/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211029.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 211

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Barduca Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
67 DELI INC: Deli Staff Seeks Unpaid Wages
AARSAND MGT: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, O'Rorey Claims
ACRO SERVICE: Oskouie Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Fails to Monitor Pipeline Causing Toxic Oil Spill

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Golden State Businesses Sue Over Pipeline Spill
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Orange County Residents, Cos. Sue Over Oil Spill
APPHARVEST INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 23 Deadline
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL: Gaines May Amend Complaint, Court Says
AT&T MOBILITY: Wage-and-Hour Class Action in Calif. Can Proceed

AUSTRALIA: USYD Alumni Launches Class Action Over PhD Wages
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Class Action Pending in New York Court
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss Ruling
BOSTON BEER: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 15 Deadline

BOSTON BEER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 15 Deadline
BOWMAR NUTRITION: Bass Sues Over Mislabeled Whey Protein Products
BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces Class Action Over Applicant Discrimination
CARGILL MEAT: Villa Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Loses Bid to Modify Scheduling Order

CITYWIDE MOBILE: Paramedics Seek Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
COWORX STAFFING: Larsen Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
CREE INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Young Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Appeals Cy Pres Court Ruling to 4th Circuit
DOCTOR'S BEST: Court Issues Protective Order in Casey Class Suit

DR. STEPHEN JAMES: Court Rules on Medical Malpractice Lawsuit
ENERVEST EMPLOYEE: Fenter Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
FACEBOOK INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
FLO HEALTH: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Frasco Consolidated Class Suit
GENERAC POWER: Craftwood Seeks Review of Summary Judgment Ruling

GILES COUNTY, TN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Extortion
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Keller and Heckman Discusses Court Ruling
GOOD NATURE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camargo Suit Alleges
HENRY FORD: Hundley Suit Stayed Pending U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling
HONEST COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 15 Deadline

HONEST COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HP INC: Carvalho Slams Deceptive Pricing for Computers
HP INC: Faces Class Action Over Printer Software Update
HP INC: Must Face Class Action Over Printer Firmware Updates
HUDA BEAUTY: Deadline for Class Action Settlement Claims Filing Set

HUNTERDON COUNTY, NJ: Judge Reserves Decision on Settlement
HYZON MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 29 Deadline
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 13 Deadline
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 13 Deadline
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline

JUUL LABS: Cuba City Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Tomahawk School Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Tuscola Suit Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
JUUL LABS: Holy Hill Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Perry Schools Sue Over Questionable Marketing Tactics

JUUL LABS: Sued Over Questionable Marketing Practices
JUUL LABS: West Allis-West Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
KEMPER INSURANCE: Proposes to Settle Data Breach Class Action
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dansky Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hood Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D. Pa.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Means Suit Moved From D. Minn. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Savage Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Tobin Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Faces Post-SPAC-Merger Securities Class Action
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 14 Deadline

LIVE VENTURES: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
LOWE'S COMPANIES: $4.17M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Reetz Suit
LYTX INC: Cavanaugh Hits Undisclosed Facial Data Retention
M&T BANK: $3.325M Class Settlement in Silveira Suit Has Final Nod
MCKINSEY & CO: Faces Suit on Role Played in Canada's Opioid Crisis

MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Faces Class Action Over Lactaid Supplements
MDL 2996:  Cherokee Nation Case Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 3013: Centralization of Data Breach Cases Denied
MDL 3014: 10 Ventilator Product Liability Suits Moved to S.D. Fla.
MDL 3015: Eight Sunscreen Product Liability Suits Moved to S.D. Fla

MDL 3016: Consolidation of Two Actions in D. Mass. Denied
METHOD PRODUCTS: Horn Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MIDLAND FOOD: Ward Sues Over Failure to Pay Sufficient Wages
MYLIFE.COM INC: Uharriet Sues Over Privacy Rights Violations
NATIONAL PARALEGAL: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NATROL LLC: Lavalley Sues Over Mislabeled Liquid Melatonin
NESTLE USA: December 27 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
NEW YORK, NY: Disabled in Action to Update on Class Claims Plan
NORTH MIDLAND: Derbyshire County Council to Complete Link Road
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Cornwell Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: McGuire Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
PHILIPS NORTH: Landers Suit Moved From E.D. Ark. to W.D. Pa.
RAM JACK OHIO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carmichael Alleges
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

SIEMBA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims
SNAP INC: Sued Over Failure to Destroy Biometric Data
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Cody Suit
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Plan Members File ERISA Suit to Recover Loss
TENNESSEE: Knox County BOE Has Leave to Operate Under Policy C-240

TRADITIONAL BAKERY: Delivery Driver Seeks Proper Wages
U.S. BANK: Gibo Appeals Foreclosure Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
U.S. BANK: Partly Compelled to Produce Docs in Maag Class Suit
UF HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
ULTA BEAUTY: Filing of Hansber's 3rd Amended Class Suit Due Nov. 4

UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Manker v. Navy Wins Prelim. Nod
UNITED STATES: District of New Jersey Dismisses Majerska's Claims
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Court Refuses to Accept Caldwell Deal
USAPS LLC: Christopher Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

VAIL RESORTS: Judge Grants Motion to Pause Labor Class Action
VENICE BAKERY: Edeza Suit Removed to C.D. California
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 13 Deadline

WASHINGTON: Rogers Given More Time to Reply to Summary Judgment Bid
WHOLE FOODS: Cerretti Sues Over Mislabeled Ice Cream Products
WORKFORCE INC: Faces $10MM Class Action Over Unpaid Training Hours
[*] Allens Discusses Key Class Action Developments From 2021

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Uses Bankruptcy to Block Baby Powder Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.41BB Asbestos Reserves


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Barduca Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STAN BARDUCA, 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-03448-RMG
(D.S.C., October 21, 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 bladder 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:                
      
         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

67 DELI INC: Deli Staff Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------
Buenaventura Casiano and Gregorio Candia Mendoza, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 67 Deli Inc.,
Abdulla Ali Musaid and Abdulrahman Jamil Mosed, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-08459 (S.D. N.Y., October 13, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control a Deli located at 67 Lenox
Avenue, New York, under the name 67 Deli Corp. where Plaintiffs
worked as cashier, deli worker, stocker and general assistant. They
claim to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without
overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
They also claim to have never received wage statements and
appropriate minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AARSAND MGT: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, O'Rorey Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'ROREY, Plaintiff v. AARSAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01342-MRH (W.D. Penn., October 7, 2021) brings
this complaint as a collective action on behalf of himself and on
behalf of a group of similarly situated maintenance technicians
against the Defendant to recover wages and other relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a maintenance technician
from May 2008 and continues to work for the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff consistently worked at
least 50 hours each week, and virtually always worked more than 40
hours each week. However, the Defendant did not compensate him and
other similarly situated maintenance technician for 1.5 times half
their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked. In
addition, the Defendant required them to not include in their
worksheets all the time spent traveling and/or loading/unloading
equipment, says the suit.

Aarsand Management, LLC operates a series of Taco Bell restaurants
in Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine T. Elzer, Esq.
          ELZER LAW FIRM, LLC
          100 First Ave., Suite 1010
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Tel: (412) 230-836

ACRO SERVICE: Oskouie Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, POOYA OSKOUIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACRO SERVICE CORP.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00042874-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 7, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee, alleges that the Defendant failed to pay all wages;
failed to provide lawful meal periods and to authorize or permit
lawful rest breaks compensate in lieu thereof; failed to reimburse
necessary business-related costs; failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failed to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment; and made improper deductions from
employees' earned wages.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a representative action
against the Defendants on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees to recover civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs and
expenses pursuant to the PAGA.

Acro Service Corp. provides staffing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Tel: (949) 379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com


AMPLIFY ENERGY: Fails to Monitor Pipeline Causing Toxic Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
N.S.T., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem,
MICHAELANGELO SAINT THOMAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORPORATION; BETA
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; SAN PEDRO BAY PIPELINE COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01722 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to maintain and monitor oil pipeline causing
toxic crude oil to spill into the ocean and land.

According to the complaint, an offshore oil pipeline near the
California coast ruptured on October 1, 2021. The Defendants,
owning and operating the pipeline, could have prevented this. Their
failure to maintain and monitor the pipeline led to its rupture.
Moreover, the Defendants could have promptly stopped the oil from
escaping, but failed to do so. As a result, massive amounts of
highly toxic crude oil went into the ocean and onto land. This has
caused and will cause widespread harm, including without limitation
to children who live in the vicinity, says the suit.

Amplify Energy Corp. provides oil and gas exploration and
development services. The Company acquires, produces, and maintains
oil and natural gas properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel B. Young, Esq.
          Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
          The Tidrick Law Firm LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (510) 291-3226
          E-mail: jby@tidricklaw.com
                  sgt@tidricklaw.com

               -and-

          Brittany Armstrong Whittington, Esq.
          Whittington Law Firm
          100 Admiral Callaghan Lane #5482
          Vallejo, CA 94591
          Telephone: (833) 944-8529
          E-mail: brittany@whittingtonlawfirmca.com

               -and-

          Mikael A. Abye, Esq.
          Abye Law Offices
          88 Kearney Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 341-4519
          E-mail: mick@abyelaw.com


AMPLIFY ENERGY: Golden State Businesses Sue Over Pipeline Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Goldberg, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed class
of Golden State businesses has sued Amplify Energy Corp., the owner
of a ruptured Pacific Ocean oil pipeline, increasing the legal
fallout from the spill that befouled the Southern California
coast.[GN]

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Orange County Residents, Cos. Sue Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davey's Locker Sportfishing, Inc., Blue Pacific Fisheries, Ivar
Southern and Linda Southern, Newport Landing Sportfishing, Inc.,
San Pedro Bait Co., Donald C. Brockman, individually and as trustee
of the Donald C. Brockman Trust and Heidi M. Jacques, individually
and as trustee of the Heidi M. Brockman Trust, Gregory Hexberg,
individually and as trustee of the Gregory C. and Deborah L.
Hexberg Family Trust, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amplify Energy Corporation, Beta
Operation Company LLC and San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01684 (C.D. Cal., October 11, 2021),
seeks to recover business and/or commercial losses and other
damages by owners/operators of local business in close proximity to
the oil spill allegedly caused by the Defendants.

Plaintiffs are businesses, individuals and representatives of
individuals in Orange County that were affected by the oil spill.

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
      Lexi J. Hazam, Esq.
      Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

             - and -

      Kelly K. McNabb, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592

              - and -

      Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
      ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Rd. Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850


APPHARVEST INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

AppHarvest, Inc. (APPH)
Class Period: 5/17/2021 - 8/10/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 23, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-apph/

Eargo, Inc. (EAR)
Class Period: 2/25/2021 - 9/22/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-ear/

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

Waterdrop Inc. (WDH)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the May
2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-wdh/   

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

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

About ClaimsFiler

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

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL: Gaines May Amend Complaint, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERNEST EDWARD GAINES, Plaintiff v. ASTRAZENECA
PHARMACEUTICAL; FERRER, POIROT & WANSBROUGH; HOWARD L. NATIONS,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-5323 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura
Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of the Order.

Background

The Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice in Lamesa, Texas, is proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff sues attorney Howard
Nations, the law firm Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, and Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals, LP. By order dated July 26, 2021, the Court
directed the Plaintiff to submit a declaration showing cause why
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action.

Plaintiff Gaines alleges the following in his complaint. Attorney
Howard Nations filed a class action suit in the New York Supreme
Court, New York County, Fishman et al. v. Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., Index No. 09109049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), on
behalf of Plaintiff and others, alleging that they were
inadequately warned about potential harm from the drug Seroquel.
One or more attorneys from the law firm of Ferrer, Poirot &
Wansbrough also appeared on behalf of the plaintiff class.

As of the date the class action settled in 2012, the Plaintiff
suffered from "hyperglycemia" but had not been diagnosed with
diabetes. The counsel notified the class members that recovery for
the suit was less than expected because of difficulties proving
that Seroquel had caused the class members' injuries. The
Plaintiff's share of the settlement was $11,214.95, and after
deduction of attorney's fees and costs, he received a settlement
payment of $6,336.71.

At some point, the Plaintiff came across a 2011 news article that
stated that the "average payout" in class action litigation about
Seroquel was approximately $25,000. He writes that attorney "Howard
Nations really shortage me by $14,000."

After the Plaintiff received payout of the settlement, in 2014, he
was diagnosed with diabetes. He contends that Seroquel damaged his
pancreas, causing his diabetes. The Plaintiff argues that even
"$500,000 is really not enough" to settle his claims, because he
has "to live with this condition for the rest of his life." He
contends that "Mr. Nations misinformed/malpractice me of the damage
this medication really capable of causing."

After settlement, the Plaintiff sent letters and other documents to
class counsel and the state court. The documents that he sent to
the state court were captioned for the "United States Supreme Court
for the State of New York" or "United States District Court for the
State of New York"; the state court, apparently understanding that
the Plaintiff intended to file in federal court because his papers
were captioned for a court of the "United States," directed
Plaintiff to send his papers to the Court.

By order dated July 26, 2021, the Court notified the Plaintiff of
the legal standards for establishing federal question and diversity
jurisdiction. The Court also explained that the Plaintiff could
drop any defendant who destroyed diversity jurisdiction, so long as
the defendant was not indispensable. The Court granted the
Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a declaration showing that the
Court had subject matter jurisdiction of the action. The Court also
raised the likelihood that the Plaintiff could not relitigate the
same claims that he had already settled.

Discussion

A. Diversity of Citizenship

As set forth in the Court's July 26, 2021 order, the subject matter
jurisdiction of federal courts is limited. Jurisdiction is
available in federal court only when a "federal question" is
presented, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, or when plaintiff and defendant
are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. "If the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action."

Judge Swain finds that the Plaintiff's complaint, in which he
indicates that Defendant Howard Nations has a law office in Texas,
suggests that both he and Defendant Nations may be citizens of the
same state and therefore not diverse. The Plaintiff did not mention
Defendant Howard Nations or Defendant Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough
in his declaration, either to include facts about their citizenship
or to indicate that he intends to drop them from his complaint
because they are dispensable, nondiverse defendants.

Because the Court may have diversity jurisdiction of the
Plaintiff's claims against at least one defendant, Judge Swain
grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. In the
amended complaint, the Plaintiff must plead facts showing complete
diversity of citizenship between himself and any named defendants.
Thus, if any defendant is, like Plaintiff, a citizen of Texas, the
Plaintiff must not include that the Defendant in his amended
complaint because the presence of a defendant who is a citizen of
the same state will destroy diversity jurisdiction.

Although she grants the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to
show that the Court has diversity jurisdiction of the action, Judge
Swain notes that the Plaintiff's prior suit against Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, may preclude him from relitigating the same
claims.

B. The Preclusive Effect of Prior State Court Litigation

Judge Swain finds that it appears from the allegations of the
complaint that the Plaintiff's earlier suit in state court resulted
in an adjudication on the merits against Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, the same defendant named in this action. It
further appears from the Plaintiff's complaint that his claim in
the state court action was for harm that he suffered as a result of
taking Seroquel at the Dallas County Jail in 2005-2006. The
Plaintiff now seems to allege that his injuries either worsened
after the settlement or were, at the time of the settlement, worse
than he realized. If the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint asserting a claim against Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP,
he must plead facts showing that he has a claim that is not barred
by prior adjudication -- that is, a claim that could not have been
raised at the time of settlement and that does not merely rest on a
new legal theory or seek a different remedy.

