and the size of the proposed class—exists to extend the
deadline for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification beyond
the default deadline set forth in LCR 23(i)(3). Unless the
Defendants' anticipated Motion to Dismiss results in dismissal of
the case, the Parties are directed to meet and confer following the
Court's resolution of that motion and submit a status report
including a proposed case schedule (or schedules if agreement
cannot be reached), including a deadline for the Class
Certification Motion, within 30 days of the Court's resolution of
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Lasnik so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/sxw6n7wn from Leagle.com.


TFORCE FREIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in Mish Wage & Hour Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONYEISHA MISH, Plaintiff v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04094-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants in part and denies in part TForce's motion to
dismiss the third, fourth, and seventh causes of action in the
First Amended Complaint and to dismiss or strike all class
allegations.

Background

Plaintiff Mish, formerly employed as a Parts Clerk for Defendant
TForce, brings wage-and-hour and unfair competition claims under
California law on behalf of herself and two putative classes of
non-exempt TForce Freight employees in California in her First
Amended Complaint.

The FAC alleges that Mish is a "resident of California" who "was
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee working as a
parts clerk in California from approximately January 2007 to
October 2020." The FAC alleges seven causes of action against
TForce under California law: (1) Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages
(Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2); (2) Recovery of Unpaid Overtime
Wages (Labor Code Sections 510, 1194); (3) Failure to Provide Meal
Periods (Labor Code Sections 512, 226.7); (4) Failure to Provide
Rest Periods (Labor Code Section 226.7); (5) Failure to Provide
Accurate Wage Statements (Labor Code Section 226); (6) Waiting Time
Penalties (Labor Code Section 201, et seq.); and (7) Unfair
Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.).

Ms. Mish asserts the meal and rest break causes of action (claims 3
and 4) on behalf of herself and a putative subclass of Parts Clerks
"or similar positions," while Mish asserts the other causes of
action on behalf of herself and a putative class of all non-exempt
TForce employees in California since March 10, 2017.

In Claims 1 and 2 (Minimum and Overtime Wages), Mish alleges she
and all members of the putative class of non-exempt employee in
California were "required to change into their work uniforms (kept
in work at lockers) before clocking in, and were required to change
out of their uniforms and undergo security checks for their bags
after clocking out." Mish alleges that TForce did not compensate
employees for time spent at a guard station before arriving to
work, putting on and taking off uniforms, and going through
post-shift security checks because the clock-in and clock-out
procedures reflected the time a shift was scheduled to start or
end, not the actual time at which an employee arrived at or left
work. Mish alleges, specifically, by way of example, that she was
required to go to a guard station before work, to change in and out
of her uniform, and complete post-shift security checks without pay
during the week of Sept. 27 to Oct. 3, 2020.

In Claims 3 and 4 (Meal and Rest Breaks), Mish alleges she and
other Parts Clerks (a putative subclass of non-exempt employees)
were "required to take non-compliant meal periods because they
regularly would have their meal periods interrupted and/or cut
short by management and other employees requiring assistance, and
management would insist the work be done immediately rather than
after the meal period." Specifically, by way of example, Mish
alleges she "suffered a meal period that was interrupted by a
supervisor on Sept. 2, 2020" and "was not paid for her time working
during the interruption."

Ms. Mish also alleges that she and other Parts Clerks were entitled
to "two uninterrupted ten-minute rest breaks" per shift, but they
"were denied compliant rest periods because they regularly would
have their rest periods interrupted and/or cut short by management
and other employees requiring assistance, and management would
insist the work be done immediately rather than after the rest
period." Specifically, by way of example, Mish alleges she
"suffered a rest period that was interrupted by a supervisor during
the week of Aug. 23 to 29, 2020."

In Claims 5 and 6 (Wage Statements and Waiting Time Penalties),
based on Mish's allegations on behalf of herself and the applicable
putative classes of violations of minimum wage and overtime wages,
and meal and rest breaks, she makes corresponding allegations that
the Defendant's wage statements were inaccurate, and that it owes
waiting time penalties for failure to pay full wages to employees
who it no longer employs.

In Claim 7 (Violation of Unfair Competition Law), Mish alleges a
claim for equitable remedies (disgorgement and injunctive relief)
under California's unfair competition law because the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and failure to
provide compliant rest and meal breaks constitute "unlawful, unfair
or fraudulent" business practices. She alleges she and putative
class members lack an adequate remedy at law because (i) some of
their Labor Code claims carry a three-year statute of limitations,
while her UCL claim extends the statute of limitations by one year,
and because (ii) they seek injunctive relief.

Ms. Mish filed the class-action wage-and-hour suit in Alameda
County Superior Court on March 10, 2021. Defendant TForce timely
removed the action to the Court on May 28, 2021. It filed a motion
to dismiss and/or strike Mish's Complaint on June 4, 2021. The
parties met and conferred; they stipulated to the Plaintiff's
withdrawal of the Complaint and set a date for her to file a FAC
and for the Defendant to respond. The Plaintiff filed the FAC on
July 30, 2021. Now pending before the Court is TForce's motion to
dismiss claims 3, 4 and 7 of the FAC and to dismiss or strike all
class allegations.

Discussion

A. Claims 3 & 4: Mish's Individual Meal and Rest Break Claims

TForce argues that Mish fails to plead facts sufficient to a state
claims on her individual meal and rest break theories (the third
and fourth claims in the FAC) because her claims rely on "generic
allegations" lacking details about particular "circumstances,
occurrences and events" indicating TForce's liability as required
under Twombly. It notes that even in Mish's purportedly specific
allegations about particular violations of her rest and meal
breaks, the FAC does not detail the location of Mish's work for
TForce, fails to identify the supervisor who interrupted her work,
and does not explain what work she was required to perform

Judge Chen disagrees with TForce. Mish has alleged enough on her
individual meal and rest break theories to state claims. She has
provided sufficient information to plausibly allege and state
claims that TForce violated at least one of her meal and rest
breaks. Contrary to TForce's view, there is no reason why Mish must
include the name of the supervisor who interrupted her or the
location of her worksite to make plausible her allegations that at
least one of her meal and rest periods were violated.

B. Claim 7: Unfair Competition

Ms. Mish's seventh claim seeks equitable remedies -- disgorgement
for all unpaid wages due and injunctive relief -- pursuant to
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Mish's UCL claim is
predicated on the violations of the Labor Code she alleges in
claims. TForce seeks dismissal of Mish's UCL claim with prejudice
on the grounds that Mish has not and cannot sufficiently plead that
she lacks an adequate remedy at law. In her opposition, Mish argues
that she can allege her UCL claim in the alternative to her legal
remedies, and, even if she cannot, she had sufficiently alleged the
lack of an adequate remedy at law.

Judge Chen finds that as currently pled, Mish's request for
equitable restitution (or disgorgement) under the UCL as relief for
underlying Labor Code violations fails to state a claim because it
does not sufficiently allege an inadequate legal remedy. He also
finds that Mish makes no allegations regarding a "personal need"
for prospective injunctive relief against TForce so her UCL
allegations as pled fail to state claims. Mish is granted leave to
amend her UCL allegations.

C. Class Allegations

TForce moves to dismiss or strike all of Mish's class allegations.
Judge Chen dismisses with leave to amend Mish's individual and
class claims for violations of the UCL (claim 7). The class
allegations remaining for consideration are Mish's claims for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages (claims 1 & 2) and of meal and
rest break violations (claims 3 & 4). Claims 5 & 6, regarding wage
statements and waiting time penalties, are wholly derivative of the
underlying Labor Code claims, and therefore, do not require
independent analysis at this stage. Judge Chen dismisses each of
Mish's class allegations.

