/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211027.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 27, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 209

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Bomar Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Charlie Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Dube Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Roberts Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Gonzales Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Lee Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Washington Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
6G MANAGEMENT: Misclassifies Utility Inspectors, Collram Says
ACASTI PHARMA: Objection to Lead Plaintiff Bid in Bisel Due Dec. 21
ADVANCE STORES: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Pagans Suit Alleges

ADVENTHEALTH UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Kislov's Bid to Remand to State Court Granted
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: LippSmith Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS: Christion-Hunt Sues Over Unpaid Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Nia Suit Removed to S.D. California

BANKAMERICA CORP: Denial of Oetting's Bid to Recheck Fees Affirmed
BARRY UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BELKIN INT'L: Shepherd Sues Over Falsely Advertised WiFi Speeds
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Atty. to File Proposed Judgment in Messer Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Troogstad Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

CLASSPASS INC: Tipsy Nail Sues Over False Affiliation & Advertising
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: $95MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 20
COOK COUNTY, IL: Lukaszyczyk Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CREDIT BUREAU: Calhoun Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
CREDIT CORP: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Deadline & Discovery

CREST MORTGAGE: Romero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL: Hosey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DAPPER LABS: Rosen Named Lead Counsel in Friel Securities Suit
DCD DELIVERY: Kotecki Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DESERT FINANCIAL: Court Wants More Briefing in Cornell Class Suit

DEUTSCHE BANK: Summary Judgment Granted for Banks in Lima Suit
DREEM GREEN: Faces Tuck FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Tipped Wages
ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Suit With Prejudice Reversed
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FAMILY FIRST: Suescum Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages

GOLDEN OCALA: Alexander Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GOOD SHEPHERD: Gray Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages and OT
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Underpays Adjusters, Pugliese Suit Claims
HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: Jarnagin's Class Cert. Bid in Riley Suit Nixed
HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: Sends Telemarketing Robocalls, Moore Says

HUHTAMAKI INC: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 18, 2022
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
JEROME'S FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elam Suit Alleges
JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUMPP LOGISTICS: Cervenka Sues Over Couriers' Unpaid OT Wages

KEESLER FEDERAL: Miller Sues Over Improper ODT Fees Collection
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bain Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bemiss Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Drake Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Farmer Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Feick Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Goldberg Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
KUDA LEATHER: Rauda Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 19
LEXINGTON GOLF: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks

LINKUS HOLDINGS: Dailey Files ERISA Class Action in Calif.
LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: SEC Approves Second Distribution Plan
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Court Tosses Thai Class Certification Bid
LOVE STYLE: Faces Worrall Suit Over Fraudulent Information Return
LVNV FUNDING: Howards Seek to Certify Class

MANDEL GROUP: Terry Sues Over Unpaid OT for Leasing Consultants
MCCREARY VESELKA: Appeal From Class Cert. Ruling in Perez Pending
MICHAEL STINSON: Court Certifies Class in Gibbs Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Troutt Sues Over Mislabeled Shortbread Cookies
MPKS INC: Dancers Seek Minimum Wage, Hits Misclassification

OMEGA FAMILY: Hopeful Parents Slam Fake Insurance Policies
PEPPER ASIAN: Aguilar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Hits Missed Breaks
PFIZER INC: Abreu Sues Over Carcinogen in Quit-Smoking Drug
PHILLIPS 66: Faces Galindo Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
PLAQUEMAKER.COM INC: Court Enters Consent Decree in Quezada Suit

RKB ABOVE: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ventura Suit Alleges
ROHR INC: Hearing on Class Status Bid Reset to Jan. 14, 2022
TIMELESS BEAUTY: Mota Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
TOO COOL: Colvin Slams Tip Credit, Seeks Minimum Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Certiorari Petition in Rosales Suit

UNITED STATES: Schools and CCCU May Intervene in Hunter v. DepEd
VERDE ENERGY: Court Enters Joint Status Report in Davis Suit
WALMART INC: Underpays Retail Store Employees, Guzman Suit Claims
WATTS WATER: Faces Stein Suit Over Alleged DGCL Non-Compliance

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Bomar Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BOMAR, 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-03417-RMG
(D.S.C., October 19, 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, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Charlie Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELE CHARLIE, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor
of the Estate of ALBERT CHARLIE JR., deceased, 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-03436-RMG (D.S.C., October 20, 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 by Decedent Albert Charlie Jr. 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 Decedent, 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 Decendent 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,
the Decedent was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and testicular
cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3M COMPANY: Dube Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIEN HERVE DUBE, 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-03444-RMG
(D.S.C., October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Roberts Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER C. ROBERTS, 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-03441-RMG
(D.S.C., October 20, 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, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Gonzales Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR BENJAMIN GONZALES JR., 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-03438-RMG
(D.S.C., October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

3M COMPANY: Lee Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND PAUL LEE, 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-03445-RMG
(D.S.C., October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Washington Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CHARLES WASHINGTON, 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-03440-RMG
(D.S.C., October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

6G MANAGEMENT: Misclassifies Utility Inspectors, Collram Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRANT COLLRAM on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 6G MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00104-SPW-TJC (D. Mont., Oct. 12, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and Class Members as exempt
from overtime.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant from September 2019 to
January 2020 as a utility inspector, asserts that the Defendant
failed to pay him and the Class Members at the rate of time and one
half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

6G Management Services, Inc. is a company that operates in the oil
and gas industry to provide pipeline construction and inspection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Torrance L. Coburn, Esq.
          TIPP, COBURN & ASSOCIATES PC
          2200 Brooks Street, P.O. Box 3778
          Missoula, MT 59806-3778
          Telephone: (406) 549-5186
          E-mail: torrance@tcsattorneys.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

ACASTI PHARMA: Objection to Lead Plaintiff Bid in Bisel Due Dec. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAUDEN BISEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ACASTI PHARMA, INC., RODERICK
CARTER, JAN D'ALVISE, JOHN CANAN, and DONALD OLDS, Defendants, Case
No. 21 Civ. 6051 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered that the opposition to any motion for appointment of lead
plaintiff will be served and filed by Dec. 21, 2021.

On Oct. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of certain stockholders in Acasti. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a); Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a); and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.14a-9.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section  78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that not later than 20 days after
the date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff or
plaintiffs will cause to be published, in a widely circulated
national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice
advising members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I) of the
pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period (II) that, not later than 60 days after the
date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported
class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
purported class.

The PSLRA also requires that not later than 90 days after the date
on which a notice is published under subparagraph (A)(i), the court
will consider any motion made by a purported class member in
response to the notice, including any motion by a class member who
is not individually named as a plaintiff in the complaint or
complaints, and will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or
members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines
to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of
class members. In the event that "more than one action on behalf of
a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been
filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for
pretrial purposes or for trial, the Court will not" appoint a lead
plaintiff "until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is
rendered."

The Plaintiff's counsel published the required notice on Oct. 7,
2021. Members of the purported class therefore have until Dec. 6,
2021, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Accordingly, Judge Failla ordered that the opposition to any motion
for appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by Dec.
21, 2021. A conference will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Jan. 5, 2022,
in Courtroom 618, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40
Foley Square, New York, New York to consider any motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for
consolidation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8zu39tr3 from Leagle.com.


ADVANCE STORES: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Pagans Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENIECE PAGANS and JANET SWEET, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY,
INCORPORATED and THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF ADVANCE AUTO PARTS,
INC. 401(k) PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00549-MFU (W.D. Va.,
October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of duties of loyalty and prudence and breach of duty to
diversify investments in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have not followed
ERISA's standard of care in the management of the Advance Auto
Parts, Inc. 401(k) Plan by: (1) choosing expensive mutual funds
when otherwise identical but cheaper funds were available, (2)
paying covered service providers excessive compensation, and (3)
failing to diversify. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
mismanagement of the plan, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
plan participants have suffered losses.

Advance Stores Company, Incorporated is a retailer and distributor
of automotive parts and accessories, with a principal place of
business in Roanoke, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Andrew L. Fitzgerald, Esq.
         FITZGERALD LITIGATION
         119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 402
         Winston-Salem, NC 27101
         Telephone: (336) 793-4696
         Facsimile: (336) 793-4698
         E-mail: andy@fitzgeraldlitigation.com

                 - and –

         Aaron B. Houchens, Esq.
         AARON B. HOUCHENS, P.C.
         111 E. Main Street
         P.O. Box 1250
         Salem, VA 24153
         Telephone: (540) 389-4498
         Facsimile: (540) 339-3903

ADVENTHEALTH UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adventhealth
University, Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Adventhealth
University, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08650 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21,
2021).

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

AdventHealth University -- https://www.ahu.edu/ -- provides a
healthcare education with a focus on whole-person care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Kislov's Bid to Remand to State Court Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX KISLOV and NIKO HEARN, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN AIRLINES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17 C 9080 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand Count I to state Court, and terminated
as moot their motion to stay.

Background

Alex Kislov and Niko Hearn allege that Defendant American has
violated various provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"). The case was filed
initially in state court in 2017 by a different named Plaintiff,
Edward Kowalski, who was an employee of American. The Defendant
removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

After protracted settlement negotiations and developments in BIPA
litigation, American moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction -- effectively a motion seeking judgment on the
grounds that Plaintiff Kowalski's claim was subject to mandatory
arbitration under the Railway Labor Act. The Court then granted
Kowalski leave to file an amended complaint to remedy the defects
American had identified. In June 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Complaint, replacing the original named plaintiff with
Kislov and Hearn and asserting a new theory of BIPA liability.

American is a Delaware corporation doing business in Illinois. It
operates a global fleet of aircraft making thousands of flights per
day and provides a 24-hour customer service hotline. Beginning in
approximately July 2011, the Defendant integrated "Interactive
Voice Response" ("IVR") software into its customer service hotline
in order to "better achieve customer service goals and reduce call
agent volumes." It uses a cloud-based IVR software that "saves all
of the data obtained during the phone call in a cloud based server"
managed by a third-party software provider.

The Defendant's IVR software "collects and analyzes callers' actual
voiceprints to understand the caller's request and to automatically
respond with a personalized response," rather than a menu of
options. Its own IVR software vendor has publicly stated that the
software uses "voice biometrics." The Plaintiffs further allege
that the software collects and stores individuals' unique
voiceprints to track whether an individual has previously
interacted with the company.

Plaintiffs Alex Kislov and Niko Hearn are residents and citizens of
Illinois. Kislov called American's customer service hotline in
December 2019 from within the state of Illinois. According to
Kislov, he was greeted by a recorded voice stating that the call
may be recorded for quality control purposes. An automated voice
then asked how it could assist him. The Plaintiff alleges that when
he vocally interacted with the IVR software, "it captured and
stored the unique biometric signatures of his voice, i.e., his
voiceprint."

Plaintiff Hearn has called American's customer service hotline
multiple times since December 2020 while in the state of Illinois.
The purpose of these calls was to resolve issues pertaining to
flights departing from Illinois. Hearn alleges that when he vocally
interacted with American's IVR software, it captured and stored his
voiceprint.

Both Plaintiffs allege they were unaware that American's software
collected, analyzed, and stored their unique voiceprints. Despite
coming into possession of the Plaintiffs' biometric information,
the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendant "failed to establish a
publicly-available biometric retention and destruction policy as
required by law." American also failed to obtain the Plaintiffs'
informed written consent to collect, capture, or store their
biometric data. Finally, the Defendant disclosed or disseminated
the Plaintiffs' voice biometrics to the IVR software vendor, again
without their consent.

The Plaintiffs allege that American is a "private entity" within
the meaning of BIPA, and that the Defendant violated BIPA "by
collecting, possessing, and disclosing their voiceprint identifiers
without complying with BIPA's mandates." They bring three counts
against American for various BIPA violations, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals.

The proposed class, subject to exclusions not relevant here, is
defined as: All individuals whose biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information were captured, collected, obtained, stored,
or used by the Defendant within the state of Illinois any time
within the applicable limitations period.

Count I alleges that the Defendant "failed to make publicly
available any policy addressing its biometric retention and
destruction practices," in violation of Section 15(a). Count II
alleges violations of Section 15(b), which prohibits a private
entity from collecting or otherwise obtaining biometric data unless
it first "(1) informs the subject or the subject's legally
authorized representative in writing that a biometric identifier or
biometric information is being collected or stored; (2) informs the
subject or the subject's legally authorized representative in
writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a
biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected,
stored, and used; and (3) receives a written release executed by
the subject of the biometric identifier or biometric information or
the subject's legally authorized representative." Count III alleges
that Defendant disclosed or otherwise disseminated the Plaintiffs'
biometric data to third parties without their consent, in violation
of Section 15(d).

Discussion

The Plaintiffs in the case are not requesting remand of the entire
action to state court. Instead, they have moved to sever and remand
Count I, citing authority holding that they lack Article III
standing to pursue that claim in federal court. Second, the
Plaintiffs move to stay briefing on the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss pending resolution of their motion to remand.

I. Motion to Remand

In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege that American violated Section
15(a) of BIPA by failing to "make publicly available any policy
addressing its biometric retention and destruction policies."
Though the Plaintiffs presumably believe they are entitled to
pursue this claim, they ask the Court to sever and remand this
single Count because this claim does not satisfy Article III
standing. Playing against type in the case, the Defendant urges
that the Plaintiffs have indeed alleged a concrete and
particularized injury such that Count I can remain in federal court
along with Counts II and III.

Judge Pallmeyer concludes the Plaintiffs do not have Article III
standing to pursue their Section 15(a) claim in the Court. She
finds that the TAC alleges merely that American "failed to make
publicly available any policy addressing its biometric retention
and destruction policies." Nor have the Plaintiffs alleged that
American unlawfully retained their biometrics. Judge Pallmeyer
therefore granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand that claim to
state court.

II. Motion to Stay

Because Judge Pallmeyer has granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand, the motion to stay briefing on the Defendant's motion to
dismiss is terminated as moot.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Pallmeyer granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand, and their motion to stay is terminated as moot.
Count I is severed and remanded to state court, but Counts II and
III remain before the Court. The Plaintiffs will respond to the
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss by Oct. 29, 2021;
American's reply will be filed on Nov. 12, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39smfn74 from
Leagle.com.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: LippSmith Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celene Chan Andrews, Esq., of LippSmith LLP, in an article for
Advocate, reports that as a class-action attorney, about once a
month I receive a text or email from a friend or relative with a
screenshot or email notice of a class-action settlement. The most
frequently asked questions are: "Is this a scam?" followed by "How
much will I get?"

My responses are almost always, "No" and "It depends,"
respectively.

To delve into the question on the amount of the settlement check
(or more recently, electronic transfer), it is helpful to briefly
put class actions and class-action settlements into context,
including assessing damages in class actions. This article provides
a broad overview of class-certification requirements, potential
challenges to certification based on damages (including a
particularly useful Ninth Circuit opinion), and practical guidance
when seeking preliminary and final approval of a class action
settlement, whether in state or federal court.

Statutory authority

Class actions are a mechanism for many individuals who were harmed
in a similar manner to seek redress. These individuals would likely
not pursue an individual case for a variety of reasons. Our state
and federal courts recognize the ability of putative class
representatives to bring these suits on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals. "[W]hen the question is one of a
common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties
are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the
court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all." (Code
Civ. Proc., Sec. 382.) In federal court, "[o[ne or more members of
a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of
all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class." (Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a).) The court must also determine which prong of Rule 26(b)
applies. (See e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ["questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."].)

Aggregating damages, fees, and resources

Class actions are appropriate where many suffer harm. These
collective actions seek redress on behalf of a group (or multiple
groups, if subclasses are involved) of individuals who generally
would not file individual lawsuits. Therefore, it should come as no
surprise that class members' individual recoveries may typically
not reach the same levels of damages as those in single-plaintiff
cases. "The very premise of such suits is that small individual
recoveries worthy of neither the plaintiff's nor the court's time
can be aggregated to vindicate an important public policy."
(Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 846.) Of course,
what is "worthy" of someone's time is subjective. However, the
point is that class actions provide an efficient method of
adjudicating the claims of many.

Class actions reduce strain on our court system when the courts and
counsel can resourcefully manage these lawsuits. "[T]he class suit
both eliminates the possibility of repetitious litigation and
provides small claimants with a method of obtaining redress for
claims which would otherwise be too small to warrant individual
litigation." (Richmond v. Dart Indus., Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462,
469 [citing Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin (2d Cir. 1968) 391 F.2d
555, 560].) The California Supreme Court has noted how "class
actions offer consumers a means of recovery for modest individual
damages." (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 445
[class action involving a surcharge of four cents per gallon on
gasoline customers using credit cards].) Class actions are
"appropriate when numerous parties suffer injury of insufficient
size to warrant individual action and when denial of class relief
would result in unjust advantage to the wrongdoer." (Collins v.
Safeway Stores, Inc. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 62, 68 [quoting Blue
Chip Stamps v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.3d 381, 385-86; citations
omitted].)