In addition to any claim that the Plaintiff may seek to assert
against Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, the Plaintiff also alleges
that that he seeks a new "class claims reconciliation" because he
"was not seen by a doctor to see how much the Seroquel medication
had caused damage to his body." It is unclear if the Plaintiff is
suggesting that the Defendant attorneys were responsible for
failing to accurately value his injuries before settlement. If the
Plaintiff continues to name either Defendant Nations or Defendant
Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough in his amended complaint, he must also
plead facts clarifying what they did or failed to do that injured
him.

C. Leave to Amend

Because the Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to
show that the Court has diversity jurisdiction of the action, Judge
Swain grants the Plaintiff 30 days' leave to amend his complaint to
allege facts showing that he has some claim not barred by his prior
settlement.

In the "Statement of Claim" section of the amended complaint form,
the Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the
relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If the
Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, the Plaintiff
must provide it. The Plaintiff should include all of the
information in the amended complaint that he wants the Court to
consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim
for relief.

That information should include: a) the names and titles of all
relevant people; b) a description of all relevant events, including
what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and
time of each event, and the general location where each event
occurred; c) a description of the injuries the Plaintiff suffered;
and d) the relief the Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages,
injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.

Judge Swain states that essentially, the Plaintiff's amended
complaint should tell the Court: Who harmed him and how; when and
where such injury occurred; and why the Plaintiff is entitled to
relief. Because the Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely
replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or
claims that the Plaintiff wants to include from the original
complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.

Conclusion

Judge Swain granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint that complies with the standards she set forth. She says,
the Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to the Court's Pro
Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the date of her order, caption the
document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with
docket number 21-CV-5323 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is
attached to the Order. No summons will issue at this time. If the
Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot
show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend his complaint and motion to correct his
complaint.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the Order
to the Plaintiff and note service on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hsfntyx4 from Leagle.com.


AT&T MOBILITY: Wage-and-Hour Class Action in Calif. Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law/Street reports that a ruling from a federal court in Fresno,
California permitted a former AT&T Mobility Service LLC employee's
wage claims to proceed in their entirety. The 2019 putative class
action against the mobile carrier contends that the company failed
to pay retail store employees due wages and meal and rest period
wages at the appropriate rate.The court's ruling comes after the
plaintiff moved to compel discovery and for sanctions against AT&T
for allegedly stonewalling its class certification discovery
efforts.

In the Oct. 15 dismissal decision, the court apologized to the
parties for the delay in issuing its opinion, citing a
well-publicized lack of judicial resources and a backlog of cases
in the district. Substantively, Judge Dale A. Drozd denied the
motion to dismiss as to the pay wage claims because the plaintiff
offered evidence that, among other arguments, the defendant refuted
with its "counsel's own factual assertions and interpretations of
the wage statements that are unsupported by any evidence, let alone
evidence that can be considered by the court at this stage of the
case."

The plaintiff also alleged that AT&T's failure to list all hours
worked on wage statements resulted in underpayment. Judge Drozd
opined that the proffered statements included numerous line items
that did not necessarily reflect the total hours worked. "Although
the court could make educated guesses as to why certain line items
are or are not included in the total hours worked, nothing before
the court clearly explains the nature of each category," the
opinion said. Again, the court noted that it was prohibited from
considering the explanations and arguments of AT&T's counsel on the
matter.

Next, Judge Drozd ruled that the plaintiff's meal period premium
underpayment claim passed muster due to a July 2021 California
Supreme Court ruling. The decision overturned previously standing
precedent, which AT&T erroneously relied upon. The Supreme Court's
unanimous opinion found that "meal and rest break premiums must be
calculated at the same 'regular rate of pay' used to calculate
overtime pay, a calculation that encompasses all nondiscretionary
payments, not just hourly wages."

The employee was granted leave to file an amended complaint to
address the issue of a prayer for damages in connection with his
wage statement claim. The plaintiff and putative class are
represented by Bradley/Grombacher LLP and Law Offices of Sahag
Majarian II, and AT&T by Paul Hastings LLP. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: USYD Alumni Launches Class Action Over PhD Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Shanahan, writing for Honi Soit, reports that University of
Sydney Classics PhD graduate Tristan Burt has launched a class
action against the Commonwealth, arguing that PhD students should
be classified as employees rather than students.

Presently, PhD students on the Commonwealth Research Training
Program (RTP) scholarships receive stipends, with most universities
awarding the minimum amount of approximately $29,000 per annum.

However, according to the Commonwealth Scholarship Guidelines,
students on the RTP scheme are required to spend a minimum
two-thirds of their time performing research work. Burt argues that
PhD students are essentially being paid below minimum wage to
perform research work which counts towards Australia's Research &
Development statistical reporting to the OECD.

Burt told Honi that the Commonwealth's scholarship guidelines were
"structured as employment relationships" but have kept the
scholarships "bundled up in the notion of a stipend or scholarship
to try and suggest that it is somehow not falling within the
umbrella of employment." As a result, PhD students can be paid
below the minimum wage through the stipend system despite working
as researchers.

In a statement of claim issued to the Fair Work Division of the
Federal Court, Burt and the members of his class action will argue
that "it is axiomatic that this supervised research work…could
not be undertaken by trainee researchers but rather only by highly
trained researchers capable therefore of performing 'research
work'" and that "the supervised research work…did not comprise
'education and training.'"

There is some precedent for the view that PhD students should be
classified as employees. In the 1982 case of Rowe v Capital
Territory Health Commission, the Federal Court found that -- in the
context of student nurses -- the granting of a government
scholarship was not incompatible with classification as an
employee.

As far back as the 1970s, concerns were raised in parliament over
the adequacy of support payment to postgraduate research students.
Since that time, the stipend level has stagnated to the point that
it is now approximately two-thirds of the minimum wage. The low
stipend has implications for the accessibility of research degrees,
limiting their availability to those with financial and family
circumstances that allow them to earn below minimum wage for a
number of years.

In many European countries, PhD students are classified as
employees of their institution and are remunerated accordingly.

In recent years, the University of Sydney has increased its stipend
rate to a level close to the minimum wage. However, the vast
majority of universities continue to award the minimum allowable
rate.

Burt told Honi that the government is "holding the purse strings
and that the pressure that is then put upon the universities leads
to all of these practices. That is why the case has been taken
against the Commonwealth." [GN]

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Class Action Pending in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MARVIN PEARLSTEIN, Individually And           

On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,         

                        vs.                                        
  

BLACKBERRY LIMITED (formerly known
as RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED),
THORSTEN HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA,
and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-7060-CM-KHP

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of BlackBerry Limited ("BlackBerry") on the NASDAQ (ticker "BBRY")
during a Class Period from March 28, 2013, through and including
September 20, 2013 (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired BlackBerry common stock during the Class
Period, but only between March 28, 2013 and April 10, 2013 and who
sold all of their BlackBerry common stock prior to April 11, 2013,
as well as the Defendants, officers and directors of BlackBerry,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered
January 26, 2021, certifying the above-captioned Action as a class
action. This Action has not been settled and continues to be
litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time.

If you are a Class Member your rights are affected by this action
and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also
have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance
with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes
in more detail this Class Action and your rights with respect
thereto.

If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please
contact:

BlackBerry US Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box. 91399
Seattle, WA 98111
www.BlackBerryUSSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice may be made to Class
Counsel:

Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras Avenue, Suite 3200
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York [GN]

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MARVIN PEARLSTEIN, Individually And
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.


as RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED),
THORSTEN HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA,
and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN,

Defendants.



CASE NO. 1:13-CV-7060-CM-KHP

BLACKBERRY LIMITED (formerly known
as RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED),
THORSTEN HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA,
and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of BlackBerry Limited ("BlackBerry") on the NASDAQ (ticker "BBRY")
during a Class Period from March 28, 2013, through and including
September 20, 2013 (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired BlackBerry common stock during the Class
Period, but only between March 28, 2013 and April 10, 2013 and who
sold all of their BlackBerry common stock prior to April 11, 2013,
as well as the Defendants, officers and directors of BlackBerry,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered
January 26, 2021, certifying the above-captioned Action as a class
action. This Action has not been settled and continues to be
litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time.

If you are a Class Member your rights are affected by this action
and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also
have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance
with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes
in more detail this Class Action and your rights with respect
thereto.

If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please
contact:

BlackBerry US Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box. 91399
Seattle, WA 98111
www.BlackBerryUSSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice may be made to Class
Counsel:

Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras Avenue, Suite 3200
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York [GN]

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean G. Wieber, Esq., Janelle A. Li-A-Ping, Esq., and Nathan R.
Gilbert, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that on September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Rodney Smith
denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action in which the named plaintiff "deceptively"
prolonged calls to bolster his claims for damages. Order Denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Johansen v. Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited, Inc., No. 20-81076, at *10–11 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 30, 2021). This decision gives defendants a new tool, in TCPA
matters and beyond, to potentially help defeat class
certification.

The TCPA allows consumers to bring lawsuits in several situations,
including cases where they allegedly receive more than one unwanted
telemarketing call within 12 months from the same entity. 47
U.S.C.A. Section 227 et seq. Plaintiffs can seek between $500 and
$1,500 in statutory damages for each alleged violation of the law.
Id. Section 227(b)(3).

In Johansen, the named plaintiff, Kenneth Johansen, testified
during his deposition that he had been a plaintiff in about 60
previous TCPA class actions and has made roughly $60,000 a year in
TCPA lawsuits since 2014. Id. at *1–2. The Court found that
Johansen would "pose[ ] as a customer of the entity responsible for
initiating the telemarketing call and induce[ ] the representative
into believing that he [was], in fact, an established customer and
genuinely interested in the product or service offer, thereby
prolonging the purported injury that Plaintiff claims to have
suffered and increasing the potential damages that he could, in
theory, recover." Id. at *10. Johansen "readily admit[ted] that his
conduct . . . was deceptive," but argued "deception is appropriate
behavior for a class representative." Id. at *3.

The Court denied class certification because it found Johansen's
claims were not typical of the putative class. The Court held the
claims were not typical because "Plaintiff's claim is inherently
different than those of the putative class members who presumably
did not use similarly deceitful methods." Id. at 8. Specifically,
the Court found that Johansen's deceit would "necessitate[ ]" a
further inquiry into Plaintiff Article III standing, given it was
not clear his injury was fairly traceable to defendant's conduct.
Id. The Court further found that Johansen was "an inadequate class
representative." Id. at 11. The Court held that Johansen was not an
adequate representative because "the Court has serious concerns
about the Plaintiff's credibility, honesty, trustworthiness, and
motives in bringing forth [the] putative class action." Id.

It is not uncommon for class action defendants to be across the
table from professional plaintiffs -- even outside the TCPA
context. Johansen gives defendants opposing class certification a
new tool to argue that certain serial plaintiffs should not be
permitted to represent a putative class where it can be shown that
the named plaintiff engaged in deceptive and dishonest tactics in
order to craft a claim. [GN]

BOSTON BEER: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (SAM)
Class Period: 4/22/2021 - 9/8/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-sam/  

The Honest Company, Inc. (HNST)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the May
2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-hnst/

Hyzon Motors Inc. (HYZN, HYZNW) f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation (DCRB, DCRBU, DCRBW)
Class Period: 2/9/2021 - 9/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 29, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-hyzn/

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY)
Class: Investors who received Contingent Value Rights ("CVRs")
(BMY.RT) in exchange for their shares of Celgene Corporation (CELG)
pursuant to Bristol-Myers' acquisition of Celgene on November 20,
2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-bmy-3/

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

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

About ClaimsFiler

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

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

BOSTON BEER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 18 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

SESN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20500&wire=1
HYRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20500&wire=1
SAM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-boston-beer-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20500&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:SESN)

SESN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21,
2020 - August 17, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20500&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sesen
Bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Sesen Bio's clinical trial for its
cancer treatment product, Vicineum, had more than 2,000 violations
of trial protocol, including 215 classified as "major"; (2) three
of Sesen Bio's clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious
noncompliance," including "back-dating data"; (3) Sesen Bio had
submitted the tainted data in connection with the Biologics License
Application ("BLA") for Vicineum; (4) Sesen Bio's clinical trials
showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body, leading to side
effects including liver failure and liver toxicity, and increasing
the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury; (5) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be
approved; (6) as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable
likelihood that Sesen Bio would be required to conduct additional
trials to support the efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and (7) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ:HYRE)

HYRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 14, 2021 -
August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20500&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HyreCar
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) HyreCar had materially understated its
insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had systematically failed to pay
valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (c)
HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning to its new
third-party insurance claims administrator and processing claims
incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had failed to
appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was
experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) HyreCar had
been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting,
policies and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims
severity and customer complaints; and (f) as a result, HyreCar's
operations and prospects were misrepresented because the Company
was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to
investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a
reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross
margin, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization), and net loss trajectories.

The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE:SAM)

SAM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 22, 2021 -
September 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-boston-beer-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20500&wire=1

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

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

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

CONTACT:

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

BOWMAR NUTRITION: Bass Sues Over Mislabeled Whey Protein Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACIE BASS; CAROLINE CULP; KRISTEN DESTEPHANO; JULIA GREER;
DANIELLE LARSON; ERIN LEONARD; SHANNON MAINES; AMANDA MESSER; ALIZA
MOR; MARISSA STEWART; MARY BETH TEW; and COURTNEY WEYMOUTH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BOWMAR NUTRITION, LLC, Defendant, Case
4:21-cv-00307-JAJ-HCA (S.D. Iowa, Oct. 15, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant sells mislabeled whey protein products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactured whey
protein-fortified products with various flavors of powders,
frostings, nut spreads, and bars. However, Defendant's products
provide substantially less protein than is stated on the federally
mandated nutritional label and represented on the Defendant's
website and social media advertising. The labels and advertising
claims were false, inaccurate, and misleading, and the labels and
advertising violate federal and state laws and regulations
requiring accuracy in nutritional labels, alleges the suit.

The Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the Defendant's statements such
that they would not have purchased the Defendant's whey
protein-fortified bars if the truth about their protein content
were known, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially
reduced price for them had they known that the Defendant's
representations were false and misleading.

BOWMAR NUTRITION, LLC manufactures nutritional supplements
including protein hot chocolate. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric S. Mail, Esq.
          Puryear Law P.C.
          3719 Bridge Ave, Suite 6
          Davenport, IA 52807
          Telephone: (563) 265-8344
          Facsimile: (866) 415-5032
          E-mail: mail@puryearlaw.com
                  eric@puryearlaw.com

               -and-

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          Charles C. Weller, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137

BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces Class Action Over Applicant Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Information Group reports that Butterball, the nation's
leading producer of turkey-based products, is accused of denying
employment to an applicant based on his status as a medical
marijuana patient.

Plaintiff Douglas Mohr lodged a class action suit in Arkansas
federal court on October 5, 2021 claiming violations of Amendment
98 of the Arkansas constitution after Butterball denied him a
position per his status as a medical marijuana patient.

Amendment 98 allows employers to maintain drug testing programs,
deny employment for drug use on company property and refrain from
hiring applicants that test positive for substances other than
marijuana. However, the amendment prohibits an employer from
discriminating against medical marijuana patients during the
application process provided that the position is not formally
designated as "safety sensitive." Mohr alleges that the position he
applied for (Production Associate) was not designated in writing as
"safety sensitive" on the application or in any other materials
supplied to him by Butterball.