D. Claims 1 & 2

First, TForce contends that Mish's unpaid wages class allegations
(claims 1 & 2) seek to cover all non-exempt TForce employees in
California since March 10, 2017, but Mish fails to articulate any
factual basis that her allegations of the clocking-in/our
procedure, uniform changing procedure, and security check process
that form the basis of her unpaid wage claims, apply equally or
similarly to "every employee at every facility in" California.

Judge Chen agrees. Mish fails to provide any basis to infer that
her experience is typical for every employee California. Contrary
to Mish's argument, reviewing Mish's class allegations at the
motion to dismiss phase does not subject the class allegations to
an impermissible heightened pleading standard. The analysis simply
requires that the class allegations abide by Rule 8's plausibility
standard. Judge Chen grants TForce's motion to dismiss and grants
Mish leave to amend to allege a sufficient factual basis to support
a reasonable inference of plausibility for her class allegations on
claims 1 and 2.

E. Claims 3 & 4

Ms. Mish's class allegations on behalf of all Parts Clerks in
California on claims 3 and 4 are similarly deficient under Rule 8,
Judge Chen finds. He holds that as currently pled, Mish's class
allegations on claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 (and derivative wage statement
and waiting time penalty claims, claims 5 and 6) lack "sufficient
factual content" to enable "the Court to make a reasonable
inference that Defendants are liable" for the claims alleged. Thus,
Judge Chen dismisses Mish's class allegations and grants her leave
to amend the claims.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen grants TForce's motion to
dismiss Mish's seventh cause of action and all class allegations.
He dismisses those claims without prejudice and grants Mish leave
to amend her complaint within 30 days from the date of the Order.
Judge Chen denies TForce's motion to dismiss Mish's third and
fourth causes of action to the extent they pertain to allegations
on her own behalf. The Order disposes of Docket No. 26.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hcys7z98 from Leagle.com.


TOTAL LIFE: Miller Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ASHLEY MILLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOTAL LIFE
CHANGES, LLC (TLC), Case No. 1:21-cv-00095-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Brian K. Epps entered an order granting the parties'
second consent motion to extend deadline time to file class
certification.

The Plaintiff shall have through and including November 8, 2021, to
move for class certification, says Judge Epps.

TLC offers health, wellness, and beauty products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aTvbYy at no extra charge.[CC]

TRADER JOE'S: Quinn Sues Over False and Misleading Packaging
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Quinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-05513 (Oct. 16,
2021), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's
false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its
frosted toaster pastries purporting to be filled only with
strawberries.

The complaint alleges that the packaging contains pictures of eight
strawberries and no other fruits. The product description is
written on a farm fence background, surrounded by strawberries,
furthering the impression that the Product's filling is only or
mostly strawberries, and that the non- filling ingredients are of
the highest quality. The representations are misleading because
they give consumers the impression the fruit filling contains a
greater relative and absolute amount of strawberries than it does.

Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly
identify and describe the components, attributes, and features of a
product, relative to itself and other comparable products or
alternatives. By labeling the Product in this manner, Defendant
gained an advantage against other companies, and against consumers
seeking to purchase a product with more of the named ingredient
than it contained. The value of the Product that plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by
defendant. Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices
than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers.

Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, no less than approximately $2.99 per six pastries (11 oz
or 312g), a higher price than it would otherwise be sold for,
absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on at least one occasion within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action.

Trader Joe's Company manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
organic frosted toaster pastries purporting to be filled only with
strawberries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


TRANSUNION LLC: SCOTUS' Decision in Ramirez FCRA Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda S. Kollross at clausen.com reports that the United States
Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, ___ U.S.
___, 114 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), is significant to the insurance and
defense bar as it may represent a formidable obstacle for class
action plaintiffs' lawyers to overcome in bringing statutory
private right of actions for damages, costs, and attorney's fees
when class members have suffered at best only theoretical instead
of concrete harms from a defendant's violation of a statute. The
Court issued a 5-4 split decision with Justice Kavanaugh authoring
the majority opinion joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and
Barrett, and Justice Thomas dissenting with Justices Kagan, Breyer,
and Sotomayor joining in his dissent.

Facts

Ramirez involved the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which
creates a cause of action for consumers to sue and recover
compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees for certain
violations of the Act. The case arose when TransUnion wrongly and
erroneously added a terrorist/drug trafficking alert to the credit
reports of certain consumers. Defendant Ramirez was one such
consumer who wrongly had an alert placed on his credit report that
he might be a terrorist, drug trafficker or other criminal. Ramirez
discovered the error when he could not purchase an auto on credit,
and he filed a class action lawsuit against TransUnion for
violating the Act. A class of 8,165 members was certified, but only
1,853 members of the class including Ramirez had the damaging
credit reports disseminated by TransUnion to potential creditors.
The remaining 6,332 class members had wrong alerts in their
individual credit files, but that wrong information had not been
disseminated to any third parties.

The case proceeded to trial where the jury returned a verdict for
the class plaintiffs awarding each class member $984.22 in
statutory damages and $6, 353.08 in punitive damages for a total
award of more than $60 million. The Ninth Circuit in a split
decision affirmed but reduced the punitive damages. A dissenting
Ninth Circuit judge argued that only the 1,853 class members whose
reports were disseminated by TransUnion to third parties had
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to sue
and recover damages.

Decision

The Supreme Court agreed that the 1,853 class members whose reports
were disseminated to third parties suffered concrete harm and thus
had Article III standing to pursue damages in a private action
under the Act. As to the other 6,332 class members who merely had
wrong information in their credit files that was not disclosed to
any third party, the Court held they had suffered no concrete harm
and therefore lacked the necessary standing to bring a private
right of action under the Act.

The Court further ruled that none of the 8,165 class members except
for the named plaintiff Ramirez could recover damages because of
TransUnion's violation of the Act's formatting requirements for
disclosure of credit information. The class claimed that
TransUnion's mailings of credit reports to them were "formatted
incorrectly and deprived them of their right to receive information
in the format required by statute". But the Court ruled that except
for the named plaintiff Ramirez, there was no showing that any
other class member opened the mailings they received from
TransUnion or had relied on the information sent in any way.
According to the Court, "without evidence of harm caused by the
format of the mailings", these violations were mere procedural,
statutory violations divorced from concrete harm which could not
support Article III standing.

The Court emphasized that merely because a statute grants a person
a statutory right and authorizes that person to sue to vindicate
that right does not by itself satisfy the injury in fact
requirement of Article III standing. Even where a defendant
violates a statute, a plaintiff could not bring suit to recover
damages for that statutory violation unless the plaintiff could
show that he/she was "concretely harmed" by the statutory
violation. In simple words, the Supreme Court said: "No concrete
harm, no standing".

Learning Points: Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion shows just how
much of an impact Ramirez might have in future class action
litigation involving statutory right of actions. Justice Thomas'
dissent indicates that the days might be over when class
plaintiffs' lawyers can sue for just procedural, statutory
violations, pocketing millions of dollars in attorney's fees
without showing that each individual class member has suffered a
specific concrete harm. In describing the majority opinion, Justice
Thomas stated:

This approach is remarkable in both its novelty and effects. Never
before has this Court declared that legal injury is inherently
insufficient to support standing." (Emphasis in original)

One litigation area where Ramirez type arguments should be analyzed
and made is in defending class action lawsuits now being bought in
federal court in Illinois claiming violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act. (BIPA) My colleagues Brian
Riordan and Alexander Brinson of our Technology & Cyber Group
recently provided our friends in the insurance and business
community with an update on standing to sue issues involving the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act prior to the release of
the Ramirez decision. They showed that in decisions issued prior to
Ramirez, courts had allowed plaintiffs to file BIPA claims in
federal court, and to find standing for those claims, if plaintiffs
could "craft" allegations that BIPA violations caused personal and
particularized harm. Certainly, the Ramirez analysis and decision
might now prove to be an additional defense "arrow in the quiver"
to defeat future actions under BIPA, where, despite "crafty"
allegations, only procedural, statutory violations are being
alleged without the necessary concrete harm Ramirez now requires.
[GN]

UBS FINANCIAL: Goodman Sues Over Incorrectly Reported Tax Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Goodman, Individually And As Trustee of the Richard M.
Goodman Revocable Living Trust, And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-18123-KM-MAH (D.N.J., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant on behalf of a Class of all persons in the United States,
who on or after January 1, 2014 acquired taxable municipal
securities in an account maintained by the Defendant, and who
received a Form 1099 from the Defendant incorrectly reporting the
amount of amortizable bond premium, thereby sustaining financial
harm as a result.