Courts recognize the benefits of class actions not only to the
judiciary, but to class members themselves, such as reducing costs
by spreading them among the class. (See Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank
v. Roper (1980) 445 U.S. 326, 339 n.9 [noting that two named
plaintiffs with damages totaling $1,006.00 "would be unlikely to
obtain legal redress at an acceptable cost," hence a "central
concept of Rule 23" is fee-spreading].) From a societal aspect,
deterring defendants' improper behavior that occurs on a widespread
basis - but where an individual plaintiff may not find it
worthwhile to pursue their own case -- is a key benefit of class
actions. For example, consumer class actions "often produce
'several salutary by-products, including a therapeutic effect upon
those sellers who indulge in fraudulent practices, aid to
legitimate business enterprises by curtailing illegitimate
competition, and avoidance to the judicial process of the burden of
multiple litigation involving identical claims.'" (Ibid., quoting
Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808, superseded by
statute as noted in Flores v. Southcoast Auto. Liquidators, Inc.
(2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 841.)

Class actions as a procedural device

Both the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court recognize
that class actions are a procedural device and "a means to enforce
substantive law." (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12
Cal.3d 447, 462; see Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper (1980) 445
U.S. 326, 331.) Since the measure of damages for the class will
necessarily depend on the causes of action at issue in each case,
the salient matters attorneys should review include ensuring that
the class can be certified, whether at the class-certification
stage or if the parties reach a settlement pre-certification, at
preliminary and final approval.

Generally, "if the defendant's liability can be determined by facts
common to all members of the class, a class will be certified even
if the members must individually prove their damages." (Hicks v.
Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 916 [citing
Employment Development Dept. v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d
256, 266, emphasis added.)

The fact that differences exist in calculating damages for class
members is not a proper basis for denying class certification.
(Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., (2003) 120 Cal.App.4th 746,
754.) But if "the individual issues . . . go beyond mere
calculation; [and] involve each class member's entitlement to
damages," the court could deny class certification. (Ibid.) For
example, if each class member must litigate "substantial and
numerous factually unique questions to determine his or her
individual right to recover," courts may find that class treatment
is inappropriate. (Id. at 756.) Accordingly, to the extent a
damages model hinges upon differences in the ability of class
members to recover damages (but not their actual individual damages
calculation), this could impede the ability to certify the class.

In challenging class certification, defendants may attempt to claim
that there is no superiority, e.g., that under Rule 23(b)(3), the
class action is not "superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." For example,
defendants may argue that there is no proportionality between their
liability and the actual harm. (See e.g., Bateman v. American
Multi-Cinema (9th Cir. 2010) 623 F.3d 708, 713; see also Kline v.
Coldwell, Banker Co. (9th Cir. 1974) 508 F.2d 226, 234.) However,
as the Ninth Circuit has noted, "None of these enumerated factors
in Rule 23(b)(3) appear to authorize a court to consider whether
certifying a class would result in disproportionate damages."
(Bateman, 623 F.3d at 713; see Id. at 721 [holding that the fact
that "class treatment would render the magnitude of the defendant's
liability enormous" is not an appropriate reason to deny class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3)].) In fact, the opposite could be
true -- that is, because of widespread harm to many based on common
conduct, class treatment is particularly appropriate.

Bateman and purportedly "disproportionate" damages

The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Bateman provides a robust overview
of the role of damages in the context of class certification (in
that case, statutory damages), with some particularly insightful
commentary on the scope of damages as they pertain to
certification. In Bateman, the plaintiff appealed the district
court's denial of class certification where he sued AMC, the
movie-theater operator, for violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). (623 F.3d at 710.) FACTA is a
federal law enacted to protect identity theft by, inter alia,
prohibiting businesses from printing more than five digits of any
customer's card number or card-expiration date on receipts.
Businesses that violate FACTA face statutory damages ranging from
$100 to $1,000 per violation.

The plaintiff in Bateman sought to recover those statutory damages
of $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation of FACTA. (623 F.3d at
710.) The district court denied class certification under Rule
23(b)(3), finding that a class action was not the superior method
of litigating the case because: 1) AMC made a good-faith effort to
comply with FACTA after plaintiff filed the lawsuit, 2) the
magnitude of AMC's potential liability ($29-$290 million) was
enormous, and 3) out of proportion to any harm suffered by the
class. (Ibid., Bateman v. Am. Multi- Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2008)
252 F.R.D. 647, 648, 650-51].) The Ninth Circuit agreed with
plaintiff that none of these grounds justified denial of class
certification on superiority grounds. (Id. at 710-11.)

AMC claimed that the district court properly denied class
certification because the damages would have been disproportionate.
The Ninth Circuit examined the plain text and legislative history
of FACTA in analyzing this argument, ultimately disagreeing with
AMC. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit found nothing to suggest that
Congress intended to cap "potentially enormous statutory awards or
to otherwise limit the ability of individuals to seek
compensation." (Bateman, 623 F.3d at 722.)

In fact, the panel clearly recognized how statutory damages are
necessary to compensate victims, including and especially where
actual damages may be difficult to determine. (Bateman, 623 F.3d at
718 [noting that the actual harm that a willful violation of FACTA
will inflict on a consumer will often be small or difficult to
prove].) The Ninth Circuit also noted how both actual and statutory
damages provided for under FACTA serve to deter the specific
conduct underlying the enactment of FACTA. (Ibid.) Thus, recovery
of statutory damages is available "even where no actual harm
results." (Ibid.)

The Ninth Circuit took a commonsense approach to statutory damages,
noting that "proportionality does not change as more plaintiffs
seek relief; indeed, the size of AMC's potential liability expands
at exactly the same rate as the class size." (Bateman, 623 F.3d at
719.) In other words, because the statutory penalties were based
upon the number of violations, as the class grew, the penalties
grew. At the time of enacting FACTA, Congress was aware of class
actions and set no cap on the total amount of damages, no limit on
the size of a class, and no limit on the number of individual suits
that could be brought against a merchant for violating FACTA.
(Ibid.) Accordingly, there was no basis for the district court to
deny class certification simply because of the high number of
violations and potential statutory damages. (Ibid.)

In fact, this would have the opposite effect of deterrence. Denying
"class certification because of the sheer number of violations and
amount of potential statutory damages would allow the largest
violators of FACTA to escape the pressure of defending class
actions and, in all likelihood, to escape liability for most
violations." (Ibid.) Denying certification based on the fact that
many were harmed and damages would be large would not only
undermine the FACTA, but the procedural mechanisms of class actions
overall.

While this perspective may seem rational and straightforward,
defendants have argued -- and courts have considered -- that
disproportionate damages render a class untenable. Establishing
that potential damages are neither disproportionate nor present a
superiority problem should negate any challenges to certification.

Approval process

While class-action settlements require court approval that is not
typically involved in an individual case, practitioners should not
be overwhelmed by the prospect of submitting the required motions
for preliminary and final approval. The court's objective is to
protect the interests of absent class members to ensure that
settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class counsel's job
is to provide the court with all the information required to make
that assessment.

California Rule of Court 3.769 governs settlement of class actions,
which notes the following requirements:

Court approval after a hearing

Attorney fees: any agreement to pay attorney fees or an application
for approval of attorney fees must be set forth in full in any
application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an
action that has been certified as a class action

Preliminary approval: the settlement agreement and proposed notice
to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed
order must be lodged with the motion

Order certifying provisional settlement class: The court may make
an order approving or denying certification of a provisional
settlement class after the preliminary hearing

Order for final approval hearing: If the court grants preliminary
approval, its order must include the time, date, and place of the
final approval hearing; the notice to be given to the class; and
any other matters deemed necessary for the proper conduct of a
settlement hearing

Notice to class of final approval hearing: If the court has
certified the class action, notice of the final approval hearing
must be given to the class members in the manner specified by the
court. The notice must contain an explanation of the proposed
settlement and procedures for class members to follow in filing
written objections to it and in arranging to appear at the
settlement hearing and state any objections to the proposed
settlement

Before final approval, the court must conduct an inquiry into the
fairness of the proposed settlement

Judgment and retention of jurisdiction to enforce: If the court
approves the settlement agreement after the final approval hearing,
the court must make and enter judgment. The judgment must include a
provision for the retention of the court's jurisdiction over the
parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. The court may not
enter an order dismissing the action at the same time as, or after,
entry of judgment.

It is not uncommon for courts to post checklists and requirements
for preliminary and final approval. Make sure to thoroughly review
those documents to ensure that the judge, staff attorney, and/or
law clerk can effortlessly check off each required element of the
preliminary and final approval motions. For preliminary approval
hearings in federal court, be aware that judges may require an
appraisal of the value of nonmonetary or deferred monetary
components of a class action settlement before the fairness
hearing, e.g., coupon settlements, which are commonly and
increasingly scrutinized and disfavored (as opposed to a monetary
fund for the common benefit of the class, known as a common fund).
(Federal Judicial Center, Managing Class Action Litigation: A
Pocket Guide for Judges (2005) at 10-11.)

Always run a search for published (or more likely unpublished)
opinions authored by the judge to whom you are assigned. In state
court, check the judge's tentative rulings to see if there are
recent rulings on class certification. Though the requirements and
procedures are governed by rules of court or civil procedure,
individual courts may have their own specific procedures they use
(e.g., preferences as to scheduling the final approval hearing).

Damages in class actions will vary based on the class size, claims
at issue, and availability of certain types of damages (e.g.,
statutory, punitive, etc.). One aspect that does not change, no
matter the case, is the need for class counsel to demonstrate to
the court that damages are adequate to address all class members'
harm and can be modeled in a way that comports with the
requirements of certifying a class, whether for settlement or
before the case resolves.

To do so, ensure that damages can be calculated on a class-wide
basis and that any variances relate to the amount of individual
damages, not the method of calculation. Finally, keep in mind that
class actions are a procedural device. They are a means to
efficiently resolve the claims of many while resourcefully allowing
parties and the courts to adjudicate widespread harm and deter
pervasive improper behavior.

Celene Chan Andrews is a partner at LippSmith LLP. Celene is
admitted to practice in California and Hawaii. She litigates class
actions, mass torts, construction defect, and personal injury
cases. Celene graduated cum laude from UCLA and received her J.D.
from UC Hastings. [GN]


ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS: Christion-Hunt Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATONYA CHRISTION-HUNT, on behalf of herself and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v.
ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC, an Illinois corporation, and JUAN JOSE
AYALA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05391 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 12, 2021) is a class action brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance arising from the Defendants' conduct of
misclassifying Plaintiff as salary-exempt employee and denying
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their Chicago
location as a purchasing coordinator and warehouse supervisor from
February 2019 until September 2021.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Analytical Instruments, Inc. owns and
operates a business which manufactures and supplies petroleum
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BANK OF AMERICA: Nia Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mohammad Farshad Abdolla Nia, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America,
N.A., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-02021-00036843-CU-CR-CTL, was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on Oct. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01799-H-BGS to
the proceeding.

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

The Bank of America -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is an
American multinational investment bank and financial services
holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq.
          SINGLETON SCHREIBER MCKENZIE & SCOTT LLP
          450 A Street, 5th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 704-3288
          Email: ben@siminouappeals.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carol Alexis Chen, Esq.
          Dainia Jamal Jabaji, Esq.
          WINSRON & STRAWN/CHICAGO
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 615-1820
          Fax: (213) 615-1750
          Email: cachen@winston.com
                 djabaji@winston.com


BANKAMERICA CORP: Denial of Oetting's Bid to Recheck Fees Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: BankAmerica Corporation, David P. Oetting,
Class Representative, Plaintiff-Appellant v. David A. Sosne,
Trustee, et al., Appellees, Case No. 19-3672 (8th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the district
court's order denying David Oetting's Motion for Redetermination of
Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to the PSLRA, Forfeiture, and
Disgorgement.

Introduction

In 1999, shareholders of NationsBank and BankAmerica filed
securities law class actions after the publicly held companies
merged to form Bank of America Corporation. The cases were
transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri and captioned In re
BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 4:99-MD-1264. A global
settlement was approved by the court in 2002. It included an award
of approximately $58 million in fees to the attorneys appointed to
represent the NationsBank Class.

Almost two decades later, attorney David Oetting, one of the lead
plaintiffs for the class, filed a motion to reconsider the fee
award and to order disgorgement of some $38 million in fees
previously paid to NationsBank Class Counsel based on their poor
performance, mismanagement of the settlement fund, and abandonment
of the class. The district court denied Oetting's motion,
concluding it was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
Oetting appeals.

The appellees are David Sosne, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for
Green Jacobson, P.C., former Lead Counsel for the NationsBank
Class, four law firms appointed by the district court in April 1999
to serve as co-lead counsel or executive committee members, and two
individual former members of the Green Jacobson firm.

Background

After three years of litigation followed by mediation on the eve of
trial, the class counsel and the Defendants proposed a $490 million
"global settlement" that included $333 million for the NationsBank
Class. The district court approved the settlement over the
objection of two lead plaintiffs, Oetting and John Koehler,
rejecting their contention the settlement inadequately compensated
the NationsBank Class without their approval. Oetting and Koehler
appealed.

The district court appointed Green Jacobson administrator of the
settlement fund. At Green Jacobson's urging, Heffler, Radetich &
Saitta, LLP, was appointed claims administrator. As part of the
settlement approval process, the district court approved attorneys'
fees to be paid to NationsBank Class Counsel out of the settlement
fund.

Counsel requested an award equal to 25% of the Class' net recovery,
more than four times the fee that would be awarded under an
alternative "lodestar" approach. The district court agreed that a
"percentage-of-the-recovery" approach was equitable and appropriate
but reduced the award to 18% of the net recovery to the NationsBank
Class, approximately $58,831,000 plus interest. Oetting and Koehler
did not object to this award. They sought fees for objecting to the
settlement, which the district court denied because their efforts
"enhanced neither the value of the settlement fund nor the
adversarial process."

Mr. Oetting and Koehler did not appeal the fee award. Two years
later Koehler, represented by Oetting, filed an action against
class counsel in the Southern District of New York, alleging
counsel breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating an
inadequate settlement. Koehler sought relief that included
compensatory and punitive damages and "disgorgement of attorney
fees." The New York court transferred the case to the Eastern
District of Missouri where it was assigned to Judge Nangle,
presiding over the consolidated class action cases. The district
court dismissed the action. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

The first distribution to the NationsBank Class from the settlement
fund began in 2004. Oetting did not cash his check. In 2008, before
a second distribution, it was discovered that an employee of
Heffler helped defraud the settlement fund of some $5.8 million in
what came to be called the "Penta fraud." In 2010, Green Jacobson
filed a supplemental complaint against Heffler on behalf of the
class; the district court concluded it would be more appropriate to
file a separate action against Heffler. Oetting then filed a class
action against Heffler, which was transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and later dismissed as time-barred.

The second distribution in 2009 left some $2.5 million remaining in
the fund. In 2012, Green Jacobson moved to distribute the remaining
amount cy pres and to terminate the case with an award of
$98,114.34 in supplemental attorneys' fees for work done after the
first distribution. Oetting opposed the cy pres distribution and
the award of supplemental fees, arguing Green Jacobson should
disgorge $2.129 million in fees already paid, representing 18
percent of the fund's current balance plus the amount lost to the
Penta fraud. The district court granted Green Jacobson's motion,
rejecting Oetting's call for disgorgement. Oetting appealed. The
Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding a cy pres distribution would be
contrary to the interests of the NationsBank Class. It vacated the
award of supplemental attorneys' fees as premature.

In 2013, Oetting, represented by his attorney in the case, Frank H.
Tomlinson, filed a separate class action against Green Jacobson on
behalf of the NationsBank Class alleging legal malpractice by
negligently hiring and supervising Heffler, and breach of fiduciary
duty by actions constituting abandonment of the class. The
complaint sought damages for causing $5.87 million in fraud loss to
the settlement fund and disgorgement of the entire $58 million in
attorneys' fees awarded in 2002. The district court dismissed the
complaint, concluding Oetting lacked standing to represent the
Class because he did not cash his settlement check, and the
disgorgement and abandonment claims were barred by the collateral
estoppel effects of the court's cy pres order then pending on
appeal. On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction because Oetting was not a member of the Class (he had
not cashed his distribution check), and the Class could not assert
these claims as an independent legal entity.

After The Cy Pres Order in 2015, an unrelated malpractice judgment
pushed Green Jacobson into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and Sosne was
appointed Trustee for the bankruptcy estate. The district court
removed Green Jacobson as Lead Counsel for the NationsBank Class
and, at Oetting's urging, appointed Tomlinson as Lead Counsel.
Oetting filed a bankruptcy claim for approximately $10.5 million,
including disgorgement of 18% of Green Jacobson attorneys' fees for
the alleged losses caused by its negligent supervision of
settlement fund distributions (nearly $1.9 million).