According to the complaint, Butterball extended Mohr a conditional
employment offer contingent upon a passed drug test and physical.
Mohr presented a copy of his medical marijuana card when he arrived
at his drug test appointment. Mohr's test results were positive for
marijuana and negative for all other substances. He alleges that he
was subsequently escorted off the company premises and informed
that "he was no longer eligible for hire as a result of the
positive drug test for marijuana."

The proposed class includes all those denied employment by
Butterball solely for their status as medical marijuana patients,
encompassing the one-year timeframe prior to the date the lawsuit
was filed. It is estimated that the class will likely include
between 40 and 100 members. Beyond a class action status award and
jury trial, Mohr is also seeking back pay, lost wages,
benefits/other compensation denied or lost and reimbursement of
legal fees.

Employers are encouraged to carefully review jurisdictional laws
pertaining to drug testing in the pre-employment process and ensure
that internal documentation is properly drafted in alignment with
those laws. [GN]

CARGILL MEAT: Villa Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Villa, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 211001004 (Comm. Pleas, Pa., October 13,
2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages and
prejudgment interest, liquidated and statutory damages, litigation
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Cargill is a processor and distributor of fresh beef, pork and
turkey, as well as cooked and marinated meats with processing
plants, distribution centers and sales offices throughout the
world, including in Pennsylvania. Cargill owns and operates two
primary plants in Pennsylvania, the Hazleton plant and the
Wyalusing plant.

Villa worked as a production worker for Cargill in the Hazleton
Plant from approximately May 2019 through approximately November
2020. She was required to arrive at the facility to undergo a COVID
screening process prior to work, thus reporting to work earlier.
Villa claims that this waiting time was uncompensated. Due to this
extra time, she claims that this was taken off her lunch break.

Villa typically worked at least 42 hours or more per week but
claims to be not paid for those hours in excess of 40 hours in that
week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Krysten Connon, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (267) 256-9973
      Email: ssb@llrlaw.com
             kconnon@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Phone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

             - and -

      Marielle Macher, Esq.
      DeJonna Bates, Esq.
      Community Justice Project
      118 Locust Street
      Harrisburg, PA 17101
      Tel: (717) 236-9486, ext. 214
      Email: mmacher@cjplaw.org
             dbates@cjplaw.org


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Loses Bid to Modify Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS
VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs
v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902
WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiffs'
motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint.

Background

Plaintiffs Harper, Sinclair, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal brought
the putative class action against their former employer, Charter
Communications, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code. Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege that Charter
misclassified them and other California employees as "outside
salespersons," failed to pay them overtime wages, failed to provide
meal periods or rest breaks (or premium wages in lieu thereof), and
provided inaccurate wage statements. (See generally Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC").

Charter is a broadband connectivity company and cable operator
serving business and residential customers under the Spectrum
brand, among others. Plaintiffs Harper and Sinclair worked as
small/medium sized business Account Executives ("AEs") at Charter's
Redding, California location. Plaintiffs Turner, Vazquez, and
Abascal worked as Direct Sales Representatives ("DSRs") at
Charter's Irwindale, Bakersfield, and Anaheim, California
locations, respectively. The Plaintiffs allege that Charter
classifies AEs and DSRs as "exempt" employees.

The Plaintiffs claim that Charter erroneously classified them as
exempt employees by mistakenly classifying them as "outside
salespersons." The Plaintiffs' claim is essentially that Charter
did not actually expect them to spend 50% of their time outside of
the office both during and after their training weeks, and that
even if it did, that expectation was unreasonable given the number
of tasks Charter expected them to complete that required them to be
in the office.

The Plaintiffs' claims of failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal periods or rest breaks (or premium wages in lieu
thereof), and failure to provide accurate wage statements are
derivative of their misclassification claim. Because Charter
misclassified them, the Plaintiffs contend, Charter necessarily
failed to pay them overtime and failed to provide necessary rest
and meal breaks. They further claim that Charter failed to pay them
commission wages to which they were entitled and provided them with
inaccurate and misleading wage statements.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of Charter employees:
(1) all California employees who were classified as exempt outside
salespersons, and (2) all California employees who were in
positions eligible to earn commission wages.

The Plaintiff Harper filed his initial complaint in Shasta County
Superior Court on May 3, 2019. Charter removed the case to the
Court on May 17, 2019. Harper sought leave to amend his complaint
and add another named Plaintiff, Sinclair, on Oct. 30, 2019. The
Court granted Harper's request on Dec. 13, 2019. The two Plaintiffs
sought leave to again amend their complaint to add three additional
named Plaintiffs, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal, on April 16, 2021.
The Court granted their request on June 3, 2021.

The Court issued a pretrial scheduling order on Oct. 9, 2019. The
parties amended the scheduling order via stipulation on seven
occasions: on Jan. 29, May 4, June 25, Sept. 17, and Dec. 11, 2020,
and again on Jan. 29 and June 23, 2021. On Dec. 18, 2020, Charter
filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court denied most of
Charter's motion on Feb. 16, 2021, holding that triable issues of
fact existed as to the majority of the Plaintiffs' claims,
including whether the Plaintiffs were misclassified as "outside
salespersons."

After withdrawing their initial motion for class certification
pursuant to the Court's order granting the Plaintiffs leave to file
the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for class certification on June 14, 2021.

The Defendant then filed a motion to compel arbitration against
Plaintiff Harper on July 9, 2021, a partial motion to dismiss on
the same day, and a motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiffs
Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal on Aug. 6, 2021.

On Aug. 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to modify
the scheduling order and for leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint, and the Court heard oral argument on Oct. 4, 2021. Their
motion seeks to make various changes to the complaint, namely
adding allegations related to the PAGA claims; adding Plaintiffs
Sinclair, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal as proposed PAGA
representatives; adding proposed arbitration subclasses; adding
allegations relating to the Plaintiffs' UCL claim; and adding
allegations relating to tolling and relation back of various
claims.

Discussion

A. PAGA Amendments

The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint to
(1) add allegations regarding amended PAGA notices they
subsequently submitted to California's Labor Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA"), which they updated to include Plaintiffs Sinclair,
Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal, and add those Plaintiffs as proposed
PAGA representatives in this action; and (2) add alleged violations
of Labor Code section 432.5, which were also submitted to the LWDA
through the amended notices.

Charter opposes the Plaintiffs' motion, arguing that because
Plaintiffs Sinclair, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal joined those
amended notices after PAGA's one-year statute of limitations had
run and this litigation had commenced -- and because the amended
notices added other claims and allegations after the statute of
limitations had run -- the amended notices cannot serve as
predicates for the PAGA allegations the Plaintiffs seek to add to
their complaint. Accordingly, Charter contends, the Plaintiffs'
requested amendments do not demonstrate the requisite diligence,
are futile, or both.

Judge Shubb agrees. He finds that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied
PAGA's administrative exhaustion requirements, and therefore
amending the Second Amended Complaint's PAGA claim to add them as
additional PAGA representatives would be futile. His conclusion
receives support from prior decisions by courts in California,
which have repeatedly dismissed PAGA claims or denied amendments
thereto where plaintiffs had not notified the LWDA within one year
of the violations they sought to challenge in court and before
bringing a PAGA action.

Even if the Plaintiffs could properly add additional PAGA
representatives via Plaintiff Harper's amended notices, Judge Shubb
holds that they have already foregone at least one opportunity to
do so. Plaintiff Sinclair was named in the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Notice, submitted to the LWDA on Sept. 9, 2020. After
accounting for the mandatory 65-day post-notice waiting period
before a plaintiff may bring a PAGA action, nearly seven months
passed before the Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, in
which they did not include Sinclair as a proposed PAGA
representative. The Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to add him as
one at that time, which would have obviated the need for another
amendment. Because the instant motion fails to explain why they did
not, it fails to show the requisite diligence to justify further
leave to amend.

Notwithstanding the futility issues he discussed, Judge Shubb
states, this suggests that the Plaintiffs were insufficiently
diligent to warrant a third round of amendments, which would
further delay resolution of pending motions. Because the Plaintiffs
have not shown the good cause required to gain leave to amend to
add Plaintiffs Sinclair, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal as PAGA
representatives, and because such amendment would be futile, Judge
Shubb will not grant leave to do so.

Moreover, Judge Shubb recognizes that the Plaintiffs allege that
the section 432.5 violations occurred in June 2021, well after
Plaintiff Harper initiated the PAGA action, meaning it was
impossible for them to have notified the LWDA of these alleged
violations prior to the current action. However, "PAGA claims are
different from conventional civil suits," and unlike private causes
of action created by other Labor Code provisions, it is not a
vehicle by which an employee may freely challenge any alleged Labor
Code violation they have experienced.

B. Arbitration Subclasses

The Plaintiffs also seek leave to amend the Second Amended
Complaint to add proposed arbitration subclasses, which would
include members of each proposed class whom "Charter contends are
bound by a JAMS and/or Solution Channel arbitration agreement."

It is unclear to the Court what the Plaintiffs think they would
accomplish by such an amendment. However, in their motion, they
acknowledge that "amending a complaint to plead updated proposed
class and subclass definitions is unnecessary." By doing so, they
concede that they lack the good cause required to obtain leave to
make these amendments. Accordingly, Judge Shubb will deny the
motion as to the proposed arbitration subclasses.

C. Tolling and Relation Back

The Plaintiffs also seek leave to amend the Second Amended
Complaint to add allegations regarding tolling and relation back
principles with respect to various claims, including Plaintiff
Harper's PAGA claim. The inapplicability of these doctrines in the
PAGA context is discussed, rendering these amendments futile to the
extent that they are intended to support Harper's PAGA claim.

To the extent that the amendments are intended to support other
claims, the Plaintiffs simply contend that they assumed their
original allegations were adequate because Charter did not
challenge their sufficiency until its recent motion to dismiss, and
they indicate that the proposed amendments are intended to preempt
that motion.

Judge Shubb holds that to allow the Plaintiffs leave to amend each
time a Defendant alleges a deficiency in the most recent amended
complaint, before the Court can evaluate that alleged deficiency,
would be to set up "a continually moving target." The Court has
already granted the Plaintiffs leave to file the Second Amended
Complaint and barely four months have elapsed since then. The
Plaintiffs cannot continue to amend their complaint indefinitely,
particularly this late in the case. At some point, the litigation
must be resolved. Because the Plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend to include these allegations does not demonstrate diligence,
Judge Shubb will deny the motion as to these amendments.

D. UCL Claim

Lastly, the Plaintiffs seek to amend the Second Amended Complaint
to allege, for purposes of their UCL claim, that they lack an
adequate remedy at law for wages owed for a period prior to the
expiration of the Labor Code's statute of limitations, as well as
for violations of Labor Code provisions that do not create a
private right of action.

As he indicated, Judge Shubb will not grant the Plaintiffs leave to
amend so that they may evade an already filed motion to dismiss,
particularly where they have not shown that it was not possible or
practicable to include such amendments in the Second Amended
Complaint. At this late stage, the time to cure any deficiencies
challenged in defendant's motion would be after resolution thereof,
if the court permits the Plaintiffs to do so. Because the
Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for leave to amend their UCL
claim, Judge Shubb declines grant it at this time.

Order

Judge Shubb denied the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling
order and for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tr3cp6w from Leagle.com.


CITYWIDE MOBILE: Paramedics Seek Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shanice Alston and Nick Osorio, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.,
Warren Golden and Henry Halpert, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08380
(S.D. N.Y., October 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit
further seeks unpaid spread of hours premium and statutory damages
for failure to provide required wage and hour law notices pursuant
to New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

Defendants run an ambulance service company and provide the
ambulance service in the New York City area.

Alston was hired by Defendants sometime July 2019 to work as a
paramedic for their ambulance service until October 25, 2020 while
Osorio was employed as an Emergency Medical Technician for their
ambulance service from December 2019 to September 2020. Both are
members of the Local 741 Specialty Trades Union.

Both never clocked in or clocked out to track their work hours but
Defendants paid them at a fixed weekly salary at the rate of 168
hours. Both claim to have never received any documents regarding
how wage payment would be made during the deployment.

Alston also brings a claim for retaliatory termination after she
filed a petition with the Local 741 Specialty Trades Union that she
did not receive the overtime compensation when she was deployed
during the Covid-19 pandemic. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
      675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
      New York, NY
      Tel: (718) 669-0714
      Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


COWORX STAFFING: Larsen Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLIFFORD LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COWORX STAFFING SERVICES LLC; COWORX
PERSONNEL, LLC; BULGARI CORPORATION OF AMERICA; CHANEL, INC.;
BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC; BLOOMINGDALES.COM, LLC; BLOOMINGDALE'S THE
OUTLET STORE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00039021-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California in the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on October 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01795-BAS-AGS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices.

CoWorx Staffing Services LLC is a temporary staffing agency located
in Morristown, New Jersey.

CoWorx Personnel, LLC is a temporary staffing agency located in
Morristown, New Jersey.

Bulgari Corporation of America is a jewelry retailer headquartered
in New York, New York.

Chanel, Inc. is a company that manufactures and markets various
cosmetics, headquartered in New York, New York.

Bloomingdale's, LLC is an American luxury department store chain,
headquartered in New York, New York.

Bloomingdales.com, LLC is an American luxury department store
chain, headquartered in New York, New York.

Bloomingdale's The Outlet Store, LLC is a department store company,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         David R. Ongaro, Esq.
         Scott S. Shepardson, Esq.
         ONGARO PC
         1604 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Telephone: (415) 433-3900
         Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
         E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
                 sshepardson@ongaropc.com

CREE INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Young Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFF YOUNG, Plaintiff v. CREE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-06252 YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants Cree's motion for summary judgment as to each of the six
claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, which are asserted on
Young's own behalf only.

Background

Plaintiff Young brings the action against Defendant Cree, alleging
that Cree engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice of falsely
promising consumers that Cree's light-emitting-diode ("LED") bulbs
would be long-lasting and would result in energy savings in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus.
Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. (claim 1); California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sections 17500, et
seq. (claim 2); Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ.
Code Sections 1750, et seq. (claim 3); fraudulent misrepresentation
and concealment (claim 4); unjust enrichment (claim 5); and breach
of express and implied warranties (claim 6). Young sought to assert
these claims on behalf of a proposed class, but the Court denied
Young's renewed motion for class certification on Jan. 8, 2021.

In the operative complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint
("ACAC"), Young alleges that Defendant Cree advertises, markets,
distributes, or sells various types of LED bulbs "to consumers
throughout the United States." In April of 2015, Young purchased
three of Cree's LED bulbs at Walmart and paid "approximately $15-20
for each bulb." "Within months, all three LED bulbs burned out even
though Young used them according to the instructions."

Mr. Young alleges that Cree has made fraudulent misrepresentations
with respect to its LED bulbs, which are on the packaging of the
LED bulbs, as well as in television and internet advertisements. He
further avers that these alleged fraudulent misrepresentations
overpromise the longevity and energy savings of the LED bulbs.
Young further alleges that Cree's internet and television
advertisements contain "various claims regarding the longevity of
the bulbs, especially as they relate to the lifetime of the Cree
bulbs in comparison to incandescent bulbs."

Mr. Young alleges that these "marketing efforts are made in order
to—and do in fact—induce its customers to purchase the LED
Bulbs at a premium because consumers believe the Lightbulbs will
last for far longer than their actual life." He alleges to have
specifically relied on false statements by Cree found (1) on the
packaging of the LED bulbs, which stated that he would save upwards
of $100 per bulb over the life of the bulb; that the bulb would
perform better than other less-expensive LED and non-LED bulbs; and
that the bulbs were guaranteed or warranted for performance; and
(2) in internet and television advertisements, which stated that
the bulbs would last up to 25 times longer than incandescent bulbs
and would use a fraction of the energy of incandescent bulbs.