According to the complaint, beginning with the 2014 tax year, the
Defendant incorrectly reported certain tax information to its
clients relating to interest paid on taxable municipal bonds, in
violation of clear Treasury Regulations and in violation of the
Defendant's own representations to its clients regarding its
practices and policies for such tax information reporting. The
Defendant failed to report amortizable bond premium for taxable
municipal bonds as required by applicable Treasury Regulations.
Defendant's incorrect tax information reporting to clients had the
effect of substantially overstating the clients' taxable income
costing money to the plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant's
incorrect tax information reporting was negligent and in breach of
the Defendant's contractual and fiduciary duties owed to its
clients.

As a direct result of the Defendant's incorrect tax information
reporting, the Defendant's clients, including the Plaintiff and the
Class, incurred harm including but not limited to substantial tax
overpayments. Based on information and belief, the Defendant's
wrongful conduct has harmed the Class by at least tens of millions
of dollars. The Defendant has admitted, in a series of belatedly
"corrected" tax information reporting forms, to overstating
Plaintiff's taxable income for the 2015-2018 period by a total of
over $100,000, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the trustee of the Richard M. Goodman Revocable
Living Trust and the Trust were clients of UBS during the period.

UBS, as part of one of the world's largest financial institutions,
provides securities brokerage services to its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Garth Spencer, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Email: gspencer@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          William H. Goodman, Esq.
          GOODMAN HURWITZ & JAMES, P.C.
          1394 E Jefferson Ave
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Phone: (313) 567-6170
          Email: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com


ULTA BEAUTY: Claims in Hansber's 2nd Amended Complaint Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN HANSBER, NANG CHAN, and JESUS MORENO, on behalf
of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiffs v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00022-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion dismiss.

Ulta moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second-amended complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively,
to strike portions of the pleading under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f).

Background

In the class action lawsuit, Susan Hansber, Nang Chan, and Jesus
Moreno are suing their former employer, Ulta, on grounds that it
violated California wage-and-hour and unfair competition laws.

On July 10, 2020, Hansber filed an initial complaint in state
court, naming as defendants Ulta and Does 1-100. Then, on Nov. 4,
2020, Hansber, Chan, and Moreno filed a first-amended complaint
against Ulta, Spherion Staffing, LLC, and the Doe defendants.
Spherion removed the action to the Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d). Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a second-amended
complaint, wherein they pleaded nine causes of action against only
Ulta and the Doe defendants.

In the second-amended complaint, which is the operative pleading,
the Plaintiffs allege that they formerly worked as non-exempt,
hourly workers in Defendants' California warehouse and distribution
facilities. They seek to represent a class of similarly situated
non-exempt, hourly workers for purposes of nine causes of action:
(1) failure to pay straight-time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; (4) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6)
failure to pay separation wages; (7) failure to timely pay wages;
(8) violations of California's unfair competition law; and (9)
entitlement to civil penalties under California's Private Attorney
General Act.

Ulta now moves to dismiss the second-amended complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) or to strike portions of the pleading under Rule 12(f).

Discussion

Ulta challenges the Plaintiffs' second-amended complaint in
numerous ways, some affecting the entire pleading and others
affecting particular claims for relief.

Judge Ishii starts with the broadest challenges before turning to
the narrower, claim-specific arguments.

A. Class definition

Ulta contends that the putative class is overbroad, ill-defined,
and unascertainable, and that these problems fatally undermine the
class certification allegations as well as the Plaintiffs' further
pursuit of class recovery.

In the second-amended complaint, the putative class is defined as
follows: "All non-exempt, hourly workers who were employed and/or
performed services for Defendant and/or DOES, either directly for
Defendant and/or DOES, or through staffing agencies and/or other
third-party entities, in Defendant's and/or DOES'
warehouse/distribution facilities within the State of California
during the period of the relevant statute of limitations." The
Plaintiffs further define separate subclasses that associate with
particular causes of action and theories of relief.

Judge Ishii first notes that motions to dismiss or strike class
allegations under Rule 12 are generally disfavored, as these
contests often turn on issues that are more appropriately addressed
through motions for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. With this in mind, he approaches Ulta's instant
challenge, which expressly treads on traditional certification
inquiries (e.g., ascertainability of the putative class and
typicality of Plaintiffs as proposed class representatives), with
some skepticism. But that disfavor and skepticism aside, he says,
Ulta also has not shown that the disputed class allegations warrant
the requested relief. Even if its merits are considered, Ulta's
challenge does not convince that the Plaintiffs' class allegations
are insufficiently pleaded.

Ulta's contrary argument goes wrong by singularly focusing on the
overarching class definition as though it alone conclusively sets
forth who is covered by Plaintiffs' class claims, Judge Ishii
finds. The Plaintiffs' second-amended complaint is not similarly
deficient. Ulta's other argument dwells on the language "staffing
agencies and/or other third-party entities" in the overarching
class definition. The precise contours of the putative class are
based on the allegations of Ulta's unlawful conduct within the
pleaded claims, and not on whether individual class members were
hired directly by Ulta or placed with Ulta through a staffing
agency or other third-party entity. While this part of the putative
class definition may need to be modified as further proceedings
lend more certainty to the situation, the allegations are
sufficient to withstand Ulta's challenge.

B. Employer allegations

Ulta next contends that the second-amended complaint should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that
Ulta employed them. Each of the Plaintiffs' claims rests, in some
part, on the existence of an employment relationship between
Defendants and the putative class.

Under all three of these definitions, and contrary to Ulta's
contention, Judge Ishii holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged that Ulta employed the putative class. First, the
Plaintiffs have explicitly alleged that Ulta "exercised control
over the wages, hours, and/or working conditions of Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class throughout the liability period."
Second, by alleging that Ulta's Labor Code violations resulted from
knowing, intentional, or willful conduct or unlawful policies and
practices that it maintained, the Plaintiffs have also pleaded that
Ulta was the putative class's employer through the "suffer or
permit" standard. Finally, the Plaintiffs have also pleaded enough
for the Court to reasonably infer that, under a common-law theory,
Ulta employed the putative class of non-exempt, hourly workers. At
this stage, Ulta has not presented authority suggesting that the
Plaintiffs may not proceed with the employment allegations in the
second-amended complaint.

C. Meal and rest period claims

Ulta argues that the Plaintiffs' meal and rest period causes of
action should be dismissed for failure to plead sufficient factual
allegations to support plausible claims. The Plaintiffs allege that
these mandatory sacrifices of time -- for which they were
necessarily under the control of Ulta -- ensured that class members
did not receive duty-free meal or rest periods of a lawful length.

Judge Ishii holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently
state meal and rest period claims under California law. He finds
that the second-amended complaint identifies specific instances
where the named Plaintiffs were not provided with legally compliant
meal and rest periods despite becoming entitled to such breaks by
working shifts of a certain minimum length. The collective facts
are sufficient to, at the very least, give rise to a reasonable
inference that putative class members were entitled to meal and
rest periods that Ulta failed to provide. The Plaintiffs have
alleged that the meal and rest period violations were a product of
Ulta's uniformly applied policies and practices. At this
pre-certification stage, this is sufficient.

D. Wage statement claim

Ulta next challenges the Plaintiffs' wage statement claim under
California Labor Code Section 226. An employee who has suffered
injury as a result of his or her employer's "knowing and
intentional" failure to comply with Section 226(a) may recover the
greater of all actual damages or certain statutory penalties.