The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the entire claim.
Regarding disgorgement, it held that "the problem is that no
disgorgement has been ordered in the MDL Action and therefore the
bankruptcy claim is premature and lacks supporting foundation."
Noting that Oetting had twice before objected to the fee award and
once requested disgorgement, it ruled that, the district court in
the MDL Actions has discretion to determine that laches or
preclusion principles bar a class member's untimely or repetitive
claim for disgorgement." In the event the district court in the MDL
Action orders the disgorgement of attorneys' fees previously paid
to Green Jacobson as counsel for the NationsBank class, that order
will become or will form the basis of a claim against the Chapter 7
bankruptcy estate."

Back in the district court, Oetting asked for a briefing schedule
to address whether the 2002 fee award should be reduced. The court
set a deadline of Aug. 20, 2019 for the filing of motions to
disgorge. On that day, Oetting filed the motion at issue, entitled
"Motion for Redetermination of Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to the
PSLRA, Forfeiture, and Disgorgement."

For the first time, he requested that all NationsBank Class
Counsel, not just Green Jacobson as Lead Counsel, forfeit and
disgorge all fees received above what they would have received had
the district court adopted the "lodestar" approach in 2002, some
$38 million. The district court denied the motion, concluding this
new, greatly expanded claim for disgorgement was barred by the
equitable doctrine of laches.

Discussion

Mr. Oetting labeled his motion a Motion for Redetermination of the
attorneys' fees awarded by the district court in 2002. On appeal,
without stating the proposition, Oetting argues it can be derived
from a statute he terms a "lookback" provision in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"): "(6)
Restrictions on payment of attorneys' fees and expenses: Total
attorney's fees and expenses awarded by the court to counsel for
the plaintiff class will not exceed a reasonable percentage of the
amount of any damages and prejudgment interest actually paid to the
class."

Construing the amount "actually paid to the class" as imposing a
lookback obligation, Oetting argues his Motion for Redetermination
should not have been subject to the district court's laches
analysis: "The PSLRA lookback has never been addressed by the
District Court and should not have to be the subject of a motion by
the plaintiff class."

The Eighth Circuit finds three overriding factors that persuade it
the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying laches
to bar Oetting's equitable disgorgement claims. First, although
Oetting had raised disgorgement issues in earlier proceedings, he
had never asserted the claim that all class counsel who were
awarded fees in 2002, not just Lead Counsel Green Jacobson, should
be required to disgorge all fees paid above a "lodestar" amount the
district court had used as a comparative benchmark in reducing the
percentage-of-recovery fee award from 25% to 18% of the NationsBank
Class's net recovery from the global settlement.

Second, in arguing that the initial approved fee awards should be
dramatically reduced because class counsel took actions that were
"flawed, indeed hostile to the interests" of the Class, Oetting and
Tomlinson cite actions that Oetting unsuccessfully challenged at
the time they occurred, challenges that often included limited
requests for disgorgement focused on the specific action in
question: collaterally attacking the fee award in a 2004 class
action filed in the Southern District of New York; arguing in 2012
that Green Jacobson should disgorge $2.129 million in fees already
paid for urging cy pres distribution, causing Penta fraud losses,
and seeking an award of supplemental fees; filing a class action
against Green Jacobson in 2013 seeking $5.87 million in fraud
damages to the settlement fund and disgorgement of the entire
attorneys' fee award to Green Jacobson in 2002 for negligently
hiring and supervising Heffler and breach of fiduciary duty for
abandoning the class; and filing a $10.5 million bankruptcy claim
in 2015 that included disgorgement of 18% of Green Jacobson
attorneys' fees for negligent supervision of settlement fund
distributions. Every one of these contentions was rejected by the
district court and/or this court. Four wrongs do not make a right.

Third, the Eighth Circuit agrees with the district court that the
challenged actions, from the inclusion of an exculpatory clause in
the settlement checks to opposing cy pres distribution, occurred
seven to fifteen years before Oetting sought total disgorgement in
his Motion for Redetermination. It also agrees that Oetting's
failure to seek disgorgement in the proper manner and before the
proper court was inexcusable delay, particularly when bankruptcy
trustee Sosne made interim distributions to Green Jacobson
creditors based on Oetting's rejected bankruptcy claim that
included only a $1.9 million claim for disgorgement.

For these reasons, and the additional reasons stated in the
district court's Memorandum and Order, the Eighth Circuit concludes
the court did not abuse its discretion in applying laches to bar
Oetting's Motion for Redetermination.

Finally, Oetting argues that the three district judges who have
presided over In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation, No.
4:99-MD-1264 -- each of whom is a former Chief Judge of the Eastern
District of Missouri -- have failed to honor "the dictates of the
PSLRA" and their ongoing fiduciary duties to the class for nearly
thirty years, beginning with "the approval of a purported
settlement which was entered into over the objections of the three
class representatives," and ending with failure to order the
disgorgement of fees by class counsel who abandoned the class.

The Eighth Circuit rejects this outrageous contention, which is
premised on legal theories and positions taken by Oetting and
Tomlinson over the years that were rejected by the district court
and by the Eighth Circuit as contrary to the best interests of the
class. The district court has not failed to honor its ongoing
fiduciary duty to the class in overseeing a complex settlement fund
distribution made more complex and dilatory by the contentious
actions of its participants, and the Eighth Circuit has not allowed
the class to be abandoned by those responsible for distributing the
settlement fund.

Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirms the Order of
the district court dated Nov. 12, 2019. It grants Appellee David
Sosne's and Appellant David Oetting's motions to supplement the
record. It denies Appellee Chitwood Harley's motion to supplement
the record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yp5yhpd7 from Leagle.com.


BARRY UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barry University,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Barry University, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08651 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2021).

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

Barry University -- https://www.barry.edu/ -- is a top-ranked
Catholic university located in sunny South Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BELKIN INT'L: Shepherd Sues Over Falsely Advertised WiFi Speeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Shepherd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., and WALMART INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-05862-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2021), is brought on behalf
of individuals who purchased a Linksys Dual Band AC1000 WiFi router
from the Defendants based on false and misleading statements from
the Defendants concerning advertised WiFi speeds.

This is a class action against the Defendants for unfair and
deceptive trade practices concerning the sale of falsely advertised
Linksys Wifi routers. The Defendants sell a Wifi router that Belkin
has deceptively named Linksys Dual Band AC1000 WiFi Router
("Linksys AC1000"). Defendants advertise the Linksys AC1000 as
being a very fast WiFi router for the internet with enhanced speeds
that are up to 1,000 Mbps (or 1.0 Gbps). The 1000 designation in
the name of the Linksys AC1000 leads consumers to believe that the
router can operate at internet speeds of up to 1,000 Mbps. The
Defendants also claim the Linksys AC1000 is 2.3x faster than
Wireless N or WiFi 4 technology. Wireless N and WiFi 4 are older
technologies that allow routers to run at maximum speeds of
approximately 300-450 Mbps.

The Plaintiff purchased a Linksys AC1000 router from Walmart based
on The Defendants' false and misleading statements alleged herein
and discovered that the Linksys AC1000 only operated at WiFi
internet speeds between 80-90 Mbps, more than 900% slower than the
advertised speeds. After an extensive investigation, Plaintiff's
counsel determined the Linksys AC1000 was not capable of
transmitting WiFi internet speeds greater than 100 Mbps because the
Ethernet port on the Linksys AC1000 router that connects to the
cable modem caps internet transmissions to no more than 100 Mbps as
it lacks the more expensive Gigabit Ethernet technology contained
in competing router models.

Accordingly, the Defendants' statements indicating that the Linksys
AC1000 has WiFi speeds for the internet of up to 1,000 Mbps, are
false. Further, the Linksys AC1000 WiFi internet speeds are not 2.3
times faster than Wireless N or WiFi 4 technology when accessing
the internet, but more than 100% slower. The Plaintiff, and many
other consumers, purchased a falsely advertised Linksys AC1000,
based on the false and misleading representations described herein
and were damaged as a result, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a part-year resident of Queens County, New York,
and purchased a Linksys AC1000 router at the Walmart.

The Defendants sell a Wifi router that Belkin has named Linksys
Dual Band AC1000 WiFi Router.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Kelly, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY
          244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212-920-5042
          Email: jkelly@jckellylaw.com


BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Atty. to File Proposed Judgment in Messer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONY A. MESSER, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. BRISTOL
COMPRESSORS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV00040
(W.D. Va.), Judge James P. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, Abingdon Division, directed the class
counsel to submit to the Court in Word format a proposed judgment
that lists the amount due to each of the 128 eligible employees in
Subclasses One and Three.

Background

In the class action alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act, following Judge Jones'
resolution of several motions for summary judgment, the counsel for
the Defendant withdrew from representation at the Defendant's
request. The Defendant was given the opportunity to find substitute
counsel but did not do so. On July 19, 2021, the Court held a bench
trial to determine liability and the amount of damages. No
representative of the Defendant appeared at the trial.

After hearing evidence, Judge Jones directed the class counsel to
file a memorandum addressing (1) whether class members are entitled
to an award of prejudgment interest, and (2) whether damages should
be calculated based on a full 60 days of daily wages or whether
deductions should be made for days on which the employees would not
have been scheduled to work (i.e., weekends). The Plaintiffs have
submitted their memorandum, and the issues are ripe for decision.

Discussion

Because the Defendant failed to present any defense at trial, Judge
Jones finds that the Defendant violated the WARN Act and that the
128 class members are owed damages as provided in 29 U.S.C. Section
2104(a)(1)-(2). In addition, the members of Subclass 3 are each
owed stay bonuses in the amount of $1,000. The Plaintiffs presented
the testimony of Thomas M. Hicok, CPA, who calculated the amount
owed to each individual class member.

A. Prejudgment Interest

The Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to prejudgment interest on
the amounts owed. Hicok included in his calculations simple
interest at a rate of 6%. He testified that he believed this to be
the Virginia statutory interest rate. The Plaintiffs acknowledge in
their memorandum that this was not the then-current federal
interest rate.

Judge Jones awards prejudgment interest at the federal statutory
rate in effect on the date his Opinion and Order is issued. He
directs the class counsel to use that interest rate in calculating
the amounts that will be listed in the proposed judgment submitted
to the Court, as ordered.

B. Calendar or Work Days

The Plaintiffs have requested compensation for each calendar day of
the violation period. They acknowledge, however, that courts are in
disagreement on this point, with a majority holding that former
employees are entitled to compensation only for the days they would
have worked during the violation period had they remained
employed.

While the statutory language of Section 2104(a)(1) is ambiguous,
Judge Jones finds that paying workers for the number of days they
would have worked during the 60-day violation period best achieves
these purposes. He adopts the straightforward reasoning of the
Ninth Circuit in Burns v. Stone Forest Indus., Inc., 147 F.3d 1182,
1183-83 (9th Cir. 1998), which found that it makes "perfect sense"
to require the employer to pay for 60 work days because the
employee's "stream of income continues to flow for 60 days after he
knows the plant will shut down, so he has two months to look for a
new job."

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jones ordered the class counsel
to, within 14 days, submit to the Court in Word format a proposed
judgment that lists the amount due to each of the 128 eligible
employees in Subclasses One and Three, calculated in accordance
with the rulings in his Opinion and Order, to include prejudgment
interest at the now-current federal rate and compensation only for
the days the class members would have worked during the violation
period had they remained employed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2h4tr8p3 from Leagle.com.

Mary Lynn Tate -- mltate@tatelaw.com -- TATE LAW PC, in Abingdon,
Virginia, for the Plaintiffs.


CHICAGO, IL: Troogstad Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Chicago, et
al. The case is styled as Scott Troogstad, et al., individually and
on behalf of similarly situated employees of City of Chicago v.
City of Chicago, Jay Robert Pritzker, Governor, Case No.
1:21-cv-05600 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 21, 2021).

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

Chicago -- https://www.chicago.gov/ -- on Lake Michigan in
Illinois, is among the largest cities in the U.S. Famed for its
bold architecture, it has a skyline punctuated by skyscrapers such
as the iconic John Hancock Center, 1,451-ft. Willis Tower (formerly
the Sears Tower) and the neo-Gothic Tribune Tower.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Lubin, Esq.
          8800 Bronx Ave, Suite 100H
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Phone: (773) 945-2608
          Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Warner, Jr., Esq.
          William R Pokorny, Esq.
          FRANCZEK RADELET PC
          300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 786-6118
          Email: maw@franczek.com
                 wrp@franczek.com


CLASSPASS INC: Tipsy Nail Sues Over False Affiliation & Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tipsy Nail Club LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. CLASSPASS INC., FRITZ LANMAN, and PAYAL KADAKIA, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2021), is brought for unfair
competition, false affiliation, and false advertising under federal
and state law and seeking to prevent the Defendants from continuing
to misappropriate and trade upon the goodwill and business
reputation of the Plaintiff and the class members by falsely, and
without their consent, listing their businesses on ClassPass's
website and mobile application.

ClassPass dubs itself "The app for all things fitness, spa &
beauty." It operates an online platform that allows its customers,
who purchase the Company's membership subscriptions (the "ClassPass
Subscribers"), to book classes at gyms and fitness studios, and,
more recently, "wellness appointments" such as manicures,
pedicures, massages, or haircuts from salons and spas. ClassPass
purportedly has a vast network of businesses that partner with them
(the "ClassPass Partner Network") throughout the United States.
ClassPass Subscribers use their memberships to purchase and book
services with the businesses on the ClassPass Partner Network.
ClassPass promotes the size of its ClassPass Partner Network to (a)
attract more customers to purchase ClassPass memberships, (b)
entice other businesses to choose to partner with it, and (c) to
sell corporate-wellness programs to major corporations that wish to
purchase memberships as an employee benefit.

The Plaintiff operates a nail salon in New Jersey and never
partnered with ClassPass. However, when a customer attempted to use
a service that it had booked through ClassPass, Plaintiff
discovered that ClassPass had listed Plaintiff's business and
service offerings as part of the ClassPass Partner Network, without
Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. Further investigation by
Plaintiff and its counsel revealed that ClassPass has countless
false listings of businesses that never partnered with it. In sum,
the Defendants have engaged in a course of conduct with respect to
the advertising of its ClassPass Partner Network that unfairly and
falsely affiliates the Plaintiff and class members with the
Defendants, which, among other harms, diverts potential customers
into purchasing ClassPass memberships instead of directly
purchasing services that the Plaintiff and the class members offer,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff operates a nail salon in New Jersey.

The Defendants operates an online platform that allows its
customers, who purchase the Company's membership to book classes at
gyms and fitness studios, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Janove, Esq.
          Adam Pollock, Esq.
          Agatha M. Cole, Esq.
          POLLOCK COHEN LLP
          60 Broad St., 24th Fl.
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 337-5361
          Email: Rafi@PollockCohen.com
                 Adam@PollockCohen.com
                 Agatha@PollockCohen.com


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: $95MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 16-6509 (ES) (CLW)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

This notice is for all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Cognizant Technology
Solutions Corporation ("Cognizant") during the period from February
27, 2015 through September 29, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period")
(the "Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded
from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the full
printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs Union Asset Management
Holding AG, Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView
Collective Investment Funds, and the Fire and Police Pension
Association of Colorado have reached a proposed settlement of the
Action for $95,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement") on behalf of the
Settlement Class, that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on December 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern
Time, before the Honorable Esther Salas either in person at the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Courtroom 5A, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101 or by telephone or videoconference
(in the discretion of the Court) for the following purposes: (a) to
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by
the Court; (b) to determine whether a Judgment substantially in the
form attached as Exhibit B to the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendants; (c) to
determine whether the Settlement Class should be certified for
purposes of the Settlement; (d) to determine whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; (e) to determine whether the
motion by Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses
should be approved; and (f) to consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Cognizant
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91421, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-855-648-2213. Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.CognizantSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no
later than January 28, 2022, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Claim Form.  If you are a Settlement Class Member
and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but
you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or
orders entered by the Court in connection with the Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 22, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.  Please note: If you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the claims
covered by the Action by a statute of repose.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Cognizant's counsel such that they are received no
later than November 22, 2021, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Cognizant, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         1-800-380-8496
         settlements@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         Cognizant Securities Litigation   
         c/o JND Legal Administration
         P.O. Box 91421
         Seattle, WA 98111
         1-855-648-2213
         www.CognizantSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court


COOK COUNTY, IL: Lukaszyczyk Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cook County, et al.
The case is styled as Barbara "Basia" Lukaszyczyk, Wendy A.
Rogowski, Tomas Mackevicius, Cherryl Guthrie-Wilson, Vanessa
Barrera, Antoneta Palik, Cristina Valle, Lynette Taylor, Latehesha
Fitch, Mary Elizabeth " Kosenka, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees and contractors of Cook County v. Cook
County, Hektoen Institute for Medical Research, LLC, Jay Robert
Pritzker Governor, Case No. 1:21-cv-05407 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 12,
2021).