Cree moved to dismiss Young's claims twice. The Court granted the
first motion, with leave to amend. Young then filed the ACAC. In
its order of Aug. 2, 2018, denying Cree's second motion to dismiss,
the Court concluded that each of Young's claims was adequately
pleaded. Specifically, as to Young's fraudulent misrepresentation
claims, claims 1 through 4, the Court concluded that they were
sufficiently pleaded in light of Young's allegations that the
alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by Cree upon which he relied
raised the reasonable inference that Cree's alleged
misrepresentations were misleading.

The Court declined to dismiss Young's unjust enrichment claim,
reasoning that this claim survived for the same reasons that the
fraudulent misrepresentation claims survived Cree's second motion
to dismiss. As to Young's warranty claims, the Court concluded that
they were not subject to dismissal based on Cree's argument that
Young lacked privity with Cree in connection with Young's purchase
of the LED bulbs, because Young's warranty claims fell within an
exception to the general rule that requires privity between the
original seller and the Plaintiff in light of Young's allegations
that he had relied on Cree's alleged fraudulent statements on the
packaging and in internet and television advertisements.

Now before the Court is Cree's motion for summary judgment as to
each of the six claims in the ACAC, which are asserted on Young's
own behalf only. The basis of the motion is that each of these
claims fails for lack of admissible evidence that Young relied on
Cree's alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. Young opposes the
motion.

Discussion

Cree moves for summary judgment as to each of Young's claims. Cree
argues that these claims fail because Young has no admissible
evidence to establish that he relied on Cree's alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations, as he must to prevail on each of the claims.
Cree contends that the Court allowed Young's claims to proceed past
the pleading stage based on Young's allegations in the ACAC that he
relied on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by Cree in
television and internet advertisements, as well as on the LED
bulbs' packaging. Cree further contends that Young's deposition
testimony fails to support his allegations in the ACAC that he
relied on Cree's alleged fraudulent misrepresentations.

Mr. Young admits that he alleged in the ACAC that he relied on
alleged fraudulent misrepresentations that he allegedly "saw on the
label, on television ads, and on internet advertisements," and he
further admits that "some" of his deposition testimony "differs"
from his allegations in the ACAC Additionally, Young does not
dispute that, to prevail at trial with respect to each of his
claims, he must show that he relied on these alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations. Young opposes Cree's motion on the grounds that
his deposition testimony, when taken as a whole, is sufficient to
establish reliance at trial or, alternatively, that his deposition
testimony "demonstrates" that a genuine issue of material fact
exists with respect to whether he relied on Cree's alleged
fraudulent misrepresentations. Id.

A. Fraudulent misrepresentation claims

Claims 1 through 4 of the ACAC arise out of the UCL, FAL, CLRA, and
common law fraud. As the Court noted in its order denying Cree's
second motion to dismiss, these claims are based on allegations
that Young relied, in deciding to purchase the LED bulbs at issue,
on false statements by Cree (1) on the packaging of the LED bulbs,
which stated that he would save upwards of $100 per bulb over the
life of the bulb; that the bulb would perform better than other
less-expensive LED and non-LED bulbs; and that the bulbs were
guaranteed and/or warranted for performance; and (2) in internet
and television advertisements, which stated that the bulbs would
last up to 25 times longer than incandescent bulbs and would use a
fraction of the energy of incandescent bulbs.

Judge Rogers concludes that claims 1 through 4 fail for lack of
evidence of reliance. She finds that Young's testimony that he
relied on the package, without specifying which aspects of the
package he relied upon, also is insufficient to satisfy the element
of reliance for two reasons.

First, Young's claims in this action are predicated on specific
alleged misrepresentations by Cree, and to prevail on such claims
at trial, Young must show that he relied on those specific alleged
misrepresentations. The testimony to which Young points, which
provides that he relied on the package, does not establish the
requisite causal link between the specific alleged
misrepresentations in the ACAC and Young's purchase of the LED
bulbs at issue. The absence of any evidence establishing this
requisite causal connection distinguishes the case from the two
cases that Young cites for the proposition that his deposition
testimony is sufficient to survive Cree's motion for summary
judgment.

Second, Young's testimony that he relied on the package contradicts
other portions of his deposition testimony, such as his testimony
that he could not remember what the "deciding factor" in his
purchase was  or that he could not recall what caused him to
purchase the Cree LED bulbs instead of LED bulbs made by other
companies. Even when construing the conflicting testimony in
question in the light most favorable to Young, Judge Rogers holds
that it is not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact as
to reliance. The Plaintiff cannot manufacture a genuine issue of
material fact by citing to his own conflicting testimony.

Cree's motion for summary judgment as to these claims is granted.

B. Warranty claims

Mr. Young's claims for breach of express and implied warranties
arise out of California law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Further, they are based on allegations that Cree's alleged
fraudulent misrepresentations with respect to the longevity and
energy savings of its LED bulbs constitute
warranties-by-representation, which Cree allegedly breached because
the LED bulbs it sold "did not contain the properties the Defendant
represented."

Judge Rogers finds that Young's California warranty claim fails for
the same reasons that his fraudulent misrepresentation claims fail,
namely because he has not shown, as discussed at length, that he
can establish that he relied on Cree's alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations. In the absence of evidence of reliance on
Cree's alleged misrepresentations on written labels or
advertisements, Young must establish either that he was in
contractual privity with Cree, or that his claim falls within
another recognized exception to the general rule requiring
contractual privity with Cree. Nor has Young shown that his
warranty claim falls within any other recognized exception to the
general rule requiring contractual privity between the plaintiff
and the original seller.

Accordingly, Young's warranty claim under California law fails for
lack of privity. Because it is undisputed that Young's
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim depends on the viability of his
California warranty claim, his Magnuson-Moss Warranty claim fails
in light of the fact that the California warranty claim fails.
Accordingly, Judge Rogers grants Cree's motion for summary judgment
as to Young's warranty claims (claim 6).

C. Unjust enrichment

Mr. Young's unjust enrichment claim is based on allegations that
Cree was unjustly enriched when he purchased the LED bulbs at issue
as a result of Cree's alleged "illegal conduct," that being the
alleged fraudulent misrepresentations that form the basis of
Young's fraudulent misrepresentation claims. Cree moves for summary
judgment on Young's claim for unjust enrichment on the ground that
the claim fails because there is no actionable fraudulent
misrepresentation in this action, again, due to a lack of evidence
of reliance. Young argues that his unjust enrichment claim survives
Cree's motion because Cree "did not show that Defendant's
misrepresentations can be dismissed as a matter of law."

Judge Rogers finds that Young's fraudulent misrepresentation claims
fail for lack of evidence of reliance. Accordingly, because Young's
unjust enrichment claim is predicated on Cree's alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations, the absence of any actionable fraudulent
misrepresentations by Cree defeats Young's unjust enrichment claim.
Judge Rogers, therefore, grants Cree's motion for summary judgment
as to this claim (claim 5).

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Rogers grants Cree's motion for
summary judgment as to all claims in the ACAC. Her Order terminates
docket number 150. The Clerk will enter judgment and terminate the
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fr7adnym from Leagle.com.


DISH NETWORK: Appeals Cy Pres Court Ruling to 4th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bexis, in an article for Drug & Device Law, reports that from the
beginning of the Blog we've made our position on "cy pres" class
action distributions plain -- we hate them. We had hopes that the
United States Supreme Court would deep six the whole concept in
Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), but as we guessed here, lack
of standing was another dispositive ground, and unfortunately for
our hopes that was the ground the Court took. Id. at 1046. Only one
justice went on record as advocating disapproval of the cy pres
award on the merits and rejection of the purported class action
altogether. Id. at 1047-48 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

We haven't blogged about cy pres since, but we do today to alert
our readers to another appeal that could provide a vehicle for
abolishing, or severely limiting, that baseless doctrine. The case
-- having nothing to do with prescription medical products
-- is Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 21-1616, pending in the
Fourth Circuit. Krakauer is unusual in that the class action at
issue was tried, rather than settled. The court trebled the jury's
damage award. Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis
199112, at *3 (M.D.N.C. April 29, 2021). That resulted in an
excessive judgment − after every class member who cared to come
forward with a claim was satisfied, unclaimed funds from the final
judgment in favor of the class totaled "approximately $11 million."
Id. at *4.

Rather than return this excessive exaction to the defendant, the
court abandoned its adjudicatory role and instead assumed the
mantle of judicial Santa Claus –- a self-described "grantmaker."
Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82087, at *7
(M.D.N.C. April 29, 2021). Over the defendant's objections, an ad
hoc cy pres award system was created. The court "appointed a
special master to help it evaluate potential cy pres recipients,"
2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 199112, at *4, whereby "[t]he special master
selected the organizations based on criteria developed from the
Court's previous orders and principles of sound grantmaking." 2021
U.S. Dist. Lexis 82087, at *7.

Thus, the court seized the excessive part of the judgment (created
by its trebling order), and used it to underwrite future
litigation. Possible recipients were limited to:

Organizations that receive the award to benefit the class through
their work on behalf of consumers injured by willful violators of
the TCPA, for example by providing direct services, support,
research, or advocacy for consumers.

Id. Krakauer glossed over the most serious problem with cy pres --
that lack of any federal statute or rule conveying power on a
district court to take money belonging to litigants and to award it
to a stranger to the litigation. The only authority Krakauer
invoked for a cy pres distribution was "the general equitable and
discretionary powers of the court." 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82087, at
*5. But what really happened is the judicial function being:

effectively transform[ed] . . . into a fundamentally executive
role, because no longer is the court functioning as a judicial
vehicle by which legal injuries suffered by those bringing suit are
remedied. Instead, the court presides over the administrative
redistribution of wealth for social good.

Martin H. Redish. et. al., "Cy Pres Relief & the Pathologies of the
Modern Class Action: A Normative & Empirical Analysis, 62 Fla. L.
Rev. 617, 641-42 (2010).

The defendant has appealed this decision, which effectively creates
a self-funding litigation industry. Cy pres, in Krakauer, does not
actually benefit anyone in the class. All identified class members
have been paid, and the class members who opted not to claim their
chunk of the judgment can't conceivably be benefitted by money
going to organizations devoted to promoting future litigation --
since those individuals wanted nothing to do with this existing
litigation. The only beneficiary is the litigation industry itself.
Judge Posner got cy pres right over a decade ago:

The doctrine [of cy pres], or rather something parading under its
name, has been applied in class action cases, but for a reason
unrelated to the reason for the trust doctrine. . . . In the class
action context the reason for appealing to cy pres is to prevent
the defendant from walking away from the litigation scotfree
because of the infeasibility of distributing the proceeds of the
settlement (or the judgment, in the rare case in which a class
action goes to trial) to the class members. There is no indirect
benefit to the class from the defendant's giving the money to
someone else. In such a case the cy pres remedy is purely
punitive.

Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 356 F.3d 781, 784 (7th Cir.
2004). See Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc., 658 F.3d 468,
480 (5th Cir. 2011) (Jones, J., concurring) ("[I]t is inherently
dubious to apply a doctrine associated with the voluntary
distribution of a gift to the entirely unrelated context of a class
action"). In this particular instance, the judicial seizure of the
excess judgment and it award to
pro-litigation "charaties" is doubly punitive, since the excess was
itself created by a punitive act -- the initial trebling of the
verdict.

The Supreme Court has been looking for a vehicle to review the
lower courts' use of cy pres principles in class action litigation
for some time. See Marek v. Lane, 571 U.S. 1003, 1006 (2013)
(Roberts, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). We hoped that
Frank v. Gaos would be that vehicle, but that was not to be. One
thing for sure, there is no standing issue here, since the
defendant is the aggrieved party and the action stems from an
adverse judgment rather than a settlement. "In contrast with cy
pres distributions agreed to by the parties as part of a
settlement, courts of appeals have greeted with more skepticism cy
pres distributions imposed by trial courts over the objections of
the parties." In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, 708 F.3d
163, 172 n.7 (3d Cir. 2013).

We note that our colleagues at Lawyers for Civil Justice have filed
an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's appeal in
Krakauer. We don't think this one's going away. [GN]

DOCTOR'S BEST: Court Issues Protective Order in Casey Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John D. Early of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Southern Division, issued a
Protective Order in the case, SHARAE CASEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DOCTOR'S
BEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS (JDEx) (C.D.
Cal.).

The parties in the putative class action have reached a settlement
agreement and have filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court. As part of the parties' proposed class
notice plan, the claim administrator will send an email notice to
the settlement class members identified from the records of
specified retailers. The Plaintiff has subpoenaed said retailers
for documents sufficient to identify the names and email addresses
of these settlement class members. These documents will necessarily
contain private information for which special protection from
public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing
this litigation may be warranted.

Accordingly, the Court enters the Protective Order, as modified.
The Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or
responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from
public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information
or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the
applicable legal principles.

The protections conferred by the Order cover not only Protected
Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from
Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or
compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony,
conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that
might reveal Protected Material.

Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the
orders of the trial judge and other applicable authorities. The
Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it
has disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any
circumstance not authorized under the Protective Order, the
Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the
Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best
efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected
Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized
disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d)
request such person or persons to execute the "Acknowledgment an
Agreement to Be Bound."

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material. In the event that the Court gives final approval to
a class settlement in this action, the date of "final disposition"
will be 180 days after the occurrence of the Effective Date as
defined in the class settlement agreement; provided, however, that
if the claim administrator has not paid all valid settlement class
member claims within 180 days after the Effective Date as defined
by the class settlement agreement, then the date of "final
disposition" will be the date that the claim administrator confirms
in writing to the parties that it has paid all valid claims. In the
event the Action concludes in any manner other than through final
approval of a class settlement, the date of "final disposition"
will be 180 days after (a) any judgment has become a final,
non-appealable judgment, or (b) the Action has been dismissed.

Notwithstanding this provision, the counsel are entitled to retain
an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial,
deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,
correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports,
attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even
if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival
copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject
to this Protective Order.

Any violation of the Order may be punished by appropriate measures
including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary
sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Protective Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ec7v6vj from Leagle.com.


DR. STEPHEN JAMES: Court Rules on Medical Malpractice Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Cantin, Esq., of Siskinds LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that after years of litigation, a medical malpractice class
action has been decided on its merits. On September 15, 2021, the
Ontario Superior Court released its common issues trial decision in
Levac v. James, 2021 ONSC 5971. The class action resulted in the
plaintiff achieving complete success at the common issues trial
against one of the defendants and no success at all against the
others.

Levac is the latest of a growing number of representative actions
to be tested on the merits. The decision reaffirms that infectious
outbreaks are well suited to certification and are amendable to
adjudication on a class-wide basis. But it also wrestles with a
novel theory of liability before the Court, one that could have
wide-ranging implication: a theory based not on a traditional
causation analysis but on an epidemiological analysis premised on
the statistically high rates of infections found among a health
care practitioner's patients.

Factual background and procedural history
The class action arises out of an infectious disease outbreak at a
now-defunct Toronto pain management clinic. In 2012, Toronto Public
Health audited the clinic's infection prevention and control
practices and determined that there were multiple deficiencies.
Toronto Public Health subsequently determined that the clinic
doctor at the core of the investigation, Dr. Stephen James, had
been colonized with a rare strain of Staph aureus bacteria (CC59)
and had transmitted infection to his patients.