The Plaintiffs' wage statement cause of action is pleaded as a
wholly derivative claim. That is, they allege that Ulta failed to
pay to putative class members straight-time wages for all hours
worked and premium wages for meal and rest period violations under
Labor Code Section 226.7, and that these failures translated to
wage statement violations under Section 226.

Ulta initially challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' pleading
in two ways. First, it asserts that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
factual support for their assertion that Ulta's failure to comply
with Section 226(a) was "knowing and intentional." Ulta also
asserts that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that they
suffered a cognizable injury under Section 226(e).

In sum, Judge Ishii determines, as the Court has done before when
facing the same legal issue, that the Plaintiffs may proceed with
their wage statement claim, notwithstanding that it is wholly
derivative and in part derivative on their meal and rest period
claims. He finds that the wage statements misstated the actual
wages earned by the Plaintiffs.

E. Separation wages claim

Ulta next challenges the Plaintiffs' separation wages claim on
grounds of its insufficient pleading and its being derivative of
the meal and rest period claims. The latter challenge follows an
identical course as the discussion immediately above regarding the
derivative nature of the wage statement claim. Thus, in the case
too, the Court will reject Ulta's challenge and adhere to its
previous ruling in Finder that Section 226.7(c) premiums constitute
wages that are subject to the statutory framework for separation
wages penalties. This still leaves the pleading sufficiency
challenge.

Judge Ishii holds that the collective allegations, when taken as
true, at least support a reasonable inference that Ulta
intentionally chose not to pay wages that were due and payable to
separating putative class members. With this in hand, the
Plaintiffs' have pleaded a plausible claim for relief under Section
203.

F. Timely wages claim

Ulta next argues that the Plaintiffs' timely wages cause of action
should be dismissed on grounds that it is without allegations
supporting proper relief for violations of California Labor Code
Section 204. FFor their seventh cause of action, the Plaintiffs
allege that Ulta violated Section 204 and seek compensatory relief
under Section 210.

Judge Ishii finds that dismissal is necessary in the case, as the
Plaintiffs' pursuit of penalties under Section 210 for Ulta's
violations of Section 204 is not properly before the Court.
Instead, Section 210(b) dictates that employees can recover these
statutory penalties only by seeking administrative relief under
Section 98. The Plaintiffs' timely wages claim does not comport
with that instruction. Even so, Judge Ishii also recognizes here
that this does not end the Plaintiffs' pursuit of recovery for the
alleged timely wages violations. Rather, under Section 210(c), the
Plaintiffs are still able to pursue that recovery by enforcing a
PAGA claim. And as discussed in more detail below, Plaintiffs have
done precisely that in the second-amended complaint.

Because the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim is pleaded such that it is
dependent on the specific allegations under the timely wages claim,
Judge Ishii provides the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend
their pleading to ensure the PAGA claim still incorporates the
allegations of the dismissed claim.

G. UCL claim

Ulta raises two specific challenges to the Plaintiffs' unfair
competition law ("UCL") claim: That it is insufficiently pleaded
and that it seeks relief that is improper under the UCL. The
Plaintiffs base their UCL claim on the allegations undergirding
their straight-time wages, overtime wages, meal period, and rest
period causes of action. Ulta asserts that this claim must be
dismissed to the extent that the meal and rest period claims fail.
Because Judge Ishii finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded their meal and rest period claims, it rejects this
challenge.

Ulta next asserts that the UCL claim must be dismissed to the
extent it is predicated on claims that are remediable through
relief that is not restitution under the UCL. It contends this
precludes the Plaintiffs' pursuit of UCL recovery for unpaid
straight-time and overtime wages, and meal and rest period
violations under Section 226.7.

Judge Ishii disagrees. He states that earned wages that are due and
payable under the Labor Code are recoverable as restitution under
the UCL. In light of the rulings regarding the proper
characterization of Section 226.7(c) payments as wages, this
accounts for each basis on which the Plaintiffs' UCL claim is
made.

H. PAGA claim

Ulta finally challenges the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim on sufficiency
grounds. Similar to the UCL argument, Ulta asserts that the
Plaintiffs' PAGA claim must be dismissed to the extent that it is
derivative of their insufficiently pleaded claims. The Plaintiffs
base their PAGA claim on the allegations undergirding their
straight-time wages, overtime wages, meal period, rest period, wage
statement, separation wages, and timely wages causes of action.

With the exception of the timely wages claim under Section 204,
Judge Ishii has not found any of these underlying claims to have
been insufficiently pleaded. Moreover, in dismissing the timely
wages claim above, he recognized its allegations are properly
included as part of the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim. Thus, Judge Ishii
rejects Ulta's challenge.

Order

Accordingly, Judge Ishii granted in part and denied the Defendants'
motion. The seventh cause of action for timely wages violations
under California Labor Code Section 204 is dismissed with
prejudice. All references to injunctive relief and declaratory
relief are stricken. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an
amended complaint. If the Plaintiffs elect to file a third-amended
complaint, they must do so within 30 days of service of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/6nw7zsjj from Leagle.com.


UMG RECORDINGS: Bid to Sever Counterclaim in Waite Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
sever the Defendants' counterclaim against Plaintiff Susan Straw
Harris from the lawsuit captioned JOHN WAITE, et al., Plaintiffs v.
UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-1091 (LAK)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The putative class action arises from the Defendants' rejection of
termination notices issued pursuant to Section 203 of the Copyright
Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 203, which purport to terminate the
Plaintiffs' grants of copyrights to the Defendants. The operative
complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of two groups of
Plaintiffs.

Relevant in the case, Plaintiff Susan Straw Harris seeks
declaratory relief on behalf of a group of the Plaintiffs, who
served the Defendants with Section 203 notices of termination with
effective dates that have not yet occurred. The Defendants
counterclaim against Straw for copyright infringement and breach of
contract based on her alleged reproduction of the copyrighted work
that is the subject of her notice of termination.

On Nov. 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to sever the Defendants'
counterclaim against Straw from this action. The parties
subsequently agreed to stay the litigation, and the motion to
sever, by agreement, was denied without prejudice to renewal. That
stay expired on June 9, 2021, and the Plaintiffs moved to renew
their severance motion on June 16, 2021. The Court granted the
motion to renew and, for the reasons discussed, now denies the
underlying motion to sever.

The Court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to sever. See
United States v. Alvarado, 882 F.2d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 1989). In
doing so, it considers (1) whether the claims arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence; (2) whether the claims present some
common questions of law or fact; (3) whether settlement of the
claims or judicial economy would be facilitated; (4) whether
prejudice would be avoided if severance were granted; and (5)
whether different witnesses and documentary proof are required for
the separate claims (N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. Fox News Network,
LLC, 312 F.R.D. 111, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)).

With regard to the first factor, claims arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence if there is a logical relationship
between them. The Court keeps in mind also that the joinder of
claims is strongly encouraged and that severance should generally
be granted only in exceptional circumstances, citing Compania
Embotelladora del Pacifico v. Pepsi Cola Co., 256 F.R.D. 131, 133
(S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Based on these considerations, and for many of the reasons
explained in the Defendants' opposition brief, the Court concludes
that severance is not warranted here. The Defendants' counterclaim
involves the same copyrighted work and agreement at issue in
Straw's claim against the Defendants. In addition, Straw's Section
203 notice of termination likely will be relevant to Straw's intent
with regard to the Defendants' infringement claim. It would be
inefficient to sever these claims, Judge Kaplan points out.

Accordingly, the motion to sever is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/r2vd3anw from
Leagle.com.


UNDERLINING BEAUTY: Stoddard FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRITTANY STODDARD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNDERLINING BEAUTY, LLC d/b/a
NAILBOO, Case No. 2021CA001499, was removed from the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Saint Lucie County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
October 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-14414 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by making unlawful telephonic
sales calls without prior express written consent.