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

Cook County -- https://www.cookcountyil.gov/ -- is the most
populous county in the U.S. state of Illinois and the
second-most-populous county in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Lubin, Esq.
          8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Phone: (773) 945-2608
          Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Megan Scheller, Esq.
          Chad Michael Skarpiak, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE COOK COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY
          500 Richard J. Daley Center
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 603-6934
          Email: jessica.scheller@cookcountyil.gov
                 chad.skarpiak@cookcountyil.gov

               - and -

          Megan Marie Honingford, Esq.
          Prathima Yeddanapudi, Esq.
          Silvia Mercado Masters, Esq.
          COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          50 W. Washington, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 603-3630
          Email: megan.honingford@cookcountyil.gov
                 prathima.yeddanapudi@cookcountyil.gov
                 silvia.mercadomasters@cookcountyil.gov

               - and -

          Gregory Harvey Andrews, Esq.
          Anderson Charles Franklin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C. (CHICAGO)
          150 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 787-4949
          Email: gregory.andrews@jacksonlewis.com
                 Anderson.Franklin@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Kelly C. Bauer, Esq.
          Mary Alice Johnston, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 W. Randolph St., 13th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 814-3119
          Email: kelly.bauer@ilag.gov
                 mary.johnston@ilag.gov


CREDIT BUREAU: Calhoun Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau of
Bessemer, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jessica Calhoun,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Credit Bureau of Bessemer, Inc. also known as: Account Review
Services, John Does 1-25, 1:21-cv-04243-WMR-CMS (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11,
2021).

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

The Credit Bureau of Bessemer, Inc. -- https://www.cbbessemer.com/
-- is a credit union in Bessemer, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 500-7861
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com


CREDIT CORP: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Deadline & Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD DURLING, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-61002-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant Credit
Corp moves for a stay of the class certification deadline,
discovery and depositions pending the Court's ruling on CCSI's
pending Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint that was filed on
July 22, 2021.

On May 11, 2021, the Plaintiff, Gerald Durling filed a class action
complaint purporting to allege violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that he
was sent a letter on or about January 21, 2021 that he claims was a
"communication" for purposes of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff further alleges that CCSI engages third party vendors
to mail letters on its behalf. The Plaintiff alleges that in this
case, CCSI provided account information to a third-party mailing
vendor in violation of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff alleges that he and
all others similarly situated did not consent for CCSI to provide
information to a third-party mailing vendor and he therefore seeks
class damages against CCSI. The Plaintiff specifically cited the
Eleventh Circuit's decision in the Hunstein Case as the basis for
the class claims.

On April 21, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion in the
Hunstein Case which reversed and remanded the Middle District of
Florida's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint that was
brought under the FDCPA.

On May 26, 2021, the respondent, Preferred Collection and
Management Services, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing en banc in
the Eleventh Circuit. The petition for rehearing en banc is still
pending and has not been resolved, and additional organizations may
seek to file amicus curiae briefs since the Hunstein Case is highly
consequential for the debt collection and receivables management
industry.

On July 22, 2021, CCSI filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class
Action Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 5, 2021, the Plaintiff
filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Credit Corp Solutions is a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BlpyNX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shakiva L. Brown, Esq.
          Nicole R. Topper, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 512-1800
          Facsimile: (954) 512-1789
          E-mail: Shakiva.Brown@BlankRome.com
                  NTopper@BlankRome.com
                  BRFLeservice@BlankRome.com

CREST MORTGAGE: Romero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crest Mortgage, Inc.
The case is styled as Marlon Romero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Crest Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-01776 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2021).

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

Crest Mortgage, Inc. -- https://www.crestmortgage.com/site-map/ --
specialize in mortgages, home loans, mortgage rates,
refinance.[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


CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL: Hosey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. HOSEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT – TIR, LLC f/k/a
CYPRESS ENERGY MANAGEMENT TIR, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00550 (S.D.W.V., October 6, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an Environmental
Inspector from approximately June 2018 until June 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to properly pay him
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess 40 per workweek
because the Defendant failed to include all remuneration for
employment when calculating his regular rate for the purpose of
determining his overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation for himself
and all other similarly situated employees against the Defendant,
as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may
be necessary and appropriate.

The Corporate Defendant is a full spectrum provider of Pipeline
Inspection, Pipeline Integrity services and Non-Destructive
Examination services to the oil and gas industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          James S. Nelson, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Tel: (304) 346-2889
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
                  jnelson@powellmajestro.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

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

DAPPER LABS: Rosen Named Lead Counsel in Friel Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEEUN FRIEL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAPPER LABS, INC. AND ROHAM
GHAREGOZLOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05837-VM (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed Gary Leuis as the Lead Plaintiff and
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as the Lead Counsel.

The securities class action has been filed against the Defendants
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15
U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i), on Aug. 6, 2021, a notice was
issued to the potential class members of the action informing them
of their right to move to serve as lead plaintiff within 60 days of
the date of the issuance of said notice.

On Oct. 5, 2021, Plaintiff Gary Leuis ("Movant") moved the Court to
appoint him as the Lead Plaintiff and to approve his selection of
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as the Lead Counsel.

Judge Marrero explains that the PSLRA provides, inter alia, that
the most-adequate plaintiff to serve as lead plaintiff is the
person or group of persons that has either filed a complaint or has
made a motion in response to a notice and has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the Class and satisfies the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. He finds that the Movant has
the largest financial interest in the action and prima facie
satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23.

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Act of 1933, the Movant is
appointed as the Lead Plaintiff for the class as it has the largest
financial interest in the litigation and otherwise satisfies the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. His choice of counsel is
approved and accordingly, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is appointed as
the Lead Counsel.

The Lead Counsel will manage the prosecution of the litigation. The
Lead Counsel is to avoid duplicative or unproductive activities and
is hereby vested by the Court with the responsibilities that
include, without limitation, the following: (1) to prepare all
pleadings; (2) to direct and coordinate the briefing and arguing of
motions in accordance with the schedules set by the orders and
rules of this Court; (3) to initiate and direct discovery; (4)
prepare the case for trial; and (5) to engage in settlement
negotiations on behalf of Lead Plaintiff and the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4s584eyc from Leagle.com.


DCD DELIVERY: Kotecki Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Lukas Kotecki, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. DCD DELIVERY, INC, and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC. d.b.a.
DHL EXPRESS, Case No. 6:21-cv-06653 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2021), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law about the Defendants' failure to comply with applicable wage
laws and to pay its non-exempt Courier Drivers--such as the
Plaintiff and the proposed Classes–-for all time worked as
required to meet DHL's delivery needs and deliver hundreds of DHL
packages each day.

The Plaintiff regularly worked 50 to 60 hours per week. The
Plaintiff observed that other Courier Drivers routinely worked a
similar number of hours per week. The Plaintiff and other Courier
Drivers regularly worked 5 or more days per week. The Defendants
did not pay the Plaintiff and other Courier Drivers for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and did not pay proper
overtime premiums. The Plaintiff was paid a flat rate of $850 per
week and he was not paid an overtime premium, despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants were and are
aware that the Plaintiff was and is a non-exempt employee and was
and is entitled to overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek. Despite DCD's awareness that the Plaintiff was
entitled to overtime premiums, DCD willfully attempted to
circumvent the FLSA and applicable state law by decreasing the
Plaintiff's base-rate pay, adding the difference back on his
paystub as fabricated "Overtime", and ultimately paying him the
same total sum as his regular flat-rate, with no overtime
compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Courier Driver in
New York since April 2020.

DCD provides last-mile delivery services to Defendant DHL. DCD
employs Courier Drivers to deliver packages to DHL's
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4620
          Email: scarson@bm.net
                 crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net
                 rstreater@bm.net


DESERT FINANCIAL: Court Wants More Briefing in Cornell Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Eva Cornell, Plaintiff v. Desert Financial Credit
Union, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-00835-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.),
Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona orders the parties to file supplemental briefing
concerning whether the addition of the arbitration clause resulted
in a valid contract modification.

Background

In the putative class action, Cornell alleges that Desert Financial
violated certain federal regulations that require clear disclosure
of a bank's overdraft practices. In response, Desert Financial has
moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause that it
added to its standard terms and conditions several years after the
Plaintiff opened her account.

The Court notes that it is undisputed that, when the Plaintiff
originally opened her account with Desert Financial, there was no
arbitration clause in the account agreement. However, when signing
the relevant applications, the Plaintiff agreed to be bound by
Desert Financial's account terms and conditions and agreed that
Desert Financial "may change those terms and conditions from time
to time." The Plaintiff also elected to receive monthly bank
statements from Desert Financial via email.

The Court also notes that it is undisputed that Desert Financial
sent the Plaintiff's monthly statement for the period ending on
March 20, 2021 "to the primary email address it has on file for the
Plaintiff." However, the Plaintiff avows in a declaration that she
did not actually review that statement (or any of the other monthly
statements that Desert Financial emailed to her). It is also
undisputed that the cross-referenced website displayed Desert
Financial's updated account agreement, which now includes the
arbitration clause.  Finally, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff
never subsequently opted out of the arbitration provision.

On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the complaint. On June 24,
2021, Desert Financial moved to compel arbitration. That same day,
it separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

On July 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed responses to both motions. On
Aug. 24, 2021, Desert Financial filed replies in support of both
motions.

On Sept. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental
authority. On Oct. 4, 2021, Desert Financial responded to the
Plaintiff's notice.

Analysis

The FAA provides that written agreements to arbitrate disputes
"shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract." Thus, absent a valid contractual defense, the FAA
"leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district
court, but instead mandates that district courts will direct the
parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an
arbitration agreement has been signed." The district court's role
under the FAA is "limited to determining (1) whether a valid
agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the
agreement encompasses the dispute at issue."

I. Gateway Questions of Arbitrability

Desert Financial asserts that, because the gateway questions have
been expressly delegated to an arbitrator, the Court must compel
arbitration without considering any preliminary issues. According
to Desert Financial, this outcome is compelled by the facts that
(1) the arbitration clause appearing in the current version of the
Desert Financial account agreement states that "all issues are for
the arbitrator to decide, including all gateway issues of
arbitrability"; and (2) that arbitration clause also requires that
the parties arbitrate under the American Arbitration Association's
("AAA") rules, which the Ninth Circuit has taken to generally mean
that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.

In response, the Plaintiff asks the Court to retain this case until
Desert Financial demonstrates that she, at the very least, gave
implied consent to the arbitration term. She also emphasizes that a
"court always decides the threshold issue of contract formation."
Desert Financial largely abandons the arbitrability issue in its
reply.

Judge Lanza holds that the Plaintiff has the better side of the
issue. He says, it may be true that the arbitration clause
appearing in the current version of Desert Financial's account
agreement allows an arbitrator to determine the gateway questions
and requires the application of AAA's rules during the arbitration,
but "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be
required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not
agreed so to submit." The Plaintiff asserts there was never a
"meeting of the minds" about the arbitration agreement and she thus
cannot be bound by any of its terms.

Judge Lanza agrees -- when, as in the case, there is a legitimate
dispute about whether the party opposing arbitration assented to
the modification of a contract to add an arbitration clause, it
would be improper for a court to robotically compel arbitration
based on delegation principles without conducting any independent
analysis of the contract-modification issue.

II. Validity of Contract Modification

As noted, the district court's role under the FAA is "limited to
determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and,
if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at
issue." The Plaintiff seemingly does not dispute that, if she
validly assented to the current version of Desert Financial's
account agreement, the arbitration clause within that agreement
encompasses the dispute at issue. Thus, it is only necessary to
address whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. If so, the
Court must "direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues
as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed."

Desert Financial provided notice to the Plaintiff that it had
'updated its Statement of Terms, Conditions, and Disclosures to
change how they will resolve legal disputes related to the
accounts' and directed the Plaintiff to those updated terms on
Desert Financial's website." The agreement then stated that
"arbitration is not a mandatory condition of you maintaining an
account with Credit Union. If you do not want to be subject to this
arbitration provision, YOU MAY OPT OUT of this Arbitration
Provision." Desert Financial argues that because the Plaintiff
failed to "exercise her right to opt out of the arbitration
provision," "an agreement to arbitrate between the parties"
exists.

The Plaintiff responds that there was no "meeting of the minds"
about the arbitration clause. Because there was no arbitration
clause in the account agreement when the Plaintiff opened her
account, she asserts that the "motion to compel turns on how Desert
Financial might have obtained her consent to arbitrate, when she
had not previously consented to do so."

Judge Lanza holds that the cases cited in the parties' briefs do
not fully address the key legal issue in the case -- whether, under
Arizona law, it is enough for a party seeking to modify a contact
to send notice of the proposed modification to the offeree through
a communication channel to which the offeree previously consented
(which, it is undisputed, occurred here), or whether the offeror
must also show that the offeree had actual, subjective knowledge of
the proposed modification (which, according to the Plaintiff's
evidence, was absent here). Rather than attempt to resolve this
issue through its own independent research, Judge Lanza solicits
supplemental briefing from the parties.

Order

Accordingly, Judge Lanza orders the parties to submit supplemental
briefing on the issue identified. Each party's brief was due Oct.
22, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. and may not exceed seven pages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2vc2748k from Leagle.com.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Summary Judgment Granted for Banks in Lima Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, LIONEL LIMA, JR., et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Defendant. EVELYN JANE GIBO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. DAVID
EMORY BALD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Civ. Nos. 12-00509 SOM-WRP, 12-00514 SOM-WRP, 13-00135
SOM-RT (D. Haw.), Judge Susan Oki Mollway of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii grants summary judgment in favor
of Defendant Banks in all three cases.

Introduction

Before the Court are the three cases that present an identical
dispositive issue. While the cases have not been consolidated, the
Court issues a single order for purposes of judicial economy. The
Court had previously paused these cases and terminated summary
judgment motions filed in each case pending an answer from the
Hawaii Supreme Court to a question certified by the Court. Having
received an answer, the Court now reinstates the summary judgment
motions at the request of the movants ("Defendant Banks").

Each case was styled as a class action arising out of nonjudicial
foreclosures in which the respective Plaintiffs claimed that a
Defendant Bank from which Plaintiffs had borrowed money failed to
follow the requirements for such foreclosures. The Plaintiffs
asserted claims of wrongful foreclosure and unfair and deceptive
acts and practices ("UDAP").

Background

The three putative class actions have proceeded in a parallel
manner. Filed in 2012 in state court and removed to federal court,
these cases have lengthy histories, which the Court summarized in
its Order Certifying a Question to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

There is no dispute that, in each of the three removed cases, the
Plaintiffs borrowed money from Defendant Banks in connection with
real estate holdings. Nor is there any dispute that each Plaintiff
defaulted on his or her mortgage and had significant mortgage
debt.

The Plaintiffs sued their respective banks, asserting violations of
the mortgagees' power-of-sale clause, violations of section 667-5
of Hawaii Revised Statutes, and UDAP claims under section 480-2 of
Hawaii Revised Statutes. In 2013, the court granted motions to
dismiss in each case. The Plaintiffs appealed.

While the three cases were on appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court
decided Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen, 139 Haw. 394, 391
P.3d 1 (2017). In light of Hungate, the Ninth Circuit reversed in
part and remanded the cases to the Court.

On remand, the Court gave the Plaintiffs leave to file amended
complaints. In each amended complaint, the Plaintiffs have
asserted: (1) a wrongful foreclosure tort claim, and (2) UDAP and
unfair method of competition ("UMOC") claims under section 480-2.

Defendant Banks filed motions for summary judgment in each case,
arguing, among numerous other things, that the Plaintiffs' claims
failed because they could not prove the harm element of either
their wrongful foreclosure claim or their section 480-2 claim. They
argued that, even assuming that they had engaged in the alleged
practices and that those practices violated the powers of sale and
the statutes governing nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, the
Plaintiffs had failed to offer any evidence that they had suffered
any harm as a result of the practices.

The Plaintiffs responded that evidence that they had lost title,
possession, and the value of their investments sufficed to
establish harm and to survive summary judgment. They therefore
presented no evidence with respect to the effect of the mortgage
debt on the monetary value of any lost title and possession, or on
the value of their investment.

After a hearing on the summary judgment motions, the Court
certified the following question to the Hawaii Supreme Court: When
(a) a borrower has indisputably defaulted on a mortgage for real
property, (b) a lender has conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale
but has not strictly complied with the requirements governing such
sales, and (c) the borrower sues the lender over that noncompliance
after the foreclosure sale and, if the property was purchased at
foreclosure by the lender, after any subsequent sale to a
third-party purchaser, may the borrower establish the requisite
harm for liability purposes under the law of wrongful foreclosure
and/or section 480-2 of Hawai`i Revised Statutes by demonstrating
the loss of title, possession, and/or investments in the property
without regard to the effect of the mortgage on those items?

The Court stayed proceedings in each case and terminated the
respective motions for summary judgment pending an answer from the
Hawaii Supreme Court, telling the parties that they could reinstate
the motions for summary judgment by informing the court in writing
that the motions should be reinstated. .