Infected patients had varying types of infections and serious
complications in different areas of the body. A small group of the
infected patients tested positive for the same rare strain of Staph
aureus bacteria that had colonized on Dr. James. For the remaining
group of infected patients, either no samples were taken that could
be tested or the tests were inconclusive.

The plaintiff brought suit in 2014. The class action involves
claims by some 20 patients of Dr. James that he, along with the
clinic at which he worked and the nursing staff of that clinic, is
responsible for the bacterial infections they suffered because of
epidural injections he administered to them between the period
January 2010 to November 2012. The plaintiff's position is that Dr.
James caused the infectious disease outbreak by negligently
implementing a substandard infection prevention and control
("IPAC") practice.

The procedural history in Levac is nothing short of eventful. At
first instance, the Court certified the class action, and awarded
partial summary judgment against Dr. James. Justice Perell found
that the defendant doctor breached his duty of care to members of
the class; that specific causation had been established for those
class members infected with the same strain of bacteria found on
Dr. James; and general causation for the remainder of the class.1

After a trip to the Court of Appeal, the decision was reversed and
sent back to the Superior Court for reconsideration by a different
judge.2 Justice Morgan subsequently certified the action on consent
of the parties, and the common issues trial was scheduled to
proceed in January 2019. However, the parties' need for further
discoveries, which is not uncommon in a class proceeding, meant the
common issues trial did not proceed as planned.

After completing the second set of discoveries, the representative
plaintiff moved to amend her pleading to add causation-related
common issues and two subclasses, including a subclass to reflect
class members whose infections could be matched to the strain of
bacteria colonized on Dr. James. The most striking or controversial
proposed amendment was the inclusion of a causation question
regarding whether an inference should be drawn based on statistical
correlation that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Dr.
James' negligence caused or contributed to class members'
infections.

Dr. James did not object to the plaintiff's amendments. Instead, he
moved to de-certify the class action, on the basis that discovery
evidence proved insufficient commonality amongst class members.

In the end, the plaintiff was entirely successful on her motion.
Dr. James was not.3

The lengthy common issues trial
Unlike many class actions, this one was not settled before trial.
Instead, the case advanced before Justice Morgan to be decided on
its merits. At issue was whether any of the infections were caused
by Dr. James' negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, and whether
the other defendants-specifically, the nursing staff that assisted
Dr. James from time to time in performing epidural procedures-were
contributing causal agents.

Like most medical malpractice trial decisions, the Levac common
issues trial decision goes into great detail about the testimony of
the plaintiff's witnesses as well as the Defendants', including
expert evidence. Based on the evidence before him, the trial judge
concluded, with little hesitation, that Dr. James fell below the
standard of care: he made "no attempt to report, investigate, or
remediate or to change any of his practices or procedures in
response to learning of the series of patient infections." As for
the nurse defendants, the trial judge found that the common issues
trial revealed no legal claim.

For the subclass whose infections were found to match the bacterial
strain colonized on Dr. James, the Court concluded that Dr. James'
breaches in the standard of care were the cause of the clinic
infections they suffered. Justice Morgan reasoned that there was
"no other viable explanation.for the genetic match between the CC59
strain of Staph aureus infecting these patients and the CC59 strain
of Staph aureus colonizing Dr. James."

As it relates to the remaining class members (i.e., the infected
patients for whom there was no evidence that they had been infected
by the CC59 strain of Staph aureus bacteria), Justice Morgan was
left to grapple with whether the evidence before the Court
permitted him to infer that Dr. James' breaches of the standard of
care in relation to his IPAC practices were the likely cause of the
infections suffered by class members.

The plaintiff's position on this point was that there was in fact a
common factual base to draw an inference. Relying on
epidemiological evidence, the plaintiff argued that by performing
an injection with substandard IPAC practices, Dr. James exposed
each class member to a level of risk that was statistically much
higher than for patients undergoing the same procedure. In fact,
the uncontroverted evidence before the Court was that patients of
Dr. James had a nearly 69 times greater risk of developing a
serious infection than pain clinic patients not exposed to his
substandard IPAC practices.

Justice Morgan ultimately concluded that he could not ignore the
"overwhelming" evidence against Dr. James. Thus, for those class
members for whom there was no evidence that they had been infected
by the CC59 strain of Staph aureus bacteria, Justice Morgan
determined with ease that an inference could and should be drawn:

While each Class member will have to demonstrate their right to a
claim by showing that they partook of this common risk and suffered
consequences, the inference that their injury was specifically
caused by Dr. James' actions is statistically proven.

The Court likewise concluded that the defendant doctor's breaches
of fiduciary duty were the likely cause of clinical infections
suffered by the class members, and that punitive damages were
warranted.

The common issues trial decision in Levac reinforces that while
evidentiary and proof requirements of the common issues are not
lessened merely because the matter is a class action,
epidemiological tools can be used to infer causation.

It remains to be seen whether the trial decision will be appealed.
[GN]

ENERVEST EMPLOYEE: Fenter Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TODD FENTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENERVEST EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02465-N (N.D. Tex., October 7, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal
Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.

The Plaintiff has started working with the Defendant in
approximately June 2011 as a water transfer employee and a lease
operator in connection with the Defendant's oilfield operations.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per seven-day workweek as
employees of the Defendant. However, because the Defendant did not
compensate them for the compensable time they have performed work
that was integral and indispensable to their principal activities
during on-call periods, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not properly paid for 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.

Enervest Employee Services, LLC operates thousands of oil and/or
natural gas properties and/or wells. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (972) 707-7816
          Fax: (972) 591-4564
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 19
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) resulting from
allegations that Facebook may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2176.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: Between September 13, 2021 and October 3, 2021,
The Wall Street Journal released a series of nine articles alleging
that Facebook had been misleading investors regarding its business
operations. The allegations were based on internal documents
provided by a whistleblower. On October 4, 2021, CBS's segment 60
Minutes spoke with the whistleblower and published the
whistleblower's SEC whistleblower complaints. On October 5, 2021,
the whistleblower testified before Congress concerning Facebook's
misleading statements and omissions of material fact.

Among the numerous allegations, the internal documents show that:
(1) Facebook misled investors regarding how its "Cross Check" or
"XCheck" system actually functioned, which in reality gave
preferential treatment to Facebook's 'VIP' users; (2) despite its
outward facing policy of disallowing users under the age of 13,
Facebook was internally researching pre-teen users and their
engagement with certain Facebook services, and how to turn those
users into long-term users; (3) despite Facebook's stated policy of
making its services as safe as possible, Facebook lagged in its
response to drug cartels and human traffickers using its services;
(4) Facebook misrepresented its negative impact on teens' mental
health, particularly in teen girls; (5) Facebook misled investors
and advertisers by inflating its shrinking user base; and (6)
Facebook misrepresented its role in fomenting ethnic violence and
division.

Between September 13, 2021 and October 5, 2021, Facebook share
prices dropped by $48.72, or over 12%, to close on October 5, 2021
at $332.96.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

FLO HEALTH: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Frasco Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICA FRASCO, et al., Plaintiffs v. FLO HEALTH, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California appoints Carol C. Villegas of Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Diana J. Zinser of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., and Christian
Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., to serve as the interim co-lead
class counsel in the Consolidated Action.

The Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action have requested the
appointment of interim lead counsel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g). As a general proposition, the Court is reluctant
to appoint interim counsel because it is rarely necessary for case
management and can preempt the question of who should be named as
the class counsel when certification is granted. Even so, each case
is considered on its own, and the Plaintiffs have proposed a
leadership structure that will promote the fair and efficient
management of the litigation. The proposal also accommodates the
Court's strong interest in diversifying lead counsel appointments.

Consequently, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3),
Judge Donato appoints Carol C. Villegas of Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Diana J. Zinser of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., and Christian
Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. to serve as the Co-Lead Counsel in
the Consolidated Action.

While the factors in Rule 23(g)(1) are not, strictly speaking,
applicable to interim counsel, they provide a useful framework to
evaluate appointments. In that respect, the Plaintiffs' motion and
supporting materials indicate that the Co-Lead Counsel have
performed substantial work on behalf of the proposed class to date,
have worked toward streamlining the cases in the Court, and have
sufficient experience and applicable knowledge necessary to
effectively represent the proposed class. Judge Donato declines to
make any other appointments at this time, and entrusts staffing
decisions to the Co-Lead Counsel's discretion, as guided by the
following requirements.

Authority and Responsibilities

The Co-Lead Counsel have full authority over, and responsibility
for, the Plaintiffs' participation in the following matters: (1)
the initiation, response, scheduling, briefing, and argument
related to all pleadings or motions; (2) the scope, order, and
conduct of all discovery proceedings; (3) expert retention and
reports; (4) designating the appearance of the Plaintiffs' counsel
at hearings and conferences; (5) leading common settlement
negotiations and entering into prospective agreements with
defendants; (6) receiving and distributing among the Plaintiffs'
counsel, as appropriate, notice of all Court orders and notices of
pretrial conferences and acting as the primary contact between the
Court and the Plaintiffs' counsel; and (7) all other matters
concerning the efficient and economical conduct of the consolidated
action. The Defendants' counsel may rely on the conduct and
representations of the Co-Lead Counsel for any issue in the
litigation.

The Co-Lead Counsel are also responsible for: (a) assigning work to
other Plaintiffs' counsel, as may be appropriate and in the
putative class's best interest; (b) implementing time and expense
record keeping policies; (c) collecting time and expense reports
from all the Plaintiffs' counsel on a monthly basis; (d) acting as
the treasurer for any litigation fund assessments and expenses; and
(e) otherwise ensuring that the Plaintiffs' counsel not perform
common benefit work, bill for unnecessary read and review time, or
attend hearings, depositions, or other events without the Co-Lead
Counsel's authorization.

Fees, Costs, and Expenses

The Co-Lead Counsel are expected to be vigilant in ensuring the
efficient and economical prosecution of the matter. A request for
an award of fees and costs may be based only on records that were
prepared as the fees and costs were incurred. A prolonged forensic
accounting exercise or a mini-trial on fees and costs are to be
avoided. To that end, the Co-Lead Counsel will ensure that the
following practices are adhered to by all counsel who perform work
on behalf of the putative class:

      a. At the close of each calendar month, the Co-Lead Counsel
will make sure that all time has been entered by all timekeepers in
final form. By 14 days after each month's end, the Co-Lead Counsel
will ensure that a bill for the prior month is finalized,
reflecting the lead counsel's review of the billing records and any
write-downs or write-offs by the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for
inefficiencies, duplication of effort, misjudgments in staffing,
and the like. These final bills for each month will be segregated
and kept by the Co-Lead Counsel, and may not be altered. Only these
records, prepared contemporaneously with the expenditures, may be
used for a fees and costs motion.

      b. Time will be recorded in one-tenths of an hour.

      c. Block-billing time records are not permitted. Timekeepers
must itemize the time expended on specific tasks in sufficient
detail to ascertain whether the amount of time spent performing
those tasks was reasonable.

      d. The Co-Lead Counsel are free to make staffing decisions as
they deem appropriate, but the Court will not permit fees to be
recovered for multiple attorneys performing duplicative work. For
example, barring an unusual circumstance, no more than two lawyers
should bill for attendance at most fact depositions. The Court will
not permit the recovery of fees for every attorney from every firm
to review each discovery request and response, motion, letter,
e-mail, etc. in the case. While each attorney should stay informed
about the litigation, only the attorneys designated by Co-Lead
Counsel to review or summarize pleadings, orders and communications
are working for the common benefit of the putative class, and only
their time will be considered for possible payment at the
conclusion of this case.

      e. Domestic air travel of less than six hours should be
billed at coach class rates regardless of the class flown. Travel
exceeding six hours of flight time may be booked in business class.
In all cases, flights should be booked at the lowest available
fare.

      f. When overnight travel is necessary, counsel should be
mindful in selecting reasonable hotel accommodations and
restaurants. Per diem expenses for travel days should not exceed
$125 per person exclusive of lodging and transportation.

The Co-Lead Counsel understands that a failure to adhere to these
guidelines, or the spirit animating them, will result in the
exclusion of consideration for the relevant fee or cost request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rpeuaety from Leagle.com.


GENERAC POWER: Craftwood Seeks Review of Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Craftwood II, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled CRAFTWOOD II, INC., a
California corporation, d/b/a Bay Hardware; CRAFTWOOD III, INC., a
California corporation d/b/a Lunada Bay Hardware, individually and
as representatives of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04105, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Plaintiffs Craftwood II, Inc., d/b/a Bay Hardware, and Craftwood
III, Inc., d/b/a Lunada Bay Hardware have filed a one-count
putative class action complaint against Defendant Generac, alleging
a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 ("TCPA") for three "junk" faxes. The Defendant has
moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiffs consented
to the faxes.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 4, 2021, the
District Court for the issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order: (a)
granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and (b)
denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of that order.

The appellate case is captioned Craftwood II, Inc., et al. v.
Generac Power Systems, Inc.., Case No. 21-2858, in the US Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 13, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due on October 27, 2021;
and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 22, 2021 for
Craftwood II, Inc. and Craftwood III, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CRAFTWOOD II, INC., doing business as BAY
HARDWARE, a California corporation; and CRAFTWOOD III, INC., doing
business as LUNADA BAY HARDWARE, a California corporation,
individually and as representatives of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Scott O. Luskin, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          200 N. Pacific Coast Highway
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 689-1750

               - and -

          Peter M. Trobe, Esq.
          TROBE, BABOWICE & ASSOCIATES
          404 W. Water Street
          Waukegan, IL 60085-0000
          Telephone: (847) 625-8700  

Defendant-Appellee GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Wisconsin
corporation, is represented by:

          Molly Arranz, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
          150 N. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601-7621
          Telephone: (312) 894-3200

GILES COUNTY, TN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Extortion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Civil Rights Corp disclosed that Giles County has privatized its
probation system to generate profit for two for-profit companies
and to fund its court system off the backs of the poorest people in
the County. The County contracted with PSI Probation, LLC and
Community Probation Services, LLC to run a "user funded" probation
system in which the companies' sole source of revenue is from the
fees and surcharges paid to them by the impoverished people they
supervise. The lawsuit describes how the County and the companies
extort impoverished people to generate profit by threatening to
jail them if they do not pay. The poorest people in Giles County
face a cycle of probation violation, extension of supervised
probation, extra fees, and repeated jailing.

Civil Rights Corps joined Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.,
the Nashville-based Law Office of Kyle Mothershead and Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrett to file a federal class action lawsuit on
behalf of five named plaintiffs to end this unconstitutional
extortion enterprise. [GN]

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Keller and Heckman Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that as previously covered on this blog, a class action
lawsuit against Godiva Chocolatier alleges that the claim 'Belgium
1926' on Godiva's products sold in the U.S. is misleading because
it implies that the chocolate is made in Europe when it is actually
made in Pennsylvania and is a different quality than chocolate made
in Belgium. On May 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied an injunction but also refused
to dismiss the case, rejecting Godiva's argument that a reasonable
consumer would certainly realize that the disputed claim only means
that the company was founded in Belgium in 1926.

On October 12, 2021, following more than a year of settlement
negotiations through mediation, the plaintiffs asked the court to
approve a settlement in which Godiva has agreed to pay up to $15
million for claims by an estimated 18 million consumers nationwide
and $5 million to cover attorney fees and other costs. Consumers
who submit claim forms would be eligible to receive $1.25 per
product, up to a total of $25 per household with proof of purchase
or $15 without proof. While stating that a settlement is in the
company's best interest, a spokesperson for Godiva emphasized to
Law360 that 'Belgium 1926' signifies the place and the year of the
company's founding.