Underlining Beauty, LLC, doing business as Nailboo, is a cosmetics
company based in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
         Yaniv Adar, Esq.
         MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
         80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 374-0440
         E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
                 yaniv@markmigdal.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Hansen Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HANSEN AND JASON BUFFER, Plaintiffs v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 cv 2142 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied without prejudice
United's motion to strike class allegations from the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint.

Background

Plaintiffs Hansen and Buffer filed the putative nationwide class
action alleging breach of contract by Defendant United for failure
to refund travel fares in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case arises out of the numerous United flight cancellations
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs allege they sought
refunds from United for cancelled travel plans but were offered
only credits for future travel. They allege United's refusal to
extend refunds constitutes a breach of its Contract of Carriage
("COC").

The COC groups cancellations into two categories: "Voluntary"
cancellations and "Involuntary" cancellations. For a "Voluntary"
cancellation of a refundable the ticket, the COC allows for a
refund. However, there is no refund for a "Voluntary" cancellation
of a non-refundable ticket. Instead, the COC provides that United
may allow part of the non-refundable fare to be applied to
purchases of future travel, like a travel credit.

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges a breach of contract and seeks
refunds on behalf of a proposed class.

The proposed class definition is currently as follows: " All
persons in the United States that purchased tickets for travel on
United Airlines flights scheduled to operate to, from, or within
the United States from March 1, 2020, to the date of class
certification and who were not issued a refund for cancelled and/or
significantly changed flights on which the passenger does not
travel."

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs assert subclass claims on behalf
of class members in their respective home states.

Mr. Buffer purchased two roundtrip tickets for travel beginning on
March 19, 2020, from New York City to Athens, Greece via Frankfurt,
Germany. His tickets cost $668. About four days before his
departure, a United representative informed Mr. Buffer that at
least one leg of his trip was cancelled and offered him a rebooking
or cancellation of the remainder of his trip with flight credits.
Mr. Buffer alleges he declined the offer for credits, and United
denied his request for a refund.

Mr. Hansen, through travel booking website Expedia, purchased four
roundtrip United tickets for travel on March 28, 2020, from
Vancouver, British Columbia, to Liberia, Costa Rica, with a
connecting flight in Houston, Texas. He paid $1,483.40 for his
tickets. In the days leading up to the trip, United changed Mr.
Hansen's itinerary several times. United then cancelled a portion
of his itinerary, and ultimately cancelled the remainder of his
trip two days before departure. It issued Mr. Hansen a flight
credit. Mr. Hansen contacted both Expedia and United for a refund,
to no avail.

On Feb. 12, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part
United's motion to dismiss the complaint. It dismissed former
Plaintiff Rudolph's claim, as well as Plaintiff Hansen's claim to
the extent he sought a refund for the portions of his itinerary
that involved an arrival in or departure from Costa Rica. The Court
gave the Plaintiffs a chance to amend the aspects of their
complaint that were dismissed without prejudice.  In a telephone
status hearing on Feb. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs indicated they
would not be amending the complaint. On March 12, 2021, United
filed the instant motion to strike.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification.
Accordingly, Judge Durkin's review is limited to whether the class
allegations in the complaint are facially and inherently defective
to establish a class action. As a preliminary matter, the
Plaintiffs argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), which allows the Court
to strike "any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter," governs United's motion to
strike, and that United has waived any objections to the class
allegations for failure to move to strike contemporaneously with
its motion to dismiss.

Judge Durkin opines that the Plaintiffs are incorrect. He explains
that courts in the District evaluate motions to strike class
allegations under Rule 23, not Rule 12(f). He therefore declines to
deny United's motion on this basis.

United makes three principal arguments in support of its motion to
strike. First, United argues the proposed class definition is
improper. Second, United contends the complaint lacks questions of
law or fact common to the class as required by Rule 23(a). Third,
it argues that any common questions of law or fact do not
predominate over individual questions and that a class action is
not superior to other available methods of adjudicating the
controversy under Rule 23(b)(3).

I. Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Definition

United points out that the proposed definition does not reflect
several key COC provisions governing refund eligibility. First, the
proposed definition is not limited to passengers affected by
involuntary cancellations despite the COC's express provision that
there are no refunds in the event of a voluntary cancellation.
Second, the proposed definition is not limited to involuntary
cancellations due to a Schedule Change or Irregular Operations, and
as a result includes cancellations caused by a Force Majeure Event,
despite the fact that the COC does not provide a refund for such
passengers. Based on these arguments, United contends the
Plaintiffs have not identified a properly defined class. United
cites Vann v. Dolly, Inc., 2020 WL 902831 at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25,
2020) in urging the Court to strike the class allegations.

Judge Durkin does not view the Plaintiffs' proposed class to be so
unmanageable as it would be appropriate to strike the allegations
at the pleading stage. In addition, United filed the instant motion
at an early stage of the case, before the Court had ruled on its
motion to dismiss, before discovery, and before the Plaintiffs have
moved for class certification. While United's arguments may have
some merit, it is more appropriate to address the class definition
at a later stage in the case.

Furthermore, Judge Durkin opines that if United is correct and the
Court later determines that the Plaintiffs' proposed class
definition needs modification, the Court will have broad discretion
to address such modifications. Judge Durkin will not, at this early
stage, strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations because of the
proposed definition's alleged overbreadth.

II. Commonality under Rule 23(a)

United argues that the class allegations fail to meet Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirement. Specifically, it argues that the
Plaintiff's list of common legal and factual questions, do not
address an issue central to the validity of each one of the claims,
nor do they allow for class-wide resolution.

Judge Durkin opines that the question of commonality is better
addressed at the certification stage after the parties have had the
benefit of discovery. United has not shown that the class
allegations in the complaint are so facially and inherently
defective as to prevent a class claim, and the motion will not be
granted on this basis. United may re-raise the issue at the class
certification stage.

III. Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)

United argues the Plaintiffs cannot show that common questions of
law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only
individual class members. It argues that at the motion to dismiss
stage, the Court had to examine the complaint's particularized
factual allegations about each plaintiff to determine whether they
had sufficiently pled a valid breach of contract claim. It argues
its affirmative defenses demonstrate that the claims of each
putative class member will need to be assessed individually to
determine whether the member has already been compensated for the
cancelled flights through other means -- such as successfully
disputing the credit card charge or receiving a travel insurance
settlement.

Judge Durkin holds that the Court remains unconvinced that the
complaint is so defective as to warrant striking the class action
claims at the pleading stage. Fist, predominance fails where
"affirmative defenses will require a person-by-recovery." Second,
the need to examine the particular facts of the case in order to
analyze predominance demonstrates why United's motion to strike is
premature. Finally, United simply reiterates its argument that the
individual claims of each class member will need to be assessed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Durkin denied United's motion to
strike class allegations from the First Amended Complaint without
prejudice to it re-raising these issues at the certification
stage.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ntusmj6k from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Deadline Extension to Reply to Class Cert Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANDREW J. BRIGIDA, et al., v.
PETER P.M. BUTTIGIEG, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02227-DLF (D.D.C.), the Parties asks the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs'
renewed Motion for Class Certification.

On September 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their renewed Motion
for Class Certification. The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion is due on or before October 15, 2021, with Plaintiffs' reply
to follow on October 29, 2021. A joint report proposing a schedule
for discovery is due on November 18, 2021.

Accordingly, the parties agreed on the following proposed
schedule:

   -- The Defendant's opposition to          October 26, 2021
      Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification;

   -- Plaintiffs' reply in support           November 18, 2021
      of their motion for class
      certification;

   -- The parties' Joint Status Report       December 10, 2021
      proposing a schedule for
      discovery.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pjiZsI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
          Carlotta P. Wells, Esq.
          Galen N. Thorp, Esq.
          Rebecca Cutri-Kohart, Esq.
          Michael Drezner, Esq.
          TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
          1100 L Street NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-4781
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
          E-mail: galen.thorp@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Miller Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SID MILLER, et al. v. TOM
VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00595-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor
entered an order denying Movants' requests to opt out of the
certified classes or amend the class certification order.