On Sept. 3, 2021, the Hawaii Supreme Court answered the certified
question. The Hawaii Supreme Court noted that the Plaintiffs had
not directly addressed the Court's certified question and had
instead argued that Defendant Banks bore the burden of
demonstrating the impact of the mortgage debt.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiffs were required to
demonstrate a right to compensatory damages for their wrongful
foreclosure and section 480-2 claims. Nominal and punitive damages
were not enough, by themselves, to satisfy the harm element of the
claims. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the Plaintiffs'
identified damages of interest, loss-of-use payments, and past
payments, were insufficient under Hawaii law to establish that they
had sustained damages, given their failure to account for their
mortgage debts. According to the Hawaii Supreme Court, the
Plaintiffs "must make a prima facie case that their requested
damages will restore them to their pre-tort position to survive
summary judgment."

On Oct. 4, 2021, Defendant Banks asked the Court to reinstate their
summary judgment motions and to grant their summary judgment
motions in light of the Hawaii Supreme Court's answer to the
certified question. On the same say, the Plaintiffs similarly
stated that the Court "should have all the facts and law that it
needs to rule on all the pending motions." These filings make it
clear that the parties agree that the record is complete and that
no further submissions are necessary for the Court to rule. The
Plaintiffs have made no attempt to account for their mortgage debt
in opposing the present motions, a fatal omission under the
reasoning presented by the Hawaii Supreme Court in its response to
the Court's certified question. It appears that the Plaintiffs
cannot establish their damages when their mortgage debt is taken
into account.

In their submissions on Oct. 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs suggest that
the Court orders a settlement conference. The Court notes that the
parties have been engaged in some settlement discussions, as shown
by the series of orders removing class members because of partial
settlements. In fact, it had wondered whether the parties on their
own might have been discussing settlement of these three cases as a
whole in the month since the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its order.
If not, the case has run so long that conclusion by way of prompt
order seems the best way to proceed at this point.

Discussion

Given the Hawaii Supreme Court's answer to the Court's certified
question, the analysis with respect to Defendant Banks' motions for
summary judgment is straightforward. The Plaintiffs have not put
forth any evidence demonstrating that, when their outstanding debt
is taken into account, they can prove compensatory damages. Under
the Hawaii Supreme Court's guidance, the Plaintiffs cannot survive
Defendant Banks' motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, summary
judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Banks.

As the Hawaii Supreme Court noted, the Plaintiffs have the burden
of demonstrating every element of their wrongful foreclosure and
section 480-2 claims, including the existence of the compensable
damages they sustained. At best, the Plaintiffs have identified
damages arising out of interest, loss-of-use payments, and past
payments. But, the Hawaii Supreme Court notes, these are not
sufficient to establish Plaintiffs' damages under the
circumstances. The Plaintiffs have never denied that, prior to the
nonjudicial foreclosures, their properties were encumbered by
mortgages that they could not repay. Those debts were part of their
financial circumstances before any injury, and it was their
obligation to account for those debts in their case in chief. The
Hawaii Supreme Court has made clear that the failure to meet that
obligation is determinative of the summary judgment motions. The
Plaintiffs cannot raise a genuine issue of fact with respect to
compensatory damages without showing that, when their debts are
taken into account, they have suffered harm.

With the Hawaii Supreme Court's answer to the court's certified
question in hand, the Plaintiffs are not asserting that they can
establish damages even if they account for their mortgage debts.
Under these circumstances, Judge Mollway concludes that the
Plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure and section 480-2 claims fail for
want of evidence concerning their damages.

Conclusion

Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Banks in all
three cases. Because she grants summary judgment in favor of
Defendant Banks, Judge Mollway need not reinstate or address the
merits of any other motion that had not received a substantive
ruling as of the time the Court certified its question to the
Hawaii Supreme Court. Those other motions are rendered moot by the
present Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2jb4kcuz from Leagle.com.


DREEM GREEN: Faces Tuck FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Tipped Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY TUCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREEM GREEN, INC. D/B/A JARS CANNABIS; JARS
EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, LLC; LEGACY & CO, INC.; DESERT MEDICAL CAMPUS,
INC.; RONNIE KASSAB; and TANYA KASSAB, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01764-GMS (D. Ariz., October 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for keeping employees' tips in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
since December 2020.

Dreem Green, Inc., doing business as Jars Cannabis, is a cannabis
store located in Arizona.

Jars Employee Management, LLC is an employee management company
based in Arizona.

Legacy & Co, Inc. is a licensed dispensary in Arizona.

Desert Medical Campus, Inc. is a medical services company in
Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Michael Zoldan, Esq.
         Jason Barrat, Esq.
         ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
         5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
         Phoenix, AZ 85018
         Telephone: (480) 442-3410
         E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                 jbarrat@zoldangroup.com

ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Suit With Prejudice Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL KUEHL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ELECTROCORE, INC.,
FRANCIS R. AMATO, JOSEPH P. ERRICO, PETER S. STAATS, GLENN S.
VRANIAK, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, NICHOLAS COLUCCI, CARRIE S. COX, TREVOR
J. MOODY, STEPHEN L. ONDRA, MICHAEL W. ROSS, DAVID M. RUBIN, JAMES
L.L. TULLIS, THOMAS J. ERRICO, EVERCORE GROUP, LLC, CANTOR
FITZGERALD & CO., JMP SECURITIES, BTIG, LLC, CORE VENTURES II, LLC,
and CORE VENTURES IV, LLC, Defendants-Respondents. SHIRLEY STONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. ELECTROCORE, INC., FRANCIS R. AMATO, GLENN
S. VRANIAK, JOSEPH P. ERRICO, NICHOLAS COLUCCI, THOMAS J. ERRICO,
TREVOR J. MOODY, MICHAEL W. ROSS, DAVID M. RUBIN, JAMES L.L.
TULLIS, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, CARRIE S. COX, STEPHEN L. ONDRA, EVERCORE
GROUP, LLC, CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., JMP SECURITIES, LLC, and BTIG,
LLC, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-2972-19 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
reverses the Feb. 14, 2020 order dismissing Plaintiffs Paul Kuehl
and Shirley Stone's complaint with prejudice and denying as moot a
motion for leave to amend their pleadings

The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action against a
manufacturer of a migraine headache treatment device. They also
sued some of the manufacturers' officers, directors, underwriters,
and venture capital associates. The Plaintiffs allege the
manufacturer's initial public offering documents contained
materially false and misleading statements and material omissions.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint
for failure to state causes of action under Rule 4:6-2(e) and
failure to plead fraud with specificity under Rule 4:5-8(a). The
motion judge granted dismissal of the Plaintiffs' pleadings with
prejudice. However, the judge did not conduct argument on the
dismissal motion and failed to issue an oral or written opinion
articulating factual findings and legal conclusions.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue the motion judge erred in granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss their amended complaint with
prejudice. Additionally, plaintiffs contend the judge erred in
denying as moot their motion to amend the complaint.

The Superior Court agrees with both arguments. First, there was no
oral argument on the Defendants' dismissal motion. The Defendants
sought substantive, dispositive relief in seeking the dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' pleadings with prejudice. In the motion, the
Defendants requested oral argument if the motion was opposed.
Because the Plaintiffs filed opposition, oral argument should have
been granted.

A request for oral argument on a dispositive motion should be
granted as of right. While a trial court may deny a request for
oral argument on a substantive motion, "the reason for the denial
of the request, in that circumstance, should itself be set forth on
the record."

In the case, the motion judge did not conduct oral argument. Nor
did she offer reasons for declining to allow oral argument. In
addition, the motion judge failed to set forth findings of fact and
conclusions of law in support of the Feb. 14, 2020 order. A motion
judge is required to provide reasons in support of his or her
decision, either on the record or in writing.

Moreover, the appellate court ordinarily cannot perform its review
function in the absence of findings." The Superior Court cannot
review the decision of the trial court on a blank slate.

For these reasons, the Superior Court is constrained to vacate the
Feb. 14, 2020 order and remand to a new judge because the judge who
issued the Feb. 14, 2020 order retired. The remand judge will
address anew the issues in the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. In addition, the
remand judge should conduct oral argument on the Defendants'
substantive dismissal motion. The remand judge is not bound by the
prior judge's disposition of the motions. The Superior Court
expresses no opinion on the outcome of the motions upon remand.

Vacated and remanded. The Superior Court does not retain
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2nu5zr6k from Leagle.com.

Noam Mandel -- Noam@rgrdlaw.com -- (Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause
for the Appellants (Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, LLP,
Daniel A. Griffith and Kaan Eikiner (Whiteford, Taylor & Preston,
LLC), Yury A. Kolesnikov (Bottini & Bottini, Inc.) of the
California bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Peter S.
Pearlman, Audra DePaolo, Matthew F. Gately, Daniel A. Griffith,
Kaan Ekiner, Noam Mandel, and Yury A. Kolesnikov, on the briefs).

Kenneth J. Pfaehler -- kenneth.pfaehler@dentons.com -- (Dentons US,
LLP) of the District of Columbia and New York bars, admitted pro
hac vice, argued the cause for Respondents electroCore, Inc.,
Francis R. Amato, Joseph P. Errico, Peter S. Staats, Glen S.
Vraniak, Michale G. Atieh, Nicholas Colucci, Carrie S. Cox, Trevor
J. Moody, Stephen L. Ondra, Michael W. Ross, David M. Rubin, James
L. L. Tullis, Thomas J. Errico, Core Ventures II, LLC, and Core
Ventures IV (Dentons US, LLP, Kenneth J. Pfaehler and Drew Marrocco
(Dentons US, LLP) of the District of Columbia and Virginia bars,
admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Kenneth J. Pfaehler, Jonathan S.
Jemison, Jonathan D. Henry, and Drew Marrocco, on the briefs).

Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, Jeffrey D. Hoschander --
jeff.hoschander@shearman.com -- (Shearman & Sterling, LLP) of the
New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Adam S. Hakki (Shearman &
Sterling, LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice,
attorneys for Respondents Evercore Group, LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald &
Co., JMP Securities, LLC, and BTIG, LLC (Philip S. Rosen, Adam S.
Hakki, and Jeffrey D. Hoschander, on the brief).


ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esparza Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Miguel Angel Arevalo Hernandez, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Esparza
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. BCV-21-102477 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Oct. 21, 2021).

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

Esparza Enterprises -- https://esparzainc.com/ -- has been in
business for more than 34 years operating with the same Farm Labor
Contractor's license since inception in 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cecile Vue, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 310-432-0000
          Fax: 310-432-0001
          Email: cvue@lelawfirm.com



FAMILY FIRST: Suescum Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Suescum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-01769-WWB-EJK (M.D., Fla., Oct. 21, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act, as a result of the Defendant sending
the Plaintiff unsolicited text messages.

On September 29, 2021, the Defendant sent unsolicited text messages
to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The Defendant's text
messages did not include instructions on how to opt-out of future
messages. The Plaintiff received the text messages from within this
judicial district and, therefore, the Defendant's violation of the
TCPA and FTSA. The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused
Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion. Defendant's text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff
and caused disruption to his daily life, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Seminole
County, Florida.

The Defendant is an insurance agency that specializes in mortgage
protection insurance, final expense life insurance, retirement
planning through universal life policies, and retirement protection
through the use of fixed index annuities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENITLE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305-479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


GOLDEN OCALA: Alexander Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alexander, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Golden Ocala Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00502, (M.D. Fla., October 12, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated
damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Golden Ocala Management owns and operates "Golden Ocala and
Equestrian Club," a golf and equestrian club with a principal place
of business located in Marion County, Florida where Alexander
worked as a cook. He claims to have worked in excess of forty hours
per work week during one or more work weeks but was not paid
overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
      Bruce Mount, Esq.
      THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
      631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Telephone: (407) 574-4999
      Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
      Email: ahall@theleachfirm.com
             bmount@theleachfirm.com
             yhernandez@theleachfirm.com


GOOD SHEPHERD: Gray Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages and OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH GRAY, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Good Shepherd Fairview
home, Inc. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled
by Good Shepherd Fairview Home, Inc., Plaintiffs v. GOOD SHEPHERD
FAIRVIEW HOME, INC., and any related entities, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01096-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., October 6, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover
unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as related damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Gray was employed by the Defendant as a nursing assistant
from approximately July 2015 until June 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not properly pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours they
have worked, including overtime compensation, despite being
required to perform work for the Defendant. Specifically, the
Defendant would automatically deduct one-half hour of pay from the
Plaintiff's paychecks for a meal break although the Plaintiff would
usually be too busy working to take a full or even partial meal
break. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant consistently and
repeatedly used this policy, procedure and method of automatically
deducting one-half hour for meal breaks whether taken by the
employee or not. As a result, despite regularly working more than
40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not properly paid their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek,
says the suit.

Good Shepherd Fairview Home, Inc. offers housing and healthcare
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Tel: (315) 314-8000
          Fax: (315) 446-7521
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Underpays Adjusters, Pugliese Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARC PUGLIESE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a
GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-11629 (D. Mass., October 6,
2021) brings this class and collective action complaint against the
Defendant seeking to recover damages for the Defendant's violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an adjuster during
the period of about January 2019 through March 2021.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he and
other similarly situated employees were required by the Defendant
to work 8-10 or more hours per day and/or about 40-50 or more hours
per week. However, the Defendant did not properly compensate them
for all hours worked. Instead, they were only paid a flat weekly
salary or at an hourly rate designed and intended to compensate him
for 7.75 hours per day with no wages paid for a 45-minute meal
period, says the suit.

Government Employees Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO provides
insurance services for Government Employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
          FORMISANO & CO., P.C.
          100 Midway Place, Suite 1
          Cranston, RI 02920
          Tel: (401) 944-9691
          E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com

                - and –

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Tel: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com

HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: Jarnagin's Class Cert. Bid in Riley Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHANDLE MARIE RILEY, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON COUNTY
GOVERNMENT, DANIEL WILKEY, individually and in his capacity as
deputy sheriff for Hamilton County Government, and JACOB GOFORTH,
individually and in his capacity as deputy sheriff for Hamilton
County Government, Defendants, Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-304 (E.D.
Tenn.), Judge Travis R. McDonough of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga, denied Plaintiff
Maxwell Jarnagin's motion to certify a class pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Background

On Dec. 17, 2019, Jarnagin filed suit against Defendants Daniel
Wilkey and Hamilton County, Tennessee, in the Circuit Court for
Hamilton County, Tennessee. The case was subsequently removed and
consolidated with various other cases against Wilkey, Hamilton
County, and other Defendants.

Mr. Jarnagin's claims against Wilkey arise from a traffic stop and
alleged unconstitutional search that occurred in Hamilton County,
Tennessee, on March 30, 2019. During that traffic stop, Jarnagin
alleges that Wilkey ordered him out of the car, handcuffed him, and
"searched" him by inappropriately and unlawfully touching his
genitals. Jarnagin's claims against Hamilton County arise from the
County's alleged deliberate indifference to the violation of his
and others' constitutional rights and a pattern, custom, or
practice of allowing its employees to violate the constitutional
rights of citizens.

Mr. Jarnagin purports to bring his claims on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons and has filed a motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Mr. Jarnagin seeks an order certifying a class consisting of
"people who were physically and inappropriately searched by Officer
Daniel Wilkey in a public place where the search included
inappropriate and unconstitutional touching of the person's body
limited to those individuals whose searches were captured on
video." Mr. Jarnagin's motion for class certification is ripe for
review.

Analysis

A. Timeliness

As a preliminary matter, Judge McDonough addresses the Defendants'
arguments concerning the timeliness of Jarnagin's motion. Following
the scheduling conference and consolidation of the cases in the
action, the Court set an initial schedule governing the
consolidated action. The initial scheduling order provided that
"all discovery on class-certification issues will be completed by
Sept. 18, 2020," and set the deadline for Jarnagin to file his
motion for class certification as Oct. 16, 2020. (Id. at 2-3.)

On Sept. 30, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the
scheduling order, which the Court granted on Nov. 2, 2020. Because
the deadline for class discovery had already expired at the time
the parties' moved to amend the scheduling order, the Court did not
include a new deadline for the completion of class discovery in the
amended scheduling order. However, it did reset the deadline for
the motion for class certification to Jan. 11, 2021.

On Jan. 11, 2021, Jarnagin did not file a motion for class
certification and instead filed a motion to reset the deadline for
filing a such a motion, asking that the motion be allowed to be
filed 30 days after his counsel could depose Defendant Daniel
Wilkey. It appears that this motion was not resolved when the
parties filed their second joint motion to amend the scheduling
order.

On Sept. 13, 2021, the Court granted the joint motion and amended
the scheduling order for a second time. However, because the
previous deadline to file a motion for class certification had
passed, the Court did not include such a deadline in the most
recent scheduling order, though it had apparently never ruled on
the motion for extension. Three days after the entry of the most
recent scheduling order, Jarnagin filed his motion for class
certification.

The Defendants now argue that Jarnagin's motion for extension was
untimely pursuant to the Court's judicial preferences, rendering
his motion for class certification untimely as well.

Judge McDonough holds that the fact and length of extensions is in
the Court's discretion. Although Jarnagin did not file his motion
for extension "well in advance of the deadline," he will not deny
his motion on the grounds that it was untimely, because his motion
for extension was not properly resolved before he filed the motion
for class certification. Nevertheless, Judge McDonough denies the
motion on its merits.