A separate lawsuit involving similar claims was dismissed with
consent from the plaintiff by the Superior Court for the District
of Columbia on March 18, 2021. 'Belgium 1926' continues to appear
on Godiva products for sale in the U.S. [GN]

GOOD NATURE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camargo Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONEL CAMARGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD NATURE, INC. (D/B/A GOODNATURE);
DELITERIA 1061 INC. (D/B/A DELITERIA DELI AND GROCERY); BRISH
PATEL; NICK PATEL; and TURSA PATEL, Defendants, Case 1:21-cv-08522
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Camargo was employed by the Defendants as delivery
workers.

GOOD NATURE, INC. owns and operates two American delis, located at
New York, NY the name "Goodnature" and "Deliteria Deli and
Grocery".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HENRY FORD: Hundley Suit Stayed Pending U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, stayed the case, Ruth
Hundley, et al., Plaintiffs v. Henry Ford Health System, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-11023 (E.D. Mich.), pending the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, No.
19-1401, 141 S.Ct. 2882 (July 2, 2021).

Background

On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs Ruth Hundley, Carol Bujak, Lita Brooks,
and Carol Rembor filed the putative class action against Defendants
Henry Ford Health System, The Board of Directors of Henry Ford
Health System, "Investment Committee," and "John Does 1-40." The
Plaintiffs assert the following two counts: 1) "Breaches of
Fiduciary Duties of Loyalty and Prudence (Asserted Against HFHS and
Committee Defendants)"; and 2) "Failure to Adequately Monitor Other
Fiduciaries (Asserted Against HFHS and the Board Defendants)."

The parties agreed that the Defendants could have additional time
to file their first responsive pleading. Before the Defendants did
so, on July 2, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for
writ of certiorari in Hughes, wherein the petition presented the
following question presented:

     "Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104, a plan fiduciary is required to
meet a standard of prudence in administering the plan holding the
participant's retirement assets in a defined contribution plan. The
Third and Eighth Circuits have held that a plan participant can
adequately plead a breach of fiduciary duty by claiming that the
retirement plan charged excessive fees when lower-cost alternatives
existed. In the decision below, the Seventh Circuit held that
virtually identical pleadings are insufficient to state a claim,
because it is necessary to credit the defendant's explanation for
not offering lower cost options for the retirement plan before
allowing a well-pleaded complaint to proceed. The question
presented is: Whether allegations that a defined-contribution
retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that
substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment
products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan
fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA, 29
U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(B)."

After a Sept. 14, 2021 Status Conference, the Court ordered that
the Defendants' first responsive pleading in the case is due by
Oct. 19, 2021.

On Aug. 5, 2021, the Defendants filed a "Motion To Stay," wherein
they ask the Court for a stay of all proceedings pending the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Hughes. The Defendants contend that "in
Hughes, the Supreme Court will address the pleadings standard
plaintiffs must satisfy to state a cognizable claim in an ERISA
class action alleging excessive fees virtually identical to the
claims Plaintiffs assert here." The motion is opposed by the
Plaintiffs. The motion has been fully briefed.

Meanwhile, the Defendants' first responsive pleading was due on
Oct. 19, 2021. They are presumably going to file a motion to
dismiss based upon the Seventh Circuit's decision in Hughes, while
the Plaintiffs will oppose the motion urging the Court to follow
the contrary position followed by the Third and Eighth Circuits.

On Oct. 12, 2021, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion to file
a 35-page brief in support of the motion to dismiss they intend to
file in this case. They assert that it is necessary in order to
"sufficiently address the Plaintiffs' 91-page, 205-paragraph
Complaint, as well as the current state of the case law at issue."
The Plaintiffs do not oppose the request because, given the nature
of these issues, they too likely wish to file an over-size brief.

If the parties do not request extensions as to the times for filing
the response and reply briefs, then the Defendants' yet-to-be-filed
Motion to Dismiss should be briefed by Nov. 16, 2021. If they
request extensions, as is commonly done with complex motions like
these, the motion would not be done being briefed until a later
date.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Hughes on Dec. 6, 2021.
Thus, the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes could be issued at any
time between that Dec. 6, 2021 hearing date the end of the term in
June of 2022.

Discussion

Judge Fox agrees with the Defendants that, under the circumstances
presented, entering a stay will promote judicial economy and reduce
the costs of litigation on all parties. By contrast, the Plaintiffs
will not suffer significant prejudice because of a limited stay.
Judge Fox is not persuaded that the Plaintiffs will incur
significant prejudice by virtue of continuing to incur allegedly
excessive fees during the stay. As the Defendants note, damages to
each participant "would be hundreds of dollars at most.

Moreover, if the Plaintiffs prove their claims and establish
damages, they will recover any additional losses accrued during the
stay through a greater judgment." Further, "there is no indication
that the Defendants would be unable to satisfy a judgment for
damages, or that a delay would impact their ability to do so."
Accordingly, Judge Fox concludes that any harm to the individual
participants does not outweigh the significant benefits of the
requested stay.

Conclusion & Order

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Fox granted the Defendants'
Motion for Stay and all proceedings in the action are stayed
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes. The parties will
notify the Court of the decision in Hughes within five calendar
days after the Supreme Court issues its decision. The Court will
then promptly set a Status Conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/u5t3kjph from Leagle.com.


HONEST COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

HNST Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-honest-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20522&wire=1
NNOX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=20522&wire=1
INNV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/innovage-holding-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20522&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

The Honest Company, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNST)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Honest common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's May 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 15, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-honest-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20522&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) prior to the Initial Public
Offering ("IPO"), the Company's results had been significantly
impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in
the Diapers and Wipes category and Household and Wellness category;
(2) at the time of the IPO, the Company was experiencing
decelerating demand for such products; (3) as a result, the
Company's financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)

NNOX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 17, 2021 -
August 18, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=20522&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Nano-X
Imaging Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nano-X's 510(k) application for
the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that
the Food and Drug Administration would approve the 510(k)
application for the Nanox.ARC in its current form; (iii) as a
result, NanoX had overstated the Nanox.ARC's regulatory and
commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

InnovAge Holding Inc. (NASDAQ:INNV)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired InnovAge common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 13, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/innovage-holding-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20522&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) certain of InnovAge's
facilities failed to provide covered services, provide accessible
and adequate services, manage participants' medical situations, and
oversee use of specialists; (2) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including
by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; (3) as a result,
there as a significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments
pending an audit of the Company's services; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

HONEST COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against The Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HNST) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-08033, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Honest common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's May 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Honest
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement in connection to the company's IPO, you have until
November 15, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Honest claims it is a "digitally-native, mission-driven brand
focused on leading the clean lifestyle movement, creating a
community for conscious consumers and seeking to disrupt multiple
consumer product categories." Honest's three product categories are
(1) Diapers and Wipes, (2) Skin and Personal Care, and (3)
Household and Wellness. According to Honest, these three categories
represented 63%, 26% and 11% of Honest's 2020 revenue,
respectively.

On May 6, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the
IPO, the Company sold 6,451,613 shares of common stock, plus an
additional 3,871,050 shares of common stock pursuant to the
underwriter's option to purchase additional shares at a price of
$16.00 per share. Certain existing stockholders also sold an
aggregate of 19,355,387 shares of common stock in the IPO for
$16.00 per share, including 15,229,543 by the executive officers
and directors of Honest as a group (excluding the underwriters'
over-allotment option).

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted: (1) that, prior to the
IPO, the Company's results had been significantly impacted by a
multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in the Diapers
and Wipes category and Household and Wellness category; (2) that,
at the time of the IPO, the Company was experiencing decelerating
demand for such products; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and (4) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 13, 2021, before the market opened, Honest issued a press
release titled "The Honest Company Reports Second Quarter 2021
Financial Results." Therein, Honest reported a net loss of $20
million for the second quarter of 2021, as compared to a net loss
of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020. Honest
disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the second
quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by "an
estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in
Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period." Honest also disclosed
that its Diapers and Wipes category revenue declined 2% compared to
the second quarter of 2020. Honest further disclosed that
"Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second quarter
of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization products
decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers managed
heavy levels of inventory."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.98 per share, or
28%, to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volum

On August 19, 2021, the Company's stock price closed at an all-time
low of $9.16 per share, a nearly 43% decline from the $16.00 per
share IPO price.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

HP INC: Carvalho Slams Deceptive Pricing for Computers
------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HP Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08015,
(N.D. Cal., October 13, 2021), seeks actual damages, statutory
minimum damages and equitable monetary relief, punitive damages, as
allowable by law, any and all remedies provided pursuant to state
and federal consumer protection statutes, including any applicable
statutory and civil penalties and pursuant to the state warranty
statutes, including any applicable statutory and civil penalties,
disgorgement of the ill-gotten profits, attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, prejudgment and post-judgement interest on any
amounts awarded, and such other and further relief resulting from
fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express and
implied warranty and for violation of California's False
Advertising Law.

HP sells computers in the United States. Carvalho alleges that HP's
prices on its website do not represent the actual prices at which
HP regularly sells its products, therefore engaging in false
reference pricing that artificially increases demand for HP
products and induces customers to pay more for them based on a
false impression of their value.

HP advertised Carvalho's computer for $899.99 as part of a "72 Hour
Flash Sale." At the top of the screen, HP displayed a banner that
had a timer that counted down when the price discount would end.
Thinking of missing out on the "deal," Carvalho purchased said
computer. But even after the timer expired, HP merely removed the
flash sale sign and continued to sell said computer at the same
price. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
             Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com

             - and -

      Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq.
      Seth W. Wiener, Esq.
      EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      1341 La Playa Street 20
      San Francisco, CA 94122
      Telephone: (415) 515-4809
      Email: daniel@edge.law
             seth@edge.law


HP INC: Faces Class Action Over Printer Software Update
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a class
action lawsuit alleging HP pushed a software update to its printers
to make them incompatible with other brands' ink cartridges can
mostly go ahead, a judge has ruled.

A California federal judge ruled Oct. 15 that most of the class
action allegations filed by printer owners against HP, Inc. could
go ahead, throwing out only three of the claims.

The claims against HP were first filed in Dec. 2020. The plaintiffs
allege that HP transmitted firmware updates without authorization
to HP printers through the Internet, with the first update pushed
around Nov. 2020.

These firmware updates allegedly act as malware, "adding, deleting
or altering code, diminishing the capabilities of HP printers, and
rendering the competitors' supply cartridges incompatible with HP
printers," the plaintiffs said.

HP Forced Customers to Purchase HP Ink Cartridges, Class Action
Alleges
The class action lawsuit said the company told them that HP
printers have a "supply problem," when HP had in fact intentionally
caused the issue by sending the "malware" to render third-party ink
cartridges incompatible with HP products.

"Plaintiffs allege that as a result of this malware, HP printer
owners are either forced to buy HP cartridges or they cannot use
their printers until third parties can develop workarounds in their
products," the lawsuit states.

They also allege HP used this firmware update process to conceal
the fact it is actually collecting data on whether consumers are
using HP or its competitors' cartridges without their consent.

The lawsuit is looking to represent anyone nationwide who had a HP
Color LaserJet Pro M254, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M280, HP Color
LaserJet Pro MFP M281, or any other model affected by HP malware
transmissions.

The plaintiffs are Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., Performance
Automotive & Tire Center and David Justin Lynch's.

The plaintiffs are suing under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud
Act (CDAFA), California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The order filed Oct. 15 allowed most of the claims to go ahead,
apart from allegations regarding one section of CFAA, trespass to
chattels and one claim based on one part of CDAFA.

The news comes as HP faces another class action lawsuit, with a
consumer alleging that he and others with an HP "Instant Ink"
subscription are experiencing faulty, error-prone cartridges.

Do you own an HP printer that suddenly wouldn't work with other
brands' ink cartridges? Let us know your experience in the
comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark L. Javitch of Javitch Law
Office and Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. of Zimmerman Law Offices PC.

The HP Software Update Ink Cartridge Class Action Lawsuit is Mobile
Emergency Housing Corp. et al. v. HP Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-09157,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
[GN]

HP INC: Must Face Class Action Over Printer Firmware Updates
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law/Street, reports that on Oct. 15,
a Northern District of California court issued a 24-page opinion in
the case over HP Inc.'s internet-based updates that purportedly
slow and reduce its printers' capabilities. The decision leaves the
complaint largely intact.

In their third amended complaint, the business and individual
plaintiffs assert that HP transmits online firmware updates to
printers which alters the machines' code and renders competitors'
ink cartridges incompatible. They also accuse HP of using this
firmware update process to hide its surreptitious collection of
data concerning whether consumers are using HP or its competitors'
cartridges without their consent. The pleading states claims under
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Comprehensive Computer
Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), California false advertising and
consumer protection laws, and states a claim for injunctive
relief.

The lawsuit seeks to certify several classes of printer purchases.
It contends that their damages include "loss of the value of the
supply cartridges they purchased that are no longer compatible with
their printers, loss of time and effort to diagnose the damage to
their printers and to determine what remedial measures to take, the
need to purchase expensive HP supply cartridges, uncertainty in the
functioning of their printers and supply cartridges, and future
remedial costs."

The opinion first considered whether the plaintiffs have
constitutional standing to bring the suit. Magistrate Judge Susan
Van Keulen ruled that at the pleading stage, the plaintiffs have
asserted particularized-enough injury, citing their alleged
expenditure of time and money fixing printer problems and
purchasing replacement cartridges.

The court then permitted the plaintiffs' CFAA and CDAFA claims to
proceed to the extent that they do not rest on the allegation that
HP accessed their printers without consent. That contention lacked
supporting facts, the order said.

Judge Van Keulen also allowed the complainant's California False
Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law claims to proceed. Those causes of action are
premised on the allegation that "HP made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the compatibility of
third-party ink cartridges with their printers," the opinion
explained.

Among other determinations, Judge Van Keulen found the omissions to
be actionable and that the plaintiffs were not on notice of HP's
"dynamic security and the data collection." The court rejected
arguments that HP disclosed these practices on various webpages,
noting its judicial obligation to presume the truth of all of the
plaintiffs' factual allegations in assessing a motion to dismiss.

Finally, Judge Van Keulen refused to dismiss or strike the
plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim after finding that they
established sufficient likelihood that they will be wronged again
in a similar way in the future. The plaintiffs have until October
29 to file a new complaint, but were reminded that they may not
file new causes of action nor add parties without following the
requisite procedure.

The plaintiffs are represented by Javitch Law Office and Zimmer Law
Offices P.C. HP is represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. [GN]

HUDA BEAUTY: Deadline for Class Action Settlement Claims Filing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that nationwide consumers who purchased a
Huda Beauty Neon Obsessions Pressed Pigment Palette may be eligible
for a cash refund payment of up to $30 without proof of purchase --
or $87 with proof -- thanks to a recent class action settlement.

Settlement Class Members include consumers who purchased any color
of Huda Beauty Neon Obsessions Pressed Pigment Palettes in the
United States on or before Aug. 15, 2021.

Plaintiffs allege Huda Beauty falsely advertised the Neon
Obsessions Palette.

According to the class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs say the
palette is advertised as being eye shadow, but once purchased, fine
and hidden print on the back of the product clearly states not to
use the product around the eyes. Plaintiffs say they used the
product as an eye shadow and then suffered physical injuries,
including eye irritation.

Huda Beauty denies any wrongdoing. According to the company, the
products are not defective.