Movants are plaintiffs in five of the stayed lawsuits and are
members of the classes certified by this Court. They ask the Court
for permission to opt out of the certified classes so that they may
seek to lift the stays in their cases and continue to litigate
their claims in their chosen fora. The Defendant opposes the
opt-out motion on the grounds that fairness and efficiency concerns
warrant staying those lawsuits in favor of this class action.

The Court said, "Movants argue in the alternative that the Court
should revise the class certification to remove Movants. But
excluding Movants would undermine the very reasons the Court
certified the classes. In its certification order, the Court
observed that "[a]nswering Plaintiffs' substantive legal question
will provide a common answer for all class members regarding a
common issue of law: the availability of USDA program benefits to
them absent racial and ethnic discrimination." The Court concluded
that "'a single injunction or declaratory judgment' here 'would
provide relief to each member of the' classes." "Because granting
the requested relief would apply generally to the classes as a
whole," excluding Movants would cut directly against the very
reasons for Rule 23(b)(2) certification."

On July 1, 2021, the Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of
section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. In doing so,
the Court certified two classes under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2):

   (1) All farmers and ranchers in the United States who are
       encountering, or who will encounter, racial
       discrimination from the United States Department of
       Agriculture on account of section 1005 of the American
       Rescue Plan Act.

   (2) All farmers and ranchers in the United States who are
       currently excluded from the definition of "socially
       disadvantaged farmer or rancher," as defined in 7 U.S.C.
       section 2279(a)(5)-(6) and as interpreted by the
       Department of Agriculture.

Since February 24, 2021, the current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who
had previously served as the 30th secretary of agriculture in the
Obama administration.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E4NfvG at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Cuban Nationals
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned YARIBEL RABELO-RODRIGUEZ, et
al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as the U.S.
Secretary of the Department Homeland Security (DHS), Case No.
1:21-cv-23213-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying the following class of All Cuban nationals:

      "(1) who are "applicants for admission" under 8 U. S. C.
      section 1225(a)(1) that were not admitted into the U.S. in
      accordance with section 1101(a)(13)(A); (2) who were
      enlarged or released from DHS custody into the U.S. after
      January 12, 2017; (3) prior to the completion of
      proceedings contemplated by either 8 U. S. C. sections
      1225(b)(1) or (b)(2); and (4) who applied for adjustment
      of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966
      (CAA), Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (as amended),
      with U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
      but were denied that relief on the grounds that they did
      not demonstrate that they had been "inspected and admitted
      or paroled into the U.S.""

   2. appointing named plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel as class counsel.

Following the January 2017 conclusion of the special parole program
for Cuban nationals that was implemented in conformance with 8 U.
S. C. section 1225(b)(1)(F) -- colloquially referred to as the
"wet-foot/dry-foot policy" -- the Department of Homeland Security
continued to release Cuban nationals into the U.S. without keeping
them detained under sections 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). But rather than
document their parole into the U.S. under section 1182(d)(5), the
Department purported to "conditionally parole" these Cuban
nationals into the U.S. under the guise section 1226(a) as a method
to preclude them from obtaining the benefits that Congress has
historically offered to Cuban nationals under the Cuban Refugee
Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (as
amended).

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E1yw4D
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Richard Dominguez, Esq.
          Mark Andrew Prada, Esq.
          PRADA URIZAR, PLLC
          3191 Coral Way, Suite 500
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: (786) 703-2061
          Facsimile: (786) 238-2222
          E-mail: mprada@pradaurizar.com
                  adominguez@pradaurizar.com

UNITED STATES: To Reconsider Discharges in Vets Clinic Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
law.yale.edu reports that in a victory for the Veterans Legal
Services Clinic (VLSC), the Department of the Navy has agreed to
review the discharges of thousands of Veterans affected by
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury
(TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), and other behavioral or mental
health conditions. The agreement follows a settlement reached in
the nationwide class action lawsuit Manker v. Del Toro. A federal
court preliminarily approved the agreement on Oct. 12, 2021.

Under the agreement, the Navy will automatically reconsider certain
discharge-status-upgrade decisions made by the Naval Discharge
Review Board between March 2, 2012, and the effective date of
settlement, according to an announcement by the clinic. Those
previous decisions partially or fully denied upgrade relief to Navy
and Marine Corps veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan era with
general or other than honorable discharges. The settlement also
expands reapplication rights for eligible applicants who were
discharged and received an adverse decision from the board between
Oct. 7, 2001 and March 2, 2012.

"This settlement, if finally approved by the Court, will give
thousands of wrongfully discharged veterans experiencing PTSD, TBI,
and other mental health conditions the dignity, respect, and
benefits they deserve," said Brandon Baum '23, a student in the
clinic.

In addition, the Navy has agreed to implement a program enabling
applicants to appear before the review board by video
teleconference, more training for board members, and updated
protocols for decision-making in cases involving symptoms or
diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, MST, and other behavioral or mental health
conditions.

The lawsuit was first filed in March 2018. In November 2018, Senior
Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. of the District of Connecticut approved
the nationwide class action. In 2019, Haight denied the Navy's
request to dismiss the lawsuit and ordered the case to proceed to
discovery.

Nearly a dozen Yale Law School students have worked on the case
since its beginning.

"This settlement comes after over three years of litigation," said
Baum. "It's really exciting to see all that effort lead to
meaningful change for so many veterans."

The current case represents the latest in a series of actions
brought by the Veterans Legal Services Clinic against other
branches of the military on behalf of veterans who unfairly
received less-than-Honorable discharges. A federal court granted
final approval of a settlement reached in a nationwide class action
lawsuit against the U.S. Army on April 26, 2021. The clinic is also
litigating a new federal class action filed on behalf of thousands
of Air Force veterans who were separated less than Honorably from
the military.

A decision on whether to grant final approval of the settlement
will come in a hearing on Dec. 16, 2021.

The Veterans Legal Services Clinic, part of the Jerome N. Frank
Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, represents veterans
and veterans' organizations in individual and national litigation
and regulatory. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Brianna Arredondo v.
University of La Verne, Case No. 2:20-cv-07665-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order continuing the
discovery deadlines two weeks instead of six as follows:

   -- Deadline to File a Motion for Class     November 8, 2021
      Certification:

   -- Deadline to File an Opposition to       November 29, 2021
      the Motion for Class Certification:

   -- Deadline to File a Reply:               December 20, 2021

   -- Hearing Date on Motion for Class        January 3, 2022
      Certification                           at 9:00 a.m.

   -- Expert Disclosure (Initial):            January 18, 2022

   -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal):           February 16, 2022

   -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:           March 18, 2022

   -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:               April 15, 2022

A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated Oct. 12, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lZmPoK at no
extra charge.[CC]


VALVE CORP: Bid to Appoint Co-Lead Counsel in Wolfire Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, WOLFIRE GAMES, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VALVE
CORPORATION, Defendant. DARK CATT STUDIOS HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. VALVE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case Nos.
C21-0563-JCC, C21-0872-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, denied without prejudice both the counsels' motions to be
appointed interim co-lead class counsel in seemingly dueling class
actions.

There are two pending putative class action complaints alleging
that Valve Corporation impermissibly restrains trade in the PC
desktop gaming market. According to the complaints, Valve, through
its Steam Gaming Platform, controls the PC gaming market and
charges game publishers inflated prices for the right to sell games
in Valve's Steam Store and to sell add-on products and services
through its Steam Gaming Platform. PC gamers and publishers then
allegedly bear the inflated cost, and game publishers are further
harmed in other ways by Valve's market controlling practices.