B. Merits

In his memorandum in support of his motion for class certification,
Jarnagin mistakenly asks the Court to "balance all the factors in
Rule 23" and "weigh the importance of each factor." But this is not
the standard for class certification. "Subsection (a) of Rule 23
contains for prerequisites which must all be met before a class can
be certified," and "[o]nce those conditions are satisfied, the
party seeking certification must also demonstrate that it falls
within at least one of the subcategories of Rule 23(b)." Jarnagin
has not shown that Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity or
typicality are satisfied. Therefore, Judge McDonough cannot grant
his motion certify a class.

C. Rule 23(a) Requirements

1. Numerosity

To be entitled to class certification, a named plaintiff must first
show that "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." The number of prospective class member required to
satisfy the numerosity requirement is case-specific and requires
examination of the underlying facts.

Judge McDonough finds that in support of his argument that the
putative class is sufficiently numerous, Jarnagin simply states
"the putative class is made up of several hundred persons."
Jarnagin offers no citation to the record in support of this
assertion and does not otherwise support his statement with
evidence in his motion or memorandum in support thereof. He does
briefly summarize the facts of eight other pending cases against
Wilkey and others, but does not state whether there is video
evidence of each of these incidents and, thus, does not show that
they are members of the asserted class. To obtain class
certification, Judge McDonough says Jarnagin must do more than
allege that the requirements are met: he must present facts that
support his assertions that the Rule 23 requirements are met.

Moreover, Jarnagin does not argue that joinder of these cases or
any other case is impracticable. And, indeed, these cases are
proceeding in the same court, with many of the same attorneys, and
the parties have agreed that jurisdiction and venue are
appropriate. However, these cases have not been joined, because the
parties have elected to pursue individual actions rather than join
with each other. Because of the lack of facts suggesting that
Jarnagin's mere assertion of numerosity is accurate or even likely
to be accurate, Judge McDonough concludes the class is not
sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).

2. Typicality

A named plaintiff must also show that their claims or defenses "are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Jarnagin asserts
that the typicality requirement is satisfied because he "was
molested by Wilkey on the side of a public road" and "the putative
class members are those people who were similarly molested in
public."

Judge McDonough holds that it is not a circumstance where there are
numerous claims arising out of the same event. The alleged
unconstitutional searches occurred on different days, at different
locations, and involve different pretextual reasons for the stops
and searches. These varying circumstances also render each
plaintiff's claims subject to different defenses. For example,
because some inappropriate searches took place before others, some
Plaintiffs' claims may be subject to statute-of-limitations
defenses. Further, some of these incidents involved other officers,
and many individual plaintiffs who would be potential class members
have sued additional parties whom Jarnagin did not sue.
Additionally, some of the Plaintiffs in other cases have alleged
repeated harassment and inappropriate searches. All of these
considerations lead Judge McDonough to conclude that Jarnagin's
claims are not typical of the class claims.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge McDonough denied Jarnagin's motion for
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sraufn7p from Leagle.com.


HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: Sends Telemarketing Robocalls, Moore Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. and
JOHN DOE DEFENDANT d/b/a "HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT", Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05572 (N.D. Ill., October 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants contacted the phone
numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers through
cold call telemarketing without obtaining prior express consent.
The Plaintiff's number has been continuously on the National Do Not
Call Registry prior to the receipt of the calls at issue. The
Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed by the acts of the
Defendants because their privacy has been violated and they were
subjected to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a
nuisance, added the suit.

HealthCompare Insurance Services, Inc. is an insurance company,
with its principal place of business at 5630 University Parkway in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
         PARONICH LAW, P.C.
         350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (508) 221-1510
         E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

HUHTAMAKI INC: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 18, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VELMA HERNANDEZ v.
HUHTAMAKI, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08155-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge EDWARD M. Chen entered an order setting class certification
deadlines as follows:

              Event                           Deadline

  -- Plaintiff's motion for class             Feb. 18, 2022
     certification and any expert
     reports in connection therewith

  -- Defendant's opposition to class          May 25, 2022
     certification and any expert
     reports in connection therewith

  -- Plaintiff's reply in support of          April 22, 2022
     motion for class certification
     and any expert reports in rebuttal
     to Defendant's expert reports in
     connection therewith

  -- Either Party may file a motion           April 29, 2022
     challenging expert testimony


  -- Either Party may file an opposition      May 20, 2022
     to any motion challenging expert
     testimony

  -- Either Party may file a reply            May 27, 2022
     in support of any motion
     challenging expert testimony

  -- Hearing on motion for class              June 23, 2022
     certification and related
     motions to exclude expert testimony

Huhtamaki is a global food packaging specialist, headquartered in
Espoo, Finland.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m5wOsK at no extra charge.[CC]

INOVALON HOLDINGS: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund and Steamfitters Local 449
Retirement Security Fund, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated stockholders of Inovalon Holdings, Inc. v. INOVALON
HOLDINGS, INC., KEITH R. DUNLEAVY, DENISE K. FLETCHER, WILLIAM D.
GREEN, ISAAC S. KOHANE, MARK A. PULIDO, LEE D. ROBERTS, WILLIAM J.
TEUBER, MERITAS HOLDINGS, LLC, MERITAS GROUP, INC., DUNLEAVY
FOUNDATION, CAPE CAPITAL SCSP. SICAR INOVALON SUB-FUND, and ANDRE
HOFFMAN, Case No. 2021-0914 (Del. Chancery Ct., Oct. 21, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for a declaratory judgment and for
breaches of fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, Inovalon went public in 2015 with a
dual class-structure that provided control of the Company to its
founder and Chief Executive Officer Keith Dunleavy so long as he
maintained full control over the super-voting Class B shares he
owned. Inovalon's Second Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the "Charter") provides that whenever Dunleavy or
any other Class B stockholder "Transfers" their super voting Class
B shares, those shares automatically convert into low-vote Class A
shares. The Charter also provides that once the number of
outstanding Class B shares constitute less than 10% of the
Company's aggregate number of outstanding Class A and Class B
shares, all outstanding shares convert into shares of a class of
"Common Stock" that each have one vote per share. The Charter
defines a "Transfer" to include the entry into a voting agreement
that allows another party to direct the voting of the Class B
shares.

On August 19, 2021, Inovalon entered into an agreement to be
acquired by a consortium of private equity investors (the
"Consortium") for $41 per share in cash (the "Merger"). As part of
the Merger, Dunleavy and his affiliates and the Company's second
largest holder of Class B shares (the "Cape Capital Parties") will
rollover $1.3 billion worth of their shares into equity in the
post-closing private company. Concurrently with the signing of the
Merger Agreement, the Dunleavy Parties and the Cape Capital Parties
entered into voting and support agreements (the "Voting
Agreements") with an affiliate of the Consortium that allows the
Consortium to direct the voting of the Class B shares owned by the
Dunleavy Parties and the Cape Capital Parties. Pursuant to the
Charter, this triggered the automatic conversion of those Class B
shares into Class A shares. Further, because the remaining Class B
shares constitute less than 10% of the aggregate outstanding Class
A and Class B shares, all of the Company's outstanding shares
converted into shares of Common Stock.

Despite the automatic conversion of the Company's Class A and Class
B shares, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement on October
15, 2021 that is written as if the Class A and Class B shares are
still outstanding and makes no mention of the automatic conversion
of those shares under Inovalon's Charter. Therefore, Plaintiff
seeks a prompt declaration that Inovalon's Class A and Class B
shares have converted into shares of Common Stock as well as an
injunction enjoining the stockholder vote until the Company issues
an accurate Proxy, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund and Steamfitters
Local 449 Retirement Security Fund have owned shares of Inovalon
stock continuously since prior to the announcement of the Merger.

Inovalon is a provider of cloud-based platforms empowering
data-driven healthcare.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 573-2540

               - and -

          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          David MacIsaac, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700

               - and -

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


JEROME'S FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elam Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHADD HUNTER ELAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEROME'S FURNITURE WAREHOUSE; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00043115-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 12,
2021) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern
of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

The complaint contends that the Defendants violated the state law
by failing to pay all wages at the correct rate, failing to provide
lawful meal periods and rest breaks or compensation in lieu
thereof, failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs,
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing
to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee throughout California.

Jerome's Furniture Warehouse is in the furniture retail
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Brown
University. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. John Brown
University, Case No. 1:21-cv-08652 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2021).

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

John Brown University -- https://www.jbu.edu/ -- is a private,
interdenominational, Christian university in Siloam Springs,
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


JUMPP LOGISTICS: Cervenka Sues Over Couriers' Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cervenka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jumpp Logistics, LLC and Couch Goat
Quandary, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00813 (E.D. Tex., Oct.
12, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the Collective Members
were all misclassified by the Defendants as independent
contractors, instead of non-exempt employees, and were not paid
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 within a single
workweek.

Mr. Cervenka worked as a courier for the Defendants from February
2020 to February 2021.

Jumpp Logistics, LLC operates a courier and logistics company based
in North Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

KEESLER FEDERAL: Miller Sues Over Improper ODT Fees Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEESLER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00326-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., October 20, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's collection of overdraft
transfer (ODT) fees for transactions which purportedly overdraw an
account. Keesler purports to charge ODT fees to transfer funds from
an accountholder's savings account to checking account when doing
so is necessary to avoid an ODT fee on the checking account.
However, Keesler makes such transfers, and assesses such ODT fees,
even when doing so does not avoid an ODT fee on a checking account,
causing accountholders to pay both and ODT fee and an ODT fees on a
single transaction. As a result of the Defendant's improper
practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained damages,
the suit alleges.

Keesler Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in
Biloxi, Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Christopher J. Weldy, Esq.
         WELDY LAW FIRM PLLC
         1438 N. State St.
         Jackson, MS 39202
         Telephone: (601) 624-7460
         E-mail: chris@weldylawfirm.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bain Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Don Bain, Judy Gutierrez, Rona Kaneff, Manuel
Amaya, Robert Mandeville, Mary Tussing, Steven Fillmore, John
Coleman, Johnny Bishop, Diana O'Rourke, Bernard Baudouin, Kim
Hastings, Henderson Hardy, Adam Lindenbaum, Vance Briggs, Steven
Sprinczeles, Beth Sluder, Richard Coleman, Teresa McCloy, David
Fleming, David Rasmussen, Sally Calahan, Martha Clements, Michael
Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips
Holding USA Inc., Philips RS North America LLC doing business as:
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11432 was transferred
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. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01488-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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
          MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC
          10 Derby Street, 4th Floor
          Salem, MA 01970
          Phone: (978) 744-8000
          Fax: (781) 593-8001
          Email: kjm@helpinginjured.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bemiss Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROY BEMISS, QUINTON GOODALL, MAURICE JOSEPH,
LAWRENCE ALLEN, LYDIA GRIDLEY, ROBERT KELLEY, SHARON WALLACE,
JOSEPH SIRIANNI, and DANIEL LINCOLN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-04173, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01417-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 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, the suit contends.

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

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Drake Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nathaniel Drake, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00280 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01422-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Contract Dispute.

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:

          Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
          SHIVER HAMILTON, LLC
          One Securities Centre
          3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Fax: (888) 501-9536
          Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Farmer Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diana M. Farmer, individually on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA Inc., Philips
RS North America LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00428 was transferred from
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01469-JFC to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Georgiana Boss, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON
          59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 566-7500
          Fax: (212) 566-7501

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael A. London, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          111 John Street, Suite #1400
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 566-7500
          Fax: (212) 566-7501
          Email: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron N. Arthur, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: (215) 963-5498
          Fax: (304) 414-1801
          Email: aaron.arthur@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Luxton, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 739-5452
          Fax: (202) 739-3001
          Email: sluxton@morganlewis.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Feick Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Feick, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North
America LLC, Philips Holding USA Inc., Philips RS North America
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11221 was transferred 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. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01483-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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES
          45 West Court Street
          Doylestown, PA 18901
          Phone: (215) 230-8043
          Email: medelson@edelson-law.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Goldberg Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Adam F. Goldberg, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS
North America LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01449-JFC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 21,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KUDA LEATHER: Rauda Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEYSI RAUDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KUDA LEATHER INC., MAURICIO VILLA, and
GLORIA RUIZ, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-01760 (M.D. Fla., October
20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a saddle maker from
June 2009 until her termination on September 18, 2021.

Kuda Leather Inc. is a saddle manufacturer, with its place of
business in Orange County, Florida. [BN]

The 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
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCDONOUGH v. LEOPOLD &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00375 (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting the
parties' motion for extension of time to complete discovery and
amending the amended case management order as follows:

   -- First Phase of Discovery to be completed by Nov. 5, 2021;

   -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification due by Nov. 19,
      2021;

   -- Defendants' Response to Motion due by Dec. 10, 2021; and

   -- All other deadlines set forth in the Case Management Order
      remain in full force and effect.

Leopold & Associates, PLLC is a law firm in focusing on commercial
and residential mortgage foreclosure, bankruptcy, creditors'
rights, evictions, and loss mitigation.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.[CC]

LEXINGTON GOLF: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILLA ROSADO-CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXINGTON GOLF & TRAVEL, LLC DBA
PLATINUM DOLLS; ACT DISTRIBUTORS LLC; GPT (DE) LLC; CHARLES G.
"JERRY" WESTLUND, JR. GERALD WESTLUND; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00267-DCR (E.D. Ky.,
October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
minimum wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and
forced tipping.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at
Platinum Dolls located at 1101 East New Circle Road, Lexington,
Kentucky from August 2018 to August 2019.

Lexington Golf & Travel, LLC, doing business as Platinum Dolls, is
an owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility located at
1101 East New Circle Road, Lexington, Kentucky.

ACT Distributors LLC is a limited liability company based in
Greensboro, North Carolina.

GPT (DE) LLC is a limited liability company based in Greensboro,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Liz J. Shepherd, Esq.
         DOLT, THOMPSON, SHEPHERD & CONWAY, PSC
         13800 Lake Point Circle
         Louisville, KY 40223
         Telephone: (502) 244-7772
         E-mail: lshepherd@kytrial.com

LINKUS HOLDINGS: Dailey Files ERISA Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA DAILEY, on behalf of the LinkUs Holdings, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HORACIO GUZMAN, DANT MORRIS, JON WARREN,
JOSEPHINA GUZMAN, JAMES URBACH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
LINKUS HOLDINGS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, and LINKUS
HOLDINGS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:21-at-00961 (E.D. Cal., Oct.
12, 2021) is a civil enforcement action brought pursuant to
Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit arises from the LinkUs Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan's (ESOP) purchase of stock from Defendants Horacio
Guzman, Josephina Guzman, Dant Morris and Jon Warren, known as
Selling Shareholder Defendants, in April 2013 (ESOP Transaction);
the Defendants' concealment of fiduciary violations in the ESOP
Transaction and in plan administration, including providing
fabricated documents to the U.S. Department of Labor; inflated
valuations of LinkUs stock from 2013-2018; the failure of the
Plan's fiduciaries to remedy fiduciary violations in the ESOP
Transaction and the inflated valuations; and the resulting loss of
millions of dollars by the ESOP and its participants.

According to the complaint, in contravention of their fiduciary
duties and ERISA's prohibited transaction rules, ESOP Trustee,
James Urbach, the Director Defendants and the Selling Shareholder
Defendants orchestrated the sale of the Company to the ESOP for
greater than fair market value. Specifically, the Selling
Shareholder Defendants allegedly negotiated an inflated sale price
with Urbach, which unjustly enriched the Selling Shareholder
Defendants, and caused harm to the ESOP participants, who are
current and former employees of the Company.

As a result of ERISA violations by the fiduciaries entrusted with
their Plan, Plaintiff and the Class have not received all of the
hard-earned retirement benefits or the loyal and prudent management
of the ESOP to which they are entitled to, says the suit.

LinkUs Holdings, Inc. is a regional service provider that installs
and maintains Dish satellite TV equipment in certain regions of
California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana. LinkUs
is the Plan Sponsor within the meaning of ERISA and designated as a
Plan Administrator of the ESOP within the meaning of ERISA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com

LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL: SEC Approves Second Distribution Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by

Epiq, as Fund Administrator appointed in the administrative action
involving Logitech International issued the following statement:

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-17212

In the Matter of LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL, S.A., MICHAEL DOKTORCZYK,
and SHERRALYN BOLLES, CPA, Respondents.

If you purchased Logitech ordinary stock (LOGN) on the SIX Swiss
Exchange (the "Security") during the period from May 28, 2011
through July 27, 2011, inclusive (the "Recovery Period"), you may
be eligible for compensation.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY FROM THE LOGITECH FAIR FUND.
THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOGITECH
FAIR FUND AND THE CLAIMS PROCESS.

What this case is about:

On April 19, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Cease-and-Desist Orders and
Penalties (the "Order") against the Respondents.  In the Order, the
Commission found Logitech responsible for recurring instances of
improper accounting between 2008 and 2013 related to a product
write-down, warranty liabilities, and revenue recognition.  The
Commission further found Doktorczyk and Bolles, both former
officers of Logitech, responsible for the improper accounting for
warranty liabilities that occurred during their employment.  The
Commission ordered Logitech, Doktorczyk, and Bolles to pay civil
money penalties of $7,500,000.00, $50,000.00, and $25,000.00,
respectively.