The Court did not make a determination of guilt on this issue.
Rather, all parties involved agreed the proposed settlement
agreement is in everyone's best interests.

Eligible Class Members who file a timely claim will receive a cash
refund of up to $87.

Those who submit a valid claim form along with a direct notice or
proof of purchase will be eligible for a payment of $29 per product
for up to three products, for a total of $87.

Class Members who do not provide proof of purchase with their claim
will be eligible to receive $10 for each product purchased, up to a
maximum of three products, for a total of $30.

On top of this, the company has agreed to reintroduce its products
with a visible and clear disclosure about products they use not
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Each Class Member has the right to object to the settlement if they
don't agree with the terms of the proposed settlement agreement.
The deadline for objecting is Jan. 12, 2022.

Class Members who do not wish to participate in the Huda Beauty
settlement, do not want to receive their share of the settlement
fund, and want to maintain the right to pursue future lawsuits
regarding this matter must exclude themselves by Jan. 12, 2022.

A final approval hearing is scheduled to take place on Feb. 21,
2022.

Class Members who wish to receive their monetary payment must file
a claim. Class Members who do not file a claim will not receive a
payment but they will be bound by the terms of the agreement, which
means they will give up the right to sue in the future.

The deadline to file a claim in this class action lawsuit is Jan.
12, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Settlement Class Members include consumers who purchased any color
of Huda Beauty Neon Obsessions Pressed Pigment Palettes in the
United States on or before Aug. 15, 2021.

Potential Award
Up to $30 without proof of purchase, or Up to $87 with proof

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase required

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM
https://www.neonobsessionssettlement.com/ClaimForm.dtm
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
01/12/2022

Case Name
Ramirez, et al. v. HB USA Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-01016
JG-SHKx, In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California

Final Hearing
02/21/2022

Settlement Website
NeonObsessionsSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Claims Administrator
Digital Settlement Group, LLC
PO Box 164
Valparaiso, IN 46384
info@neonobsessionssettlement.com
877-342-0827

Class Counsel
Peter J. Farnese
BESHADA FARNESE LLP

William A. Ladnier
Jonathan B. Cohen
Alex R. Straus
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Defense Counsel
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN]

HUNTERDON COUNTY, NJ: Judge Reserves Decision on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Central Jersey reports that a Superior Court judge has reserved
decision on a $7.985 million settlement in a class action lawsuit
for victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment at Edna Mahan
Correctional Facility for Women.

Judge Michael O'Neill said he had several follow-up questions and
needed to "flesh out" some issues.

One of those issues, the judge said, is whether inmates who filed a
claim in the class action lawsuit can in the future file an
individual lawsuit.

Though he was set to start a trial on another civil case on
Oct. 18, O'Neill said he will hold another hearing with the lawyers
"as soon as I can".

"I want to keep this on a short time frame," he said.

The judge held a fairness hearing on Oct. 15 on the preliminary
agreement reached in July between attorneys for the inmates and the
state Department of Corrections.

Besides awarding damages, the settlement also calls for guards at
the prison to wear body cameras.

More than 1,000 inmates who were at the facility since 2014 have
filed claims in the settlement.

Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Union Township,
Hunterdon County.
About 10 inmates told O'Neill during the hearing that they objected
to the settlement because they believed the money is insufficient
or they do not understand the settlement.

"I don't think the money is fair enough to what happened to me,"
said one of the victims. "I don't think it was enough."

"I've suffered a lot," said another victim. "The settlement is not
a fair amount."

O'Neill said he will take the objections into consideration when
making a decision.

Under terms of the preliminary settlement, each inmate who submits
a claim will receive compensation of at least $1,000 plus $20 per
month (or partial month) that she was in the facility since Jan. 1,
2014, regardless of whether she directly experienced sexual abuse
or sexual harassment.

Those inmates who were the direct victims of sexual abuse or sexual
harassment at any time since 2014 can submit claims for increased
compensation that will be decided by a special master.

Claimants who were the victim of sexual harassment must submit an
affidavit or certification about her claim, has the option to
submit supporting documentation and request a hearing before the
special master, and may receive total compensation up to $4,500.

Claimants who were the victim of sexual abuse must follow the same
procedure and may receive total compensation up to $250,000.

Deadline for submitting claims is Oct. 29.

Professors and students at Seton Hall and Rutgers law schools will
be helping the inmates through the claim process free of charge.

"We're proud of this settlement," said Martin Schrama, one of the
lawyers for the inmates, adding that the litigation, first filed in
2017, "achieved groundbreaking results" and led to federal and
state investigations at the prison.

Matthew Beck, attorney for the state, called the proposed
settlement "fair and reasonable and adequate."

The settlement calls for the inmates' attorneys to receive no more
than $3 million.

The lawsuit alleges that all Edna Mahan inmates were subjected to a
pattern and practice of sexual abuse and harassment by Department
of Corrections staffers since 2014 and that the state failed to
prevent, halt or remedy such conduct.

The state denies any wrongdoing and denies the claims and
allegations in the lawsuit, but the court has not ruled on the
merits of the claims and has made no determination of violations

However, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.

In April, the state agreed to a nearly $21 million settlement to
resolve more than 22 civil lawsuits filed by current and former
inmates alleging abuse at the prison in Union Township.

In June, Gov. Phil Murphy announced the state plans to close the
facility just off Route 78 because of a lengthy history of guards
abusing inmates, including charges of sexual assault and assault.

In August, the federal Department of Justice filed a complaint and
proposed a consent decree that will force the state Department of
Corrections to better protect prisoners at Edna Mahan.

The decree, which a federal judge still must approve, would resolve
the Department of Justice's claims that the state and its
corrections department violated the U.S. Constitution when they
failed to shield inmates from sexual abuse by the facility's staff,
according to a statement from acting U.S. Attorney Rachael Honig.

The agreement will revamp policies, procedures and training to
deter sexual abuse by making sure prisoners get the appropriate
supervision, the statement said. It also calls to create effective
and confidential methods to report abuse, protect whistleblowers
from retaliation, make sure staff are held accountable for
misconduct, require greater transparency and appoint an independent
monitor to ensure the state's compliance, it said.

The prison, which is the only facility for women inmates in the
state, has long been the subject of scrutiny.

In 2020 a Justice Department report found rampant sexual abuse of
inmates and retaliation for reporting officer misconduct.

On Oct. 13, Tyrell Harris-McLaughlin, a guard at the Union Township
facility, was charged with sexually assaulting an inmate in
September. [GN]

HYZON MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a
Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation (NASDAQ: HYZN)
(NASDAQ: HYZNW) (NASDAQ: DCRB) (NASDAQ: DCRBW) (NASDAQ: DCRBU)
between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 29, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Hyzon securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Hyzon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2165.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 29, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

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

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

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 18
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of InnovAge Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:
INNV) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
issued in connection with InnovAge's March 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than December 13, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased InnovAge securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the InnovAge class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2180.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 13, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Registration
Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) certain of InnovAge's facilities failed to
provide covered services, provide accessible and adequate services,
manage participants' medical situations, and oversee use of
specialists; (2) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to
be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services; (3) as a result, there as a
significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments pending an
audit of the Company's services; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To join the InnovAge class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2180.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against InnovAge
Holding Corp. ("InnovAge" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: INNV) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in
March 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before
December 13, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. InnovAge centers failed to provide
covered services for participants amongst other failures. Based on
these failures, there was a significant risk that CMS would suspend
new enrollments until such time as an audit of the Company's
services would be performed. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about InnovAge,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
InnovAge Holding Corp. ("InnovAge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INNV)
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of those who purchased InnovAge common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with InnovAge's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO").

All investors who purchased InnovAge Holding Corp. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of InnovAge Holding
Corp., you may, no later than December 13, 2021, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in InnovAge Holding Corp.

In March 2021, InnovAge completed its IPO, selling approximately
18,995,901 shares of common stock at a price of $21.00 per share.

On September 21, 2021, after the market closed, InnovAge revealed
that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") had
"determined to freeze new enrollments at [the Company's] Sacramento
center based on deficiencies detected in [a recent] audit." The
Company stated that these "deficiencies relate to failures to
provide covered services, provide accessible and adequate services,
manage participants' medical situations, and oversee use of
specialists, among others."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.90, or nearly 25%,
to close at $8.75 per share on September 22, 2021.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]

JUUL LABS: Cuba City Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------
CUBA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08214 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Cuba City School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 101 North School Street in Cuba City,
Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Tomahawk School Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF TOMAHAWK, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08218 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

School District of Tomahawk is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1048 East Kings Road in Tomahawk, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Tuscola Suit Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TUSCOLA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08210-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 21,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Tuscola Intermediate School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 1385 Cleaver Road in Caro, Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Holy Hill Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLY HILL AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08213-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 21,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Holy Hill Area School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 3117 WI-167 in Richfield, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Perry Schools Sue Over Questionable Marketing Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Public Schools, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-08250 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 22, 2021), is brought to seek damages or other relief as a
result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff
as a result of the Defendants' conduct in bringing about the public
nuisance affecting the Plaintiff by directly marketing their JUUL
products to youth and continuing these marketing practices after it
was evident that children were using JUUL products in large numbers
and were specifically using these products in schools, JLI and the
Management Defendants directly facilitated the spread of the youth
e-cigarette crisis.

The swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has
overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community (including
county public health departments) on the front lines dealing with
this crisis, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every
level—but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is
no accident. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette
use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James
Monsees viewed as opportunity. Seizing on the decline in cigarette
consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes,
Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce
nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant
supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need
to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again,
without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas
Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Hoyoung Huh, they succeeded in hooking
millions of youth, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in
profits.

Three tactics were central to decades of cigarette industry market
dominance: product design to maximize addiction; mass deception;
and targeting of youth. JLI and its co-conspirators adopted and
mastered them all. First, JLI and Bowen designed JUUL products to
create and sustain addiction, not break it. JLI and Bowen were the
first to design an e-cigarette that could compete with combustible
cigarettes on the speed and strength of nicotine delivery. Second,
JLI and the Management Defendants, just like cigarette companies
before them, targeted kids as their customer base. One of JLI's
"key needs" was the need to "own the 'cool kid' equity." JUUL
products were designed to appear slick and high-tech like a cool
gadget, including video-game-like features like "party mode." JLI
offered kid-friendly flavors like mango and cool mint, and
partnered with Altria to create and preserve the market for
mint-flavored products—all because Defendants knew that flavors
get young people hooked. Under the guise of youth smoking
prevention, JLI sent representatives directly to schools to study
teenager e-cigarette preferences. Third, JLI, the Management
Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through
sophisticated mass media and social media communications,
advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL
products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly
understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising
campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning
JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine,
and as safe as caffeine.

JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended
demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette
company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because
they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral
marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and
advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long
barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's
websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites
providing games and educational tools to students in middle school
and high school.
JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media
"influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers.   

At the heart of this disastrous epidemic are the concerted efforts
of JLI, its co-conspirators, and all those in JUUL's supply and
distribution chain to continuously expand their market share and
profits by preying upon a vulnerable young population and deceiving
the public about the true nature of the products they were selling.
Nicotine is not benign like coffee, contrary to what many JUUL
users believe. Nor is the aerosol as harmless as puffing room air.
Worse, the flavors in JUUL products are themselves toxic and
dangerous, and have never been adequately tested to ensure they are
safe for inhalation.

According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular
conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain
no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL
would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in
their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more
susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data
shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung-related
conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients.
And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival
of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90%
of smokers start as children, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Perry is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan.

JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and
Accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-5945
          Fax: (619) 525-7672
          Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com


JUUL LABS: Sued Over Questionable Marketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
Watertown City School District, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-08250 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 22, 2021), is brought to seek damages or other relief as a
result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff
as a result of the Defendants' conduct in bringing about the public
nuisance affecting the Plaintiff by directly marketing their JUUL
products to youth and continuing these marketing practices after it
was evident that children were using JUUL products in large numbers
and were specifically using these products in schools, JLI and the
Management Defendants directly facilitated the spread of the youth
e-cigarette crisis.

The swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has
overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community (including
county public health departments) on the front lines dealing with
this crisis, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every
level—but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is
no accident. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette
use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James
Monsees viewed as opportunity. Seizing on the decline in cigarette
consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes,
Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce
nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant
supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need
to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again,
without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas
Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Hoyoung Huh, they succeeded in hooking
millions of youth, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in
profits.

Three tactics were central to decades of cigarette industry market
dominance: product design to maximize addiction; mass deception;
and targeting of youth. JLI and its co-conspirators adopted and
mastered them all. First, JLI and Bowen designed JUUL products to
create and sustain addiction, not break it. JLI and Bowen were the
first to design an e-cigarette that could compete with combustible
cigarettes on the speed and strength of nicotine delivery. Second,
JLI and the Management Defendants, just like cigarette companies
before them, targeted kids as their customer base. One of JLI's
"key needs" was the need to "own the 'cool kid' equity." JUUL
products were designed to appear slick and high-tech like a cool
gadget, including video-game-like features like "party mode." JLI
offered kid-friendly flavors like mango and cool mint, and
partnered with Altria to create and preserve the market for
mint-flavored products—all because Defendants knew that flavors
get young people hooked. Under the guise of youth smoking
prevention, JLI sent representatives directly to schools to study
teenager e-cigarette preferences. Third, JLI, the Management
Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through
sophisticated mass media and social media communications,
advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL
products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly
understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising
campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning
JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine,
and as safe as caffeine.

JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended
demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette
company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because
they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral
marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and
advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long
barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's
websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites
providing games and educational tools to students in middle school
and high school.
JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media
"influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers.   

At the heart of this disastrous epidemic are the concerted efforts
of JLI, its co-conspirators, and all those in JUUL's supply and
distribution chain to continuously expand their market share and
profits by preying upon a vulnerable young population and deceiving
the public about the true nature of the products they were selling.
Nicotine is not benign like coffee, contrary to what many JUUL
users believe. Nor is the aerosol as harmless as puffing room air.
Worse, the flavors in JUUL products are themselves toxic and
dangerous, and have never been adequately tested to ensure they are
safe for inhalation.

According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular
conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain
no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL
would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in
their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more
susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data
shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung-related
conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients.
And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long-term survival
of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90%
of smokers start as children, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Watertown is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan.

JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and
Accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-5945
          Fax: (619) 525-7672
          Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com


JUUL LABS: West Allis-West Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
---------------------------------------------------------------
WEST ALLIS-WEST MILWAUKEE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08216 (N.D. Cal., October
21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

West Allis-West Milwaukee School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 1205 South 70th Street in West
Allis, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KEMPER INSURANCE: Proposes to Settle Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Management reports that Kemper Insurance has proposed to
settle a class action stemming from two data breaches in a deal
valued at about $17.6 million.

The dual breaches could have compromised the personal information
of an estimated 6.1 million customers and employees. The breach
incidents occurred on December 14, 2020 and March 25, 2021 and were
announced by the insurer in March and May 25, 2021.

The class action and settlement also involve Infinity Insurance
Co., a subsidiary that sells nonstandard auto policies and was
acquired by Kemper in 2018. Kemper offers home, life, auto,
business, property and umbrella insurance.

The settlement has been accepted by the plaintiffs but must still
be approved by Judge Martha M. Pacold of the federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, all affected
customers will be provided automatic access to 18 months of credit
monitoring and financial account protection without the need to
file a claim.