In January 2021, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP first brought suit
on behalf of gamers in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP and Constantine Cannon LLP were next, filing a complaint in
this district on behalf of gamers and game publishers in April
2021. Collectively, the counsel sought leave of the Court to
consolidate these actions into a single action, which the Court
granted on May 20, 2021. The counsel then filed a consolidated
amended complaint on June 11, 2021. In that complaint, the counsel
named Wolfire Games, LLC as a lead game publisher plaintiff.

Shortly thereafter, on June 28, 2021, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati PC and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP filed their own
complaint against Valve in this district on behalf of just game
publishers (but not consumers), naming Dark Catt Studios Holdings,
Inc. as a lead publisher plaintiff. The factual allegations in the
Dark Catt complaint substantially overlap with those in the Wolfire
complaint, but they deviate in potentially critical ways. In
addition to alleging that Valve's anti-competitive practices allow
it to charge exorbitant fees to consumers and publishers, the Dark
Catt complaint also alleges that Valve uses a review system to
steer consumers toward games that Valve favors and away from ones
it disfavors, further harming game publishers.

The Wolfire counsel now move to be appointed the interim co-lead
class counsel for any putative class action brought against Valve
by a game publisher plaintiff, to the exclusion of counsel in the
competing suit. The Wolfire counsel argue that, to provide full
relief to all of the parties harmed by Valve's allegedly
anti-competitive practices and to maximize efficiency, all the
Plaintiffs should be in one suit and be represented by the same
counsel.

The Dark Catt counsel disagrees, pointing out that the monetary
benefit provided to a game publisher from a change in Valve's
practices would not necessarily be passed through, in its entirety,
to gamers. PC gamers' and publishers' interests are, therefore, not
aligned, because each group of plaintiffs would likely have
competing claims to any recovery and differing incentives when it
comes to proving the amount of recovery properly attributable to
each group.

Judge Coughenour explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(3) provides that the Court may designate interim class
counsel before certification of a class. Although Rule 23(g)(3)
does not provide a standard for appointment of interim counsel, he
says, courts typically look to the factors used in determining the
adequacy of class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A). Based on the
counsels' briefing and declarations to the Court, Judge Coughenour
finds there is little doubt that any combination of the Wolfire and
Dark Catt counsel would meet the requirements under Rule
23(g)(1)(A) to be appointed class counsel for game publishers. All
have done significant work in this matter and possess the requisite
experience, knowledge of the law, and resources to prosecute a
class action against Valve on behalf of game publishers.

The closer issue, though, is whether the counsel could adequately
and fairly represent the interests of those publishers, if also
representing game purchasers (or vice versa). While Judge
Coughenour appreciates the concerns the Wolfire counsel raise
regarding potential piggybacking by the Dark Catt counsel, he says,
it would be premature at this point to address the issue, in light
of the procedural posture of the case.

Valve has moved to (a) compel arbitration in the Wolfire suit
against the named consumer plaintiffs and (b) stay the claims of
all plaintiffs pending outcome of the arbitration. It has also
moved to dismiss the Wolfire plaintiffs' operative complaint, as
well as the Dark Catt plaintiffs' complaint.

Judge Coughenour holds that these motions should be addressed
before further consideration is given to the appointment of interim
lead class counsel, as they may resolve some of the claims
contained in the dueling complaints or, at a minimum, better inform
the parties about how best to proceed in the matter, including
potentially working out a representation arrangement without
needing the Court's intervention.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour denied the counsel's
motions to be appointed interim lead class counsel without
prejudice. The counsel may renew their motions once the Court
issues rulings on the pending motions to dismiss, to stay, and to
compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bwwfenb9 from Leagle.com.


VRX MEDIA GROUP: Bodde TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Benjamin Bodde, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VRX Media Group, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00320 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on Oct. 18, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01205-BHL to the
proceeding.

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

VRX Media -- https://vrxmedia.com/ -- is the leader in 3D Tours,
aerial services, and HDR photography for real estate and commercial
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Alan Gudino, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S-Ste 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 346-4879

               - and -

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia-Ste 1404
          San Diego, CA 92129
          Phone: (858) 299-5879

               - and -

          Jason A Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          321 North Mall Drive Suite R108
          St George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Glicksman, Esq.
          Gerald Kerska, Esq.
          KRAVIT HOVEL & KRAWCZYK SC
          825 N Jefferson St-5th Fl
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-3721
          Phone: (612) 361-2630
          Email: bjg@kravitlaw.com
                 gsk@kravitlaw.com

               - and -

          Phone: Mark Angert, Esq.
          SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH LLP
          401 B St-Ste 1200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-0303
          Fax: (619) 231-4755


WAYNE-KENT A. BRADSHAW: Nahra Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Nahra, Individually and on Behalf of All Situated, Others
Similarly v. WAYNE-KENT A. BRADSHAW, VIRGIL ROBERTS, ROBERT C.
DAVIDSON, JR., DANIEL A. MEDINA, DUTCH C. ROSS, III, ERIN SELLECK,
JACK T. THOMPSON, and BROADWAY CORPORATION, FINANCIAL, Case No.
21STCV36502 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 5, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for breaches of Defendants'
fiduciary duty of candor in connection with the financially unfair
merger between Broadway and CFBanc Corporation.

On August 25, 2020, the Defendants executed an agreement and plan
of merger with CFBanc pursuant to which CFBanc would merge into
Broadway in exchange for 13.626 shares of Broadway stock per share
of CFBanc. This consideration was worth $20.44 per CFBanc share
based on Broadway's closing share price of $1.50 as of the last
trading day before the announcement of the merger. The Defendants
obtained shareholder approval for the merger using a joint proxy
statement released February 11, 2021 that breached the Defendants'
duty of candor to Broadway shareholders.

The Proxy failed to disclose conflicts by Company insiders,
obscured that the merger had been self-servingly steered to CFBanc
by Bradshaw and the Board, and concealed the deal's lack of value
for Company shareholders by omitting key financial metrics.
Shareholders voted to approve the transaction on April 1, 2021 in
reliance on Defendants' misleading Proxy. The Defendants released
the materially false and misleading Proxy because control over the
Company's merger strategy had been captured by Bradshaw and further
insiders, who were conflicted because the merger with CFBanc
provided them with comfortable post-transaction roles and protected
the financial preferences of the Company's 29.60% owner, Gapstow
Capital Partners, an alternative investment firm based in New York
City affiliated with CJA Private Equity Financial Restructuring
Master Fund I, L.P.

These conflicts led Defendants to push aside significantly superior
offers by at least two other bidders, causing substantial financial
damage to Plaintiff and similarly situated Company shareholders
upon the transaction's consummation in April 2021. As shown below,
Defendants' conduct caused Company shareholders to lose out on a
premium that was already on the table by September 2019, failed to
deliver a transaction that provided shareholders with any value
over and above their existing interests, and caused Broadway
stockholders economic loss notwithstanding Broadway's outsized
contribution to the combined company. For these reasons, Plaintiff
asserts claims against Defendants for breaching their duties of
candor to Company shareholders, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Broadway.

Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw was, at all relevant times, the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Broadway.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Phone: (213) 446-6652
          Fax: (212) 202-7880


XTO ENERGY: Bone FLSA and NMMWA Suit Moved From D.N.M. to D. Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CORY BONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00697, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on
October 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-01460-UNA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated safety
consultants overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

XTO Energy, Inc. is a natural gas and oil producer operating
throughout the United States and Western Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         Lauren E. Braddy, 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
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com

ZOOSK INC: Leave to File Second Amended Flores-Mendez Suit Allowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN FLORES-MENDEZ, an individual and AMBER COLLINS,
an individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. ZOOSK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. C 20-04929 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants:

    (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their second
        amended complaint; and

   (ii) the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second claim for
        relief.