On February 27, 2018, the Commission established a Fair Fund
pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so
that the $7.575 million in civil money penalties paid by the
Respondents could be distributed for the benefit of the injured
investors (the "Logitech Fair Fund").  The assets of the Logitech
Fair Fund are subject to the continuing jurisdiction and control of
the Commission.

The Commission approved the first plan of distribution ("First
Plan") on October 26, 2018, which resulted in the full
compensation, including reasonable interest, of all eligible
claimants who purchased shares of Logitech common stock on the
Nasdaq Global Select Market.

By Order dated September 20, 2021, the Commission approved the
Second Plan of Distribution (the "Second Plan"), pursuant to which
the Fund Administrator will distribute the Net Available Fair Fund
to Eligible Claimants who purchased the Security during the
Recovery Period. You can review the Second Plan, available at
www.logitechfairfund.com for more information and for the
definitions of the capitalized terms.

Who is Eligible for Compensation

To qualify for a payment from the Fair Fund, you must have
purchased Logitech ordinary stock on the SIX Swiss Exchange under
the trading symbol LOGN between May 28, 2011 and July 27, 2011,
inclusive.

How to Submit a Claim

You can file a Proof of Claim Form by filing a claim online at
www.logitechfairfund.com or by mailing the completed form to:

Logitech Fair Fund
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 10568
Dublin, OH 43017-7268
Questions@logitechfairfund.com

You must complete and sign the Proof of Claim form and submit it to
Fund Administrator so that it is postmarked (or if not sent by U.S.
Mail, received by the Fund Administrator) no later than February
15, 2022.

If you have any questions, or if you would like to receive a Proof
of Claim Form in the mail, you may call 877-919-5896, send an email
to Questions@logitechfairfund.com , or visit
www.logitechfairfund.com


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Court Tosses Thai Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANH VAN THAI, DON DOAN,
TOMMY NGUYEN, and ROES 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; WILLIAM
VILLASENOR; DULCE SANCHEZ; and STATE AND/OR LOCAL AGENTS LADA DOES
1-10, the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order denying the
motion for class certification and the motion for extension of time
to file motion for class certification.

On February 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Class
Action Complaint (FAC) against Defendants William Villasenor, Dulce
Sanchez, County of Los Angeles, and "State and/or Local Agents LADA
1 Does 1-10," the operative complaint in this matter.

The Plaintiffs allege that in early 2014, Defendants Villasenor and
Sanchez forcibly entered Plaintiffs' homes and interrogated them
about their Social Security 9 , pursuant to a County of Los Angeles
policy. The Plaintiffs bring federal constitutional and state law
claims arising from the allegedly unlawful search, seizure, and
harassment of Vietnamese refugees and immigrants who applied for
Social Security 12 .

On June 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   "All immigrants in the San Diego county area who are eligible
   to apply for Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and/or
   Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under Title II
   and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. section
   401, et seq., who have been or will be searched, detained, or
   questioned by County defendant agents at their home, or who
   have cancelled their applications or who have not applied due
   to fear of being searched and questioned."

Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, and
sometimes abbreviated as L.A. County, is the most populous county
in the United States and in the U.S. state of California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GjazYv at no extra charge.[CC]

LOVE STYLE: Faces Worrall Suit Over Fraudulent Information Return
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CRAIG WORRALL, EMILY LONGMIRE, JAZMIN WITHERSPOON, COLLIN
GINEBAUGH, and KESSYN ALAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIMOTHY LOVE, LOVE STYLE INC.,
LDWB KNOX LLC d/b/a LONESOME DOVE WESTERN BISTRO, RIVER SHACK LLC
d/b/a WOODSHED SMOKEHOUSE, and LOVE MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02602-M (N.D. Tex., October 20, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' filing of fraudulent
information return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that
they paid the Plaintiffs and Class members sick leave under FFCRA
when in reality, they had not. The Defendants received a tax credit
for these nonexistent payments, and the Plaintiffs and Class
Members paid the IRS taxes in excess of what they earned. The
Plaintiffs and Class members bring this class action to recover
their excess IRS payment.

Love Style Inc. is the umbrella company of Lonesome Dove Western
Bistro and Woodshed Smokehouse restaurants, with its headquarters
located at 713 N. Main St., Fort Worth, Texas.

Love Management Inc. is a restaurant management services company,
with its headquarters located at 713 N. Main St., Fort Worth,
Texas.

LDWB Knox LLC, doing business as Lonesome Dove Western Bistro, is a
restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business
located at 100 N. Central St., Knoxville, Tennessee.

River Shack LLC, doing business as Woodshed Smokehouse, is a
restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business
at 3201 Riverfront Dr., Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq.
         THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP
         244 Fifth Ave., Suite H211
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (646) 248-2288
         E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com

LVNV FUNDING: Howards Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS HOWARD and VANESSA
HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00093-KRG (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "All individuals who filed for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania,
      had Defendants file a proof of claim between June 6, 2018,
      to December 31, 2018, and had Defendants represent in the
      claim that the debt underlying the claim was composed
      entirely of principal, even though Defendants held an
      account statement, data string, or other document that
      showed the debt included interest and/or fees, in addition
      to principal;"

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appoint their counsel as class counsel.

LVNV Funding is a debt collection agency. Resurgent Capital
Services is a manager and servicer of domestic and international
consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EaGSqy
at no extra charge[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgorup.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
          MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
          112 Washington Place
          Chatham 2, Suite 230
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 889-8535
          E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net

MANDEL GROUP: Terry Sues Over Unpaid OT for Leasing Consultants
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANYELLE TERRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANDEL GROUP, INC. and MANDEL PROPERTY
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01220 (E.D. Wis.,
October 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Ms. Terry was employed by the Defendants as a leasing consultant or
leasing agent in approximately September 2016 until October 2019.
She was re-hired in the same position in May 2020 until June 2020.

Mandel Group, Inc. is a company that owns, operates, develops, and
manages real estate and various properties in multiple U.S. states,
with a principal place of business at 330 East Kilbourn Avenue,
Suite 600 South Tower, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Mandel Property Services, Inc. is a real estate company, with a
principal place of business at 330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 600
South Tower, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

MCCREARY VESELKA: Appeal From Class Cert. Ruling in Perez Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen, P.C., et al., filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
MARIELA PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. McCREARY, VESELKA, BRAGG & ALLEN, P.C., and
MVBA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-724, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 30, 2021, Judge
Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas (i) granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment;
(ii) granted the Defendants' summary judgment as to Perez's claims
against MVBA PC and Perez's claim based on Section 1692(f); (iii)
denied Perez's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (iv) granted
Perez's Motion to Certify Class.

Ms. Perez brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA"). Shortly after May 2, 2019, Perez received a letter
stating that "MVBA has been retained to collect an outstanding debt
due," with regards to a utility bill for $486.57 that was
delinquent as of May 1, 2015. The letter was dated May 2, 2019. The
letter included a heading at the top that stated "MVBA LLC," and
requested payment be mailed to "McCreary Veselka Bragg & Allen,
L.L.C." and "MVBA" at the bottom of the letter. It states that
"payment in full is required." Because the debt was more than four
years old, it was no longer legally enforceable under the Texas
statute of limitations, the complaint asserted.  

The Defendants initially sought a review of the order granting
Plaintiff's motion to certify class on September 10, 2021.

The appeal is now filed after the Court granted an opposed motion
for leave to appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). Accordingly, the
case has been transferred from USCA's miscellaneous case number to
Case No. 21-50958.

The appellate case is captioned as Perez v. McCreary Veselka, Case
No. 21-50958, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
filed on October 12, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Fee was due October 26, 2021 for Appellants MVBA, L.L.C. and
McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen, P.C.; and

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by October 27, 2021 for
Appellants MVBA, L.L.C. and McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen,
P.C.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen, P.C.; and
MVBA, L.L.C., formerly known as McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen,
L.L.C., are represented by:

          Eugene Xerxes Martin, Esq.
          MALONE FROST MARTIN, P.L.L.C.
          8750 N. Central Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 346-2630
          E-mail: xmartin@mamlaw.com   

Plaintiff-Respondent Mariela Perez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brent Allen Devere, Esq.
          1411 West Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-8080
          E-mail: bdevere@1411west.com

MICHAEL STINSON: Court Certifies Class in Gibbs Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE GIBBS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, v.
MICHAEL STINSON, ef al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL (E.D. Va.), the
Court entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for class certification and certifying
      the following class:

      "All individuals who resided in Virginia at the time he or
      she obtained any loan: (i) from Great Plains Lending, (ii)
      from Plain Green prior to June 1, 2016, or (iii) from
      MobiLoans prior to May 6, 2017, who made any payment on
      the loan;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record as Class
      Counsel and Named Plaintiffs Stephanie Edwards, Darlene
      Gibbs, George Hengle, Patrick Inscho, Lawrence Mwethuku,
      Tamara Price, and Lula Williams as Class Representatives;

   3. directing the parties, within 21 days after the entry of
      this Amended Order, to submit a proposed notice to be
      provided to class members, as well as a proposal and
      justification regarding the means by which notice will be
      provided; and

   4. denying as moot the Defendants' motion for reconsideration
      of Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GkPFIa at no extra charge.[CC]

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Troutt Sues Over Mislabeled Shortbread Cookies
---------------------------------------------------------------
GOLDIE TROUTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01279-SPM (S.D. Ill., October 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violations
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and State Consumer Fraud Acts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Shortbread Cookies under the Lorna Doone brand. The Defendant
describes the product as "An American Tradition Since 1912," which
provides a "Melt in your Mouth Taste." The representations are
misleading because the product's ingredients are inconsistent with
what consumers expect from a food identified as shortbread cookies.
The product's ingredient list reveals the absence of butter,
shortening provided exclusively from vegetable oils, and the use of
baking soda. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for
it, added the suit.

Mondelez Global LLC is an American multinational confectionery,
food, holding and beverage and snack food company, with a principal
place of business in East Hanover, New Jersey. [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

MPKS INC: Dancers Seek Minimum Wage, Hits Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Britton and Shiekka Hereford, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MPKS, Inc., Tong Kim and
Veronica Kim and Rockwell Bistro, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-01931 (N.D. Ohio, October 12, 2021), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages or interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs, for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Ohio labor laws.

Defendants operate "Alibi Inn" and/or "Treasures Gentlemen's Club,"
an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Cleveland, Ohio
where Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers. They were compensated
exclusively through tips from customers and did not receive payment
for any hours worked at their establishment. However, they were
required to share their tips with other non-service employees who
do not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc
jockeys, and the bouncers thus rendering their pay to fall below
the mandated minimum wage rate. They were also denied overtime and
wage statements, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

            - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Tel: (301) 587-9373
     Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


OMEGA FAMILY: Hopeful Parents Slam Fake Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Angeles, Jeffrey Angeles, Linda Kelly, Trevor Kelly, Elizabeth
Montgomery and Richard Henley Montgomery as individuals and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and entities,
Plaintiffs, v. Omega Family Services LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01753 (S.D. Cal., October 11, 2021), seeks damages for
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Omega Family Services operates as "Prime Insurance Solutions."
Omega Family Services is currently in bankruptcy proceedings before
the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California.
Plaintiffs allege that they were sold counterfeited and nonexistent
"PregnancyCare" insurance policies, which are supposed to provide
surrogacy insurance which primarily include hopeful parents and
their surrogate mothers for gestational surrogacy costs.

Complaint refers to "captive reinsurance programs," complex
multi-party arrangements where a broker who is not licensed to
issue insurance policies uses several intermediaries to form an
indirect relationship with an insurance company. Omega Family
Services marketed insurance policies under supposed captive
reinsurance programs to surrogacy agencies where no actual
insurance policies were issued. Plaintiffs have made premium
payments on said policies, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Marie N. Appel, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
      San Francisco, CA 94102
      Telephone: (415) 358-6913
      Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
      Email: mram@forthepeople.com
             mappel@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Ra O. Amen, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      Email: ramen@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
      Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
      NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
      601 So. Figueroa Street, Suite 2050
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 622-6469
      Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
      Email: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
             gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com

             - and -

      Mark D. Mittleman, Esq.
      STEWART, MITTLEMAN & O'ROURKE, LLC
      222 South Central Avenue, Suite 202
      Saint Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 863-8484
      Facsimile: (314) 863-5312
      Email: mdm63105@aol.com


PEPPER ASIAN: Aguilar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Hits Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Aguilar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Pepper Asian, Inc., Pepper Asian II, Inc. and Chang
Fu Lin, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02740 (D. Colo., October 12,
2021), seeks to recover mandated prevailing wages and supplemental
benefits as well as unpaid overtime and wage notice damages under
the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum
Pay Standards Order and to remedy violations of unpaid overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant where Aguilar was employed
as kitchen staff from approximately March, 2018 through
approximately September 10, 2021. He claims to have regularly work
more than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime, denied
wage statements containing accurate information about hourly rate,
overtime rate and the number of regular and overtime hours worked
per week, and denied rest and meal breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein
      MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
      1942 Broadway, Suite 509
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Email: brandt@milsteinturner.com


PFIZER INC: Abreu Sues Over Carcinogen in Quit-Smoking Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-62122 (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2021), seeks economic damages
and other relief for breach of express and implied warranties,
fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state consumer protection
laws.

Abreu accuses Pfizer of selling adulterated, misbranded, and
unapproved varenicline-containing drugs under the brand name
Chantix(R), known generically as varenicline and is a partial
nicotine agonist which is a first-line therapy in the treatment to
aid in smoking cessation. N-nitroso-varenicline is a probable human
carcinogen. On September 16, 2021, Pfizer recalled Chantix. Abreu
has been purchasing Chantix long before the recall. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzhak S. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN LITIGATION PLLC
      3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 311
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 678-5155
      Fax: (954) 678-5156
      Email: ylevin@levinlitigation.com

             - and -

      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      HONIK LLC
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (267) 435-1300
      Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
             david@honiklaw.com


PHILLIPS 66: Faces Galindo Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAYNOR GALINDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE
LLC, PHILLIPS 66 SPECTRUM CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV38806 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 20, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay premium
wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failure to pay premium
wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of
pay, failure to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime wages at the correct rate, failure to pay
double time wages at the correct rate, failure to pay overtime
and/or double time wages, failure to provide accurate written wage
statements, and failure to pay all final wages following separation
of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from July 8, 2019 to June 10, 2020.

Phillips 66 Company is an American multinational energy company
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC is a diversified energy manufacturing and
logistics company based in Houston, Texas.

Phillips 66 Spectrum Corporation is a petroleum company based in
Selmer, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Shaun Setareh, Esq.
         Thomas Segal, Esq.
         Farrah Grant, Esq.
         SETAREH LAW GROUP
         9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 888-7771
         Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
         E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 thomas@setarehlaw.com
                 farrah@setarehlaw.com

PLAQUEMAKER.COM INC: Court Enters Consent Decree in Quezada Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a Consent Decree in the case, JOSE
QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PLAQUEMAKER.COM, INC. Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04983-AJN (S.D.N.Y.), that resolves, settles, and
compromises all issues between the Parties in the Action.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 12181-12189 ("ADA"), and its implementing regulation, 28
C.F.R. pt. 36, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability
in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations by any private entity
that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates anyplace of public
accommodation.

On June 4, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. He alleges
that the Defendant's website and mobile applications are not fully
accessible to individuals with disabilities in violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and the
New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").

The Defendant expressly denies that the Website violates any
federal, state or local law, including the ADA and the NYCHRL, and
it denies any other wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. By entry
into the Consent Decree, the Defendant does not admit any
wrongdoing.

The Consent Decree resolves, settles, and compromises all issues
between the Parties in the Action. It is entered into by the
Plaintiff, individually, but is intended by the parties to inure to
the benefit of vision impaired individuals who are members of the
putative class alleged in the Complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is a private entity that
owns and/or operates the Website which is available through the
internet to personal computers, laptops, mobile devices, tablets,
and other similar technology. He contends that the Website is a
service, privilege, or advantage of a place of public accommodation
subject to Title III of the ADA. The Defendant denies that the
Website is a public accommodation or that it is a place of public
accommodation or otherwise subject to Title III of the ADA and/or
NYCHRL.

The Parties agree that it is in their best interest to resolve the
Action on mutually agreeable terms without further litigation.
Accordingly, they agree to the entry of the Consent Decree without
trial or further adjudication of any issues of fact or law raised
in Plaintiffs Complaint.

The term of the Consent Decree will commence as of the Effective
Date and remain in effect for the earlier of: (a) 18 months from
the Effective Date; or (b) the date, if any, that the United States
Department of Justice adopts regulations for websites under Title
III of the ADA.

Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, the Defendant:

      (a) will use reasonable efforts to ensure that persons with a
disability are note denied (as defined under the ADA), including
the Plaintiff, the opportunity to participate in and benefit from
the goods, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
through the Website as set forth therein;

      (b) will use Reasonable Efforts to provide persons with a
disability (as defined under the ADA), including the Plaintiff, an
equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,
services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided
through the Website as set forth therein; and

      (c) will use Reasonable Efforts to ensure that persons with a
disability (as defined under the ADA), including the Plaintiff, are
not excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated
differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services,
through the Website as set forth therein.

The Defendant will ensure full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided by
and through the Website (including all pages therein) according to
the timeline and requirements provided that the dates will be
extended in the instance that the Debarment of Justice issues
regulations for websites under Title III of the ADA while the
Consent Decree is in effect and which contain compliance dates
and/or deadlines further in the future than the dates set forth
therein.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant have agreed to settle all matters
relating to costs, damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, other
financial matters, relating to any inaccessibility of the website
through a separate agreement.

The procedures set forth in Paragraphs 16 through 18 of the Consent
Decree must be exhausted in the event that (i) the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant has failed to meet its obligations
pursuant to this Consent Decree, or (ii) the Defendant concludes
that it cannot substantially comply with any criteria of the
applicable WCAG standard as set forth hereinabove. The Defendant
will not have breached the Consent Decree in connection with the
foregoing until the following procedures have been exhausted.

The interpretation and enforcement of this Consent Decree will be
governed by the laws of the State of New York. No modification of
the Consent Decree will be effective unless in writing and signed
by authorized representatives of all Parties.

The Parties to this Consent Decree expressly intend and agree that
this Consent Decree will inure to the benefit of all persons with
vision disabilities as defined by the ADA, but it does not bind
members of the putative class identified in the Plaintiff's
Complaint as no class has been certified.

Having considered the pleadings, law, underlying facts and having
reviewed the proposed Consent Decree, Judge Nathan finds that (i)
the Court has jurisdiction over the Action under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331 and 42 U.S.C. Section 12188; (ii) the provisions of the
Consent Decree will be binding upon the Parties; (iii) the Consent
Decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an
admission by Defendant of any of the allegations contained in the
Complaint or any other pleading in the Action, nor does it
constitute any finding of liability against the Defendant; (iv) the
Court's jurisdiction over the matter will continue for 18 months;
and (v) the Consent Decree will be deemed as adjudicating, once and
for all, the merits of each and every claim, matter, and issue that
was alleged, or could have been alleged by the Plaintiff in the
Action based on, or arising out of, or in connection with, the
allegations in the Complaint.

Therefore, Judge Nathan approves the Consent Decree and in doing so
specifically adopts it and makes it an Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Consent Decree is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2u8u9deb from Leagle.com.


RKB ABOVE: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ventura Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RKB ABOVE, INC. d/b/a ROLLY KIMBAB, JAMES
KANG and JUNG HYUN KANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05830
(E.D.N.Y., October 19, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide
annual wage notices, and failure to provide wage statements.

Mr. Ventura was employed as a kitchen worker at Rolly Kimbab
located at 61-23 Springfield Blvd., Oakland Gardens, New York from
February 2013 until July 1, 2021.

RKB Above, Inc., doing business as Rolly Kimbab, is a Korean
restaurant located at 61-23 Springfield Blvd., Oakland Gardens, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
         225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 323-6980
         E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

ROHR INC: Hearing on Class Status Bid Reset to Jan. 14, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual, MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation;
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to
      strike;

   2. granting defendants' motion for leave to file response
      papers;

   3. vacating the hearing on defendants' motion to strike;

   4. resetting hearing on class certification; and

   5. denying as moot defendants' ex parte application to
      shorten time.

The Court said that it grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' reply papers, or in the
alternative leave to file further response papers. The Defendants'
motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' reply is denied, but it
grants Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply and other
response papers, which they must file on or before November 5,
2021.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the hearing on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification be reset for January 14, 2022 at
1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. The Court further finds the Court finds
the pending motions suitable for disposition without oral argument
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 (d)(1) and vacates hearings
scheduled on the motions. Defendants' ex parte application to
shorten time on the hearing on the motion to strike is therefore
denied as moot.

On April 24, 2021, Plaintiffs moved this Court for class
certification.

Rohr, Inc. is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula
Vista, California, south of San Diego. It is a wholly owned unit of
the Collins Aerospace division of Raytheon Technologies; it was
founded in 1940 by Frederick H. Rohr as Rohr Aircraft.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jzu7xP at no extra charge.[CC]


TIMELESS BEAUTY: Mota Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA MOTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIMELESS BEAUTY AESTHETICS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-21-018475 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., October 6, 2021)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telephonic sales
calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about
August 31, 2021. In an attempt to promote its goods and services,
the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls without obtaining
prior express written consent to the called party. In addition, the
Defendant allegedly utilizes a computer software system that
automatically selected and dialed the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals' telephone numbers.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated have suffered harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Thus, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated individuals, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful
actions of the Defendant.

Timeless Beauty Aesthetics, LLC offers a variety of service such as
facials, massages, waxing, body contouring and much more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

                - and –

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

TOO COOL: Colvin Slams Tip Credit, Seeks Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
April Joy Colvin, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Too Cool Cafe, LLC, and Christopher J.
Hieronymus, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01688 (M.D. Fla., October
11, 2021), seeks actual and/or compensatory damages, civil
penalties, restitution, equitable relief, costs and expenses of
litigation, including attorneys' fees, and all additional and
further relief for failure to pay federal minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operates a cafe and restaurant in Indian Harbour Beach,
Florida where Colvin worked as a server. She claims to be paid a
"reduced wage" in order to take advantage of the tip credit.
Defendants allegedly required its servers to share tips with
members of management who are ineligible to receive these tips thus
rendering her pay below the mandated minimum wage rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Richards, Esq.
      USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
      1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (954) 871-0050
      Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Certiorari Petition in Rosales Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Uber Technologies, Inc., Petitioner v. Damaris Rosales,
Respondent, Case No. 21-526.

Response is due on November 8, 2021.

Uber Technologies petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate
District in the case titled DAMARIS ROSALES, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. B305546.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought this suit as a class action pursuant to California Business
and Professions Code and California Code of Civil Procedure against
Uber Technologies.

The Plaintiff alleges that Uber unfairly, unlawfully, and
deceptively froze and removed funds from her account under the
guise that it was protecting her from hackers. After exhausting
every administrative remedy provided by Uber, Plaintiff has not
been forwarded the money she earned and Uber continues to hide the
true nature of why it froze her account. The Plaintiff started
driving for Uber in or about April 2016. Since that time, she has
completed approximately 1,200 rides for Uber and has maintained a
4.9/5 rating. During the same time, she has also used the same bank
account for all transfers of funds from her Uber account to her
personal bank account.

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. moved to compel arbitration in a
case where the Plaintiff, Damaris Rosales, alleged a single cause
of action for wage violations under the Private Attorneys General
Act. The Plaintiff was an Uber driver under a written agreement
stating she was an independent contractor and all disputes would be
resolved by arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The
agreement delegated to the arbitrator decisions on the
enforceability or validity of the arbitration provision. However,
the trial court denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff cannot bring a PAGA claim
in court unless or until an arbitrator first decides whether she
has standing to bring a PAGA claim -- that is, whether she is an
employee who can seek penalties under PAGA on behalf of the state,
or an independent contractor who cannot.

The Court of Appeal of California concluded that the threshold
question whether Plaintiff is an employee or an independent
contractor cannot be delegated to an arbitrator. Accordingly, the
Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this ruling.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Uber Technologies, Inc. is represented by:

          Theane Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue 48th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com

UNITED STATES: Schools and CCCU May Intervene in Hunter v. DepEd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene Division, permitted the proposed intervenors to
intervene in the case, ELIZABETH HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
6:21-cv-00474-AA (D. Or.).

Three Christian universities, Western Baptist University, d/b/a
Corban University, William Jessup University, and Phoenix Seminary
(the "Religious Schools"), and the Council for Christian Colleges &
Universities ("CCCU") (together, ("proposed intervenors") seek to
intervene in this action to defend the validity of the religious
exemption included in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
20 U.S.C. Section 1681(a)(3). The Religious Schools and CCCU filed
separate Motions to Intervene, but in each, proposed intervenors
assert that they are entitled to intervene under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, that they should
be permitted to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B).

Federal defendants filed a joint response opposing the motions. The
Religious Schools' motion indicates that the Plaintiffs also oppose
intervention, but the Plaintiffs did not file a brief explaining
their opposition.

Discussion

Intervention is a procedural device that strives for balance
between the varying interests of parties to a suit, nonparties
believing the suit may affect them, and the public interest in an
efficient judiciary. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offer
interested nonparties two main paths of intervention: Rule 24(a)
establishes when nonparties have a right to intervene and Rule
24(b) permits intervention at the court's discretion.

The proposed intervenors seek intervention as of right under Rule
24(a)(2), or in the alternative, permissive intervention under Rule
24(b). Federal defendants, for the purposes of the Motions to
Intervene only, do not dispute that proposed intervenors satisfy
the first three requirements to intervene as of right and all
requirements to intervene permissively. They oppose intervention on
the grounds that proposed intervenors interests are adequately
represented by the existing parties.

I. Intervention as of Right

Federal defendants concede that proposed intervenors meet the first
three requirements to intervene as of right, and Judge Aiken agrees
that these requirements have been met. While not disputed, these
requirements do merit discussion as courts have deemed them part of
the setting in which the fourth requirement of inadequate
representation is examined.

A. Proposed Intervenors' Motions Are Timely

The Ninth Circuit considers three factors "in determining whether a
motion to intervene is timely: (1) the stage of the proceedings;
(2) whether the parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for
any delay in moving to intervene," citing Nw. Forest Res. Council
v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836-37 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing United
States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Religious
Schools filed their motion 10 days after the Plaintiffs filed their
Class Action Complaint. CCCU filed its motion about six weeks
later, but still before federal defendants filed their initial
Motion to Dismiss. Thus, Judge Aiken holds that the proposed
intervenors' motions are timely.

B. Proposed Intervenors Have a Significantly Protectable Interest
in Plaintiffs' Class Action

A nonparty "has a 'significantly protectable interest' in an action
if (1) it asserts an interest that is protected under some law, and
(2) there is a 'relationship' between its legally protected
interests and the Plaintiff's claims." A nonparty generally
satisfies the "relationship" requirement where resolution of the
Plaintiff's claims will affect the nonparty. This test, as
recognized by the Ninth Circuit, "is primarily a practical guide to
disposing lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned
persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process."

Judge Aiken finds that the proposed intervenors have a legally
protected interest in the action as the direct beneficiaries of
Title IX's Religious Exemption that the suit seeks to invalidate.

C. Disposition of Plaintiffs' Class Action May Impair or Impede
Proposed Intervenors' Interests

In determining whether a nonparty's interests would as a practical
matter be impaired or impeded by the disposition of an action, the
Ninth Circuit follows the guidance of the Rule 24 advisory
committee's note: "If an absentee would be substantially affected
in a practical sense by the determination made in an action, he
should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene."

Judge Aiken holds that even if the action would affect proposed
intervenors' interests, their interests might not be impaired if
they have "other means" to protect them. But where a suit, such as
the instant case, might strike down or substantially narrow a
statute that affects the proposed intervenor's interest and where
the proposed intervenor would have no alternative forum to contest
such an interpretation, this prong is satisfied.

D. Proposed Intervenors' Interests are Adequately Represented by
the Existing Parties

In determining the adequacy of representation, courts consider
three factors: (1) whether the interest of a present party is such
that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor's
arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to
make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would
offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties
would neglect.

Judge Aiken finds that (i) the proposed intervenors fail to make a
"very compelling showing" of inadequate representation; and (ii)
the proposed intervenors and the federal defendants share the same
ultimate objective: To defend the constitutionality of the Title IX
Religious Exemption. Consequently, proposed intervenors are not
entitled to intervene as of right.

II. Permissive Intervention

Courts may permit a nonparty to intervene on timely motion where a
nonparty has a claim or defense that shares a common question of
law or fact with the main action if intervention will not unduly
delay or prejudice the proceeding. "Thus, the decision regarding
whether to grant permissive intervention is always subject to the
inherently discretionary considerations of equity and judicial
economy." Federal defendants do not dispute that proposed
intervenors have met the requirements of permissive intervention
but oppose intervention on the grounds that proposed intervenors
are adequately represented by federal defendants.

Judge Aiken finds that the proposed intervenors have an extensive
interest in the case. Because of their proposed status as
intervenor-defendants, the proposed intervenors do not need to
demonstrate standing. The proposed intervenors seek to defend the
constitutionality of the religious exemption, and while their
interests are adequately represented by existing parties, limited
intervention would not prolong or unduly delay the litigation.
Finally, Judge Aiken finds that the proposed intervenors may
significantly contribute to the full development of the underlying
factual issues and to the just and equitable adjudication of the
legal questions presented. Accordingly, they are permitted to
intervene.

Because intervention creates a risk of significantly increasing the
amount of documents that both the parties and the Court must review
in resolving the dispute, additional conditions are warranted.
Thus, the Religious Schools and CCCU will file a joint response to
the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion and joint motion to
dismiss and take care not to duplicate arguments raised by federal
defendants whenever possible. Where one intervenor-defendant seeks
to advance an argument that the other does not wish to join, they
will do so in a separate section within the same brief.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Aiken granted the Religious
Schools' and CCCU's Motions to Intervene. Further, to litigate the
matter in the most efficient and economic manner, the
intervenor-defendants are ordered to consolidate their response to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, in accordance
with the limitations outlined.

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


VERDE ENERGY: Court Enters Joint Status Report in Davis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark L. Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered the Joint Status Report in the case, MELISSA
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC. and VERDE ENERGY USA
MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10741-MLW (D.
Mass.).

Pursuant to the Court's May 24, 2021 order, Plaintiff Davis and
Defendants Verde Energy USA, Inc. and Verde Energy USA
Massachusetts, LLC submit the Joint Status Report.

On June 17, 2021, the Court entered an order granting the stay of
the case.

On June 16, 2021, the Plaintiff was added as a party to a
consolidated class action filed for settlement purposes only in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Mercado
v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-2068.

On June 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement of the case in the
Mercado action.

On Aug. 18, 2021, the Mercado Court granted the Motion for
Preliminary Approval. The Court scheduled a Final Approval hearing
for Dec. 17, 2021.

The parties will report further by Dec. 21, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/28z2yynk from Leagle.com.


WALMART INC: Underpays Retail Store Employees, Guzman Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR GUZMAN and JAMES MARSHALL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART INC.; WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV388734 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., October 20, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay employees
their meal period premiums, overtime wages, reporting time wages at
the regular rate of pay, and minimum and overtime wages for time
spent undergoing COVID-19 temperature checks.

Mr. Marshall and Mr. Guzman worked for Walmart as non-exempt retail
store employees at its Victorville Store from October 2020 through
March 3, 2021 and from August 27, 2019 through November 28, 2020,
respectively.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a retail company based in Bentonville,
Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a retail company based in Bentonville,
Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Larry W. Lee, Esq.
         Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
         DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
         515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 488-6555
         Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
         E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                 ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

                 - and –

         B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
         Laura Franklin, Esq.
         FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON
         555 S. Main Street
         Salinas, CA 93901
         Telephone: (831) 755-1311
         Facsimile: (831) 755-1319
         E-mail: bjfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com
                 lfranklin@fandslegal.com

                 - and –

         Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
         HYUN LEGAL, APC
         515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 488-6555
         Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
         E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

WATTS WATER: Faces Stein Suit Over Alleged DGCL Non-Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHIVA STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER L. CONWAY, MICHAEL J.
DUBOSE, DAVID A. DUNBAR, LOUISE K. GOESER, JES MUNK HANSEN, W.
CRAIG KISSEL, JOSEPH T. NOONAN, ROBERT J. PAGANO, JR., MERILEE
RAINES, JOSEPH W. REITMEIER, and WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2021-0859 (Delaware Chancery Court, October 6,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged non-compliance with the
Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL).

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action asserting
claim that the Defendants caused the Corporate Defendant to
maintain the Removal by the Board Provision and/or have failed to
strike the Removal by the Board Provision from the By-laws, thereby
violating Section 141(k). The Plaintiff requests entry of an order
declaring that the Removal by the Board Provision is invalid;
awarding costs and disbursements in this action, including
reasonable fees and costs for attorneys, experts, and accountants;
and awarding all other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
products and systems that manage and conserve the flow of fluids
and energy into, through, and out of the buildings in the
commercial and residential markets of the Americas, Europe, and
Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Africa. The Individual Defendants
are board of directors of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
          F. Troupe Mickler, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
          500 Delaware Ave., 8th Floor
          P.O. Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Tel: (302) 654-1888
         
                - and –

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 231-1500

                - and –

          Gustavo F. Burckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          POMERANZ LLP
          600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 661-1100


                            *********

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 ***