Background

In the putative class action by data-breach victims, Plaintiffs
Flores-Mendez and Collins subscribe to Defendant Zoosk's free
dating platform. The Plaintiffs had the options to join Zoosk for
free or to pay for a premium subscription service. Customers
provide their personal information to Zoosk upon joining. Zoosk's
privacy policy, which allegedly contains the company's
data-security-related representations, is generally directed to its
customers when they join.

The Plaintiffs allege injury from a massive data breach, which
allegedly occurred because Zoosk failed to protect their personal
information adequately. The proposed second amended complaint newly
alleges that before the announcement of the data breach, Plaintiff
Flores-Mendez paid for a premium subscription service. It further
alleges a subclass of other Zoosk subscription customers like
Flores-Mendez (the subscription subclass). Collins and others did
not pay for Zoosk services

A prior order dated Jan. 30, 2021, granted in part and denied in
part Zoosk's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, noting
that it had not alleged a claim for relief under California's
Unfair Competition Law at California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200.

The Plaintiffs now file a proposed second amended complaint
concurrently with their motion for leave to amend. In the proposed
second amended complaint, they attempt to cure the deficiencies in
their rejected Section 17200 claim. In addition, the second amended
complaint would delete former-defendant Spark Networks, SE, from
the action without prejudice. Zoosk opposes the motion to amend as
to the Section 17200 claim and moves to dismiss the Section 17200
claim.

The Order follows full briefing and a telephonic hearing.

Discussion

I. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend

To the extent stated at the hearing, Judge Alsup granted the motion
to amend.

II. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Zoosk maintains, just as it did at the first motion to dismiss,
that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a Section 17200 claim
because they have failed to allege that Zoosk's wrongdoing caused
economic injury, a necessary precondition for entitlement to relief
under Section 17200.

Judge Alsup agrees. He finds that the second amended complaint has
modified the Plaintiffs' claims to allege harm by detailing (a) the
subscription subclass, and (b) that, had the Plaintiffs known that
their personal information would not be adequately secured and
protected, they would not have used Zoosk's services. The second
amended complaint also alleges Zoosk's Privacy Policy assures its
customers their PII is secure.

Judge Alsup now addresses claims of the Plaintiffs who did not pay
for Zoosk's premium service, i.e. the non-subscription class
members. He then addresses claims of those who did, i.e. the
subscription subclass members.

A. Section 17200 Standing for Non-Subscription Class Members

For the non-subscription members, Judge Alsup finds that the
amended complaint once again fails to allege a "loss of money or
property." The Court's prior order dispensed with the Plaintiffs'
argument that the loss of their personal information constitutes an
economic loss for Section 17200-standing purposes. Notably, Judge
Alsup finds that the Plaintiffs have provided market valuation for
the personal information but have not specified how the data breach
impaired their ability to participate in the market for that
information. This lack of specificity is fatal.

The non-subscription class members also cannot prevail on a
restitution theory, Judge Alsup holds. The case is a diversity
action. The Plaintiffs do not state or otherwise explain how they
"lack an adequate remedy at law," so inclusion of a restitution
theory is unavailing.

B. Section 17200 Standing for Subscription Sub-Class Members

First, for the reasons stated, Judge Alsup rejects the subscription
subclass' argument that loss of personal information constitutes an
economic loss for purposes of Section 17200 standing. He finds that
the second amended complaint has failed to allege that the
subscriber Plaintiffs knew of and considered Zoosk's privacy
misrepresentations at the time of purchase, either by reading the
statement or because it appeared in any of the materials he saw
(binding terms of service, advertisements, etc.).

Next, Judge Alsup addresses Zoosk's argument that the Plaintiffs
have not alleged payment "in connection with" Zoosk's
representation. He does so solely because the issue may arise in a
future amendment. Zoosk's argument on this point fails, he says.
Judge Alsup finds that not one of Zoosk's cited decisions required
an allegation that the Plaintiffs believed their money would go to
additional data security. The policy in In re Marriott Int'l, Inc.,
Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 440 F.Supp.3d 447 (D. Md. 2020)
(Judge Paul W. Grimm), for instance, applied to all who logged in
to Marriott's website for free, even before they booked a stay. The
implication is that the Marriott complaint did not specifically
allege that the plaintiffs believed their payment went to more
data-security measures than Marriott had already promised in its
privacy policy.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup grants Zoosk's motion to
dismiss to the extent stated. The Plaintiffs are invited to move
for leave to amend, with respect to the Section 17200 claim. Any
motion will be due by Oct. 28, 2021, at noon.

Any such motion must include as an exhibit a redlined version of
the proposed amendment that clearly identifies all changes from the
current complaint. The Order highlighted certain deficiencies in
the complaint, but it will not necessarily be enough to add
sentences parroting each missing item identified or doing what this
order calls "the bare minimum."

If the Plaintiffs move for leave to file another amended complaint,
they should be sure to plead their best case and account for all
criticisms, including those not reached by the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52xu2z84 from Leagle.com.


[*] Laclede County Commission Plans to Join Opioid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Myozarksonline.com reports that a lawsuit which claims that several
drug manufacturers are at least partially responsible for the
opioid epidemic throughout the United States. Now, it seems Laclede
County is considering joining the suit. Presiding Commissioner
Randy Angst said they have been contacted by the Attorney General's
Office.

Counties in Missouri are being asked if they want to sign on for
the class action lawsuit, and Angst said counties might not be able
to receive funds if they don't join the suit.[GN]

[*] New Tool for Defendants Against TCPA Class Cert. Bid Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
winston.com reports that on September 30, U.S. District Court Judge
Rodney Smith denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") class action in which the named plaintiff
"deceptively" prolonged calls to bolster his claims for damages.
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Johansen
v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., No. 20-81076, at *10-11
(S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2021). This decision gives defendants a new
tool, in TCPA matters and beyond, to potentially help defeat class
certification.

The TCPA allows consumers to bring lawsuits in several situations,
including cases where they allegedly receive more than one unwanted
telemarketing call within 12 months from the same entity. 47
U.S.C.A. Sec 227 et seq. Plaintiffs can seek between $500 and
$1,500 in statutory damages for each alleged violation of the law.
Id. Sec 227(b)(3).

In Johansen, the named plaintiff, Kenneth Johansen, testified
during his deposition that he had been a plaintiff in about 60
previous TCPA class actions and has made roughly $60,000 a year in
TCPA lawsuits since 2014. Id. at *1-2. The Court found that
Johansen would "pose[ ] as a customer of the entity responsible for
initiating the telemarketing call and induce[ ] the representative
into believing that he [was], in fact, an established customer and
genuinely interested in the product or service offer, thereby
prolonging the purported injury that Plaintiff claims to have
suffered and increasing the potential damages that he could, in
theory, recover." Id. at *10. Johansen "readily admit[ted] that his
conduct . . . was deceptive," but argued "deception is appropriate
behavior for a class representative." Id. at *3.

The Court denied class certification because it found Johansen's
claims were not typical of the putative class. The Court held the
claims were not typical because "Plaintiff's claim is inherently
different than those of the putative class members who presumably
did not use similarly deceitful methods." Id. at 8. Specifically,
the Court found that Johansen's deceit would "necessitate[ ]" a
further inquiry into Plaintiff Article III standing, given it was
not clear his injury was fairly traceable to defendant's conduct.
Id. The Court further found that Johansen was "an inadequate class
representative." Id. at 11. The Court held that Johansen was not an
adequate representative because "the Court has serious concerns
about the Plaintiff's credibility, honesty, trustworthiness, and
motives in bringing forth [the] putative class action." Id.

It is not uncommon for class action defendants to be across the
table from professional plaintiffs-even outside the TCPA context.
Johansen gives defendants opposing class certification a new tool
to argue that certain serial plaintiffs should not be permitted to
represent a putative class where it can be shown that the named
plaintiff engaged in deceptive and dishonest tactics in order to
craft a claim. [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 ***