Additionally, every class member has the opportunity to make a
claim for up to $10,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses,
including for up to six hours in lost time. Additional benefits in
the amount of up to $50 are available for California members of the
class settlement who alleged violations of California's Consumer
Privacy Act.

Those eligible for the settlements include all citizens who were
sent letters by the insurers notifying them that their personal
data was compromised. The personal information at risk included
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, medical leave information, and workers' compensation claim
information. [GN]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dansky Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL DANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-16582, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01458-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 violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
         Ashley B. DiLiberto, Esq.
         MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         2000 Academy Drive, Suite 200
         Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
         Telephone: (856) 810-9500
         Facsimile: (856) 810-9918
         E-mail: adiliberto@messalaw.com
                 jmessa@messalaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hood Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIFFANY HOOD-PENDERGHEST, LISA FLAX, and BRIAN
VARDARO, 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. 1:21-cv-17401, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on October
21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01459-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by
omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, medical
monitoring, and violations of 18 U.S. Code, the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, and 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.

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:          
         
         Simon B. Paris, Esq.
         Patrick Howard, Esq.
         SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC
         1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
         One Liberty Place
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-8282
         Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
         E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                 phoward@smbb.com

               - and –

         Francesco P. Trapani, Esq.
         KREHER & TRAPANI LLP
         Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 900
         1500 JFK Boulevard
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 907-7289
         Facsimile: (215) 907-7287
         E-mail: frank@krehertrapani.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Means Suit Moved From D. Minn. to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLARENCE DALE MEANS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC d/b/a PHILIPS
RESPIRONICS, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-01916, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on October
21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01437-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict liability for
failure to instruct or to warn, strict liability for design defect,
strict liability for manufacturing defect, negligent manufacturing
defect, negligent failure to warn or to instruct, negligent design
defect, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and
violations of state unfair trade practices and consumer protection
laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care with defective polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
         Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                 rapeterson@locklaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Savage Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DARROLL SAVAGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00519, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01457-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 violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by designing, manufacturing, and selling
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care with defective polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
         MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         123 South 22nd Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 568-3500
         Facsimile: (215) 568-3501
         E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Tobin Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL TOBIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
5:21-cv-00921, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01503-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, strict
liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect,
strict liability for manufacturing defect, negligent failure to
warn, negligent design defect, negligent recall, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, and violation of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by
designing, manufacturing, and selling Continuous Positive Airway
Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP)
devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home respiratory
care with defective polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement
foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
         Marion Reilly, Esq.
         Whitney J. Butcher, Esq.
         HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
         719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 882-1612
         Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
         E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
                 marion@hmglawfirm.com
                 wbutcher@hmglawfirm.com

                  - and –

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Marin D. Mclean, Esq.
         Jacob P. Berman, Esq.
         1301 Second Avenue, Ste. 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
                 martym@hbsslaw.com
                 jakeb@hbsslaw.com

LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Faces Post-SPAC-Merger Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin LaCroix, writing for The D&O Diary, reports that in the
latest SPAC-related securities class action lawsuit filing, a
plaintiff shareholder has filed a securities class action suit
against electric vehicle company Lightning eMotors and certain of
its directors and officers, after the company disappointed
investors in its first post-SPAC-merger financial release. As
discussed below, the Lightning eMotors SPAC-merger transaction was
already the subject of a separate, prior Delaware Chancery Court
action. A copy of the new federal court securities class action
lawsuit complaint can be found here.

Background

GigCapital 3 was a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC).
GigCapital 3 completed its IPO on May 18, 2020. On December 10,
2020, GigCapital entered business combination agreement with
Lightning eMotors, pursuant to which the two companies would merge
and Lightning eMotors was to be the surviving company. The business
combination closed on May 6, 2021 and the merged company's shares
began trading on the NYSE on May 7, 2021.

On August 16, 2021, the Company announced its financial results for
the second quarter of 2021. The financial results included a
quarterly net loss per share of $0.79 compared to a loss of $0.10
in the second quarter of 2020. The company also pulled its full
year financial guidance for the remainder of 2021. According to the
subsequently filed securities class action lawsuit complaint, the
company's share price declined about 17% on the news.

The Lawsuit

On October 15, 2021, a plaintiff shareholder filed a securities
class action lawsuit in District of Colorado against Lightning
eMotors; its CEO; and its CFO. The new class action complaint does
not name any of the former executives of the SPAC as defendants.
The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Lightning eMotors between May 7, 2021 (the
date the merged company's shares began trading on the NYSE) and
August 16, 2021 (the date of the second quarter financial release).
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of the
class.

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

By my count, this lawsuit is the 25th SPAC-related securities class
action lawsuit to be filed this year. It is also one of many
SPAC-related securities suits that have been filed against
companies in the electric vehicle industry and it is one of many in
which the post-SPAC merged company disappointed investors in its
first post-merger earnings release.

If the names of the SPAC, GigCapital 3, and of the SPAC target
company, Lightning eMotors, seem familiar, it is because the
transaction in which the two merged is already the subject of
pending litigation. As I discussed in a blog post at the time
(here), on August 4, 2021, a plaintiff shareholder filed a state
law breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court
against the SPAC's sponsor, GigAcquisitions3; the SPAC's CEO Avi
Katz; and five other former directors of the SPAC. The Delaware
Chancery Court action does not name Lightning eMotors as a
defendant, nor does it name any Lightning eMotors executives as
defendants. The complaint alleges that the sponsor and directors
had conflicts of interest and had financial incentives to enter
into the merger; the complaint also alleges that pre-merger
redemptions of SPAC shareholders meant that the cash value of the
merged company was substantially less than the merger valuation,
and that the valuation was supported only through the provision of
inflated revenue projections for the target company. The Delaware
lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf of a class of investors who
held shares of the SPAC between the record date and the closing
date.

The relationship between these two lawsuits is interesting. Though
they both ultimately relate to the same transaction, they do not
overlap at all. The defendants named in the two lawsuits are
completely different; none of the defendants named in the Delaware
lawsuit are named in the new federal court lawsuit and vice versa.
Similarly, the purported classes do not overlap at all either; the
end date of the Delaware lawsuit class is the day before the
beginning date of the new federal court lawsuit class.

The lack of overlap between these two lawsuits means that the
lawsuits trigger different towers of insurance. The Delaware
lawsuit would trigger the former SPAC's runoff D&O insurance
policy, while the new federal court lawsuit would trigger the
go-forward D&O insurance put in place for the merged company. This
unusual set of circumstances may mean that this litigation could
avoid the type of "Tower vs. Tower" insurance coverage disputes
that overlapping claims could create (as discussed here).

The accumulation of lawsuits relating to this one SPAC transaction
does show how SPAC activity can lead to the proliferation of
litigation, as there are different groups of potentially aggrieved
persons and different groups of potential litigation targets, as
well as different categories of alleged wrongful acts. While each
set of circumstances of course has its own particular aspects, the
common characteristics of the circumstances surrounding many SPAC
transactions does suggest that we will continue to see many more
SPAC-related lawsuits in the future -- particularly for company's
the stumble out of the gates post-merger -- even if the merged
company is not in the electric vehicle industry. [GN]

LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 18 disclosed that
purchasers of Lightning eMotors, Inc. f/k/a GigCapital3, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ZEV; ZEV.WS) securities between May 7, 2021 and August 16,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until December 14, 2021
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Shafer v. Lightning
eMotors, Inc., No. 21-cv-02774, the Lightning eMotors class action
lawsuit. The Lightning eMotors class action lawsuit charges
Lightning eMotors and certain of its top executives with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lightning eMotors class
action lawsuit was commenced on October 15, 2021 in the District of
Colorado.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Lightning eMotors
class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking
here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller
by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Lightning eMotors class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than December 14, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Prior to its business combination with Lightning
eMotors, GigCapital3 was a special purpose acquisition company
("SPAC"), also known as a blank check company, incorporated for the
purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset
acquisition, share purchase, recapitalization, reorganization, or
similar business combination with one or more businesses or
entities. On May 6, 2021, Lightning eMotors consummated a business
combination with Lightning Systems, Inc. pursuant to an agreement
by and among GigCapital3, Project Power Merger Sub, Inc., and
Lightning Systems. On May 7, 2021, Lightning eMotors's common stock
and warrants began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbols "ZEV" and "ZEV.WS", respectively.

The Lightning eMotors class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) Lightning eMotors would record a
substantially greater net loss per share in the second quarter of
2021 compared to the second quarter of 2020 and would pull its full
year guidance for the remainder of 2021; (ii) accordingly,
Lightning eMotors materially overstated its financial position
and/or prospects; and (iii) as a result, Lightning eMotors's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 16, 2021, Lightning eMotors announced its financial
results for the second quarter of 2021, including a net loss per
share of $0.79 compared to a loss of $0.10 in the second quarter of
2020. Lightning eMotors also pulled its full year financial
guidance for the remainder of 2021, just days after announcing a
multi-year agreement with Forest River, a Berkshire Hathaway
company. On this news, Lightning eMotors's stock price fell nearly
17%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force
represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice
in this rapidly developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Lightning
eMotors securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Lightning eMotors class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Lightning
eMotors class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Lightning eMotors class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Lightning eMotors class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

LIVE VENTURES: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Oct.19 disclosed that it is investigating Live
Ventures Inc. ("Live Ventures" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LIVE) on
behalf of the Company's stockholders. The investigation seeks to
determine whether the members of Live Ventures' board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
stockholders.

Recently a shareholder class action complaint was filed against
Live Ventures on behalf of certain investors who purchased shares
of the Company's common stock between December 28, 2016 and August
3, 2021. According to the complaint, on August 3, 2021, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a complaint
against Live Ventures, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Financial Officer alleging "multiple financial, disclosure, and
reporting violations related to inflated income and earnings per
share, stock promotion and secret trading, and undisclosed
executive compensation." Specifically, the SEC alleged that Live
Ventures had recorded income from a backdated contract, which
increased pre-tax income for fiscal 2016 by 20%, and understated
its outstanding share count, which overstated earnings per share by
40%.

Following this news, the Company's share price fell $29.08, or 46%
in value, to close at $33.50 per share on August 4, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to decline an
additional $7.74 over the next four trading days to close at $25.76
per share on August 10, 2021.

Current Live Ventures stockholders who purchased or acquired shares
of the Company's common stock prior to December 28, 2016 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(484) 258 - 1585, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to
discuss this investigation and their legal rights and options.
Additional information may also be found at
https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/live-ventures-inc/.

Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain
jurisdictions.

CONTACT:

David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258-1585
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]

LOWE'S COMPANIES: $4.17M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Reetz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN REETZ, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.;
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC; AND AON HEWITT
INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC. Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:18-CV-00075-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Statesville Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion for Attorney
Fees and Costs, Administrative Expenses, and Class Representative
Service Award.

Judge Bell held a Fairness Hearing on Aug. 26, 2021, after notice
of the Fairness Hearing was given to the Settlement Class in
accordance with the Court's Order Preliminarily Approving Partial
Class Action Settlement, Approving Procedure and Form of Notice
Plan, and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing. Having now finally
approved the Plaintiff's Class Action Settlement with Lowe's and
carefully considered all filings and comments submitted to the
Court in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees
and other awards, Judge Bell grants the motion as he set forth.

The Class Counsel's request for an award of $4,166,666.67 in
attorneys' fees is approved. Having reviewed the Class Counsel's
application and all applicable legal authorities, Judge Bell finds
the requested amount of fees (one-third of the Gross Settlement
Amount) to be reasonable and appropriate.

The Class Counsel's request for litigation expenses in the amount
of approximately one-half of the expenses advanced by the Class
Counsel through the date of Settlement ($1,225,767 in
expenses/$613,105.46 requested award) is approved, but only in
part. Judge Bell has reviewed these expenses and finds that,
mostly, they are reasonable and appropriate given the nature of the
action. However, he finds that expenses should not be awarded for
the expert witness fees ($136,650) paid to David Donaldson (whose
testimony was not offered after a motion in limine was filed
challenging his testimony) and one-half of the expert witness fees
($565,770 ÷ 2 = $282,885) paid to Marcia Wagner (whose planned
testimony was heavily directed towards ultimate legal issues (on
which she was not permitted to testify) until it was limited after
the Court's consideration of a motion in limine). Therefore, the
Class Counsel's request for litigation expenses will be granted in
the amount of $403,116 (($1,225,767-$419,535) ÷ 2).

The Class Counsel's request for settlement administration expenses
in the amount of $203,045 is approved. Judge Bell has reviewed
these expenses (including $160,545 to the Settlement Administrator;
$2,500 to the Escrow Agent, and $40,000 to the Independent
Fiduciary), and finds that they are reasonable and appropriate.

The Plaintiff's request for a class representative service award in
the amount of $10,000 is approved. Judge Bell finds this award to
be justified under the facts of this case and consistent with
applicable legal authorities.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4e4abatw from Leagle.com.


LYTX INC: Cavanaugh Hits Undisclosed Facial Data Retention
----------------------------------------------------------
James Cavanaugh, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Lytx, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05427
(N.D. Ill., October 13, 2021), seeks an injunction requiring
Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture,
collection, storage and use of biometrics. The lawsuit further
seeks statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Defendant is a technology company that provides telematics products
to fleet operators. One of its products is an in-vehicle video
camera called the "DriveCam Event Recorder."

Plaintiff previously worked as a truck driver for a manufacturer of
packaged concrete in Elburn, Illinois. The truck has a DriveCam
video camera system that collected scans of his facial geometry to
analyze his driving behavior and the data is uploaded via a
wireless network. Cavanaugh says that he has not been notified
where facial data are being stored, for how long will they be
stored and what might happen to this information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Fish, Esq.
      Mara Baltabols, Esq.
      FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C.
      200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             mara@fishlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com


M&T BANK: $3.325M Class Settlement in Silveira Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA SILVEIRA, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&T BANK, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06958-ODW-KS (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, grants
(i) the Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and (ii) the
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Award.

Background

Plaintiff Silveira brought the putative class action suit against
Defendant M&T on behalf of a class of homeowners, alleging that
Defendant charged borrowers convenience fees when they made
mortgage payments online and over the phone ("Pay-to-Pay Fees").
The Plaintiff alleged that these fees violated the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), California's Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), and
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and breached contracts
with the borrowers.

Plaintiff Silveira filed the lawsuit on Aug. 9, 2019, on behalf of
homeowner borrowers throughout the United States, including
California, whose mortgage loans are serviced by M&T.

The parties reached a settlement on behalf of the class, and the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement and certified the
class. On May 6, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and certified the following class: "All borrowers with a
residential mortgage loan serviced by M&T from whom M&T collected a
Pay-to-Pay Fee during the period of Aug. 9, 2015 through the date
of the Order." The Class Period is from Aug. 9, 2015 to May 6,
2021. The Court also appointed Silveira as the class representative
and her counsel as the class counsel.

In full settlement of the claims asserted in this lawsuit, M&T
agrees to pay $3,325,000. The Settlement Fund includes all shares
of class members who did not request exclusion, as well as the
costs of notice and administration, any service award to the class
representative, and any award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Every Settlement Class Member will automatically receive a share of
the Settlement Fund determined according to the proportional amount
of Pay-to-Pay Fees charged to that Class Member by M&T within the
class period. Payments to the Settlement Class Members will be made
per loan, such that the settlement payment on any loan with more
than one Settlement Class Member borrower will be made payable
jointly to all Settlement Class Member borrowers on that loan.
Thus, for each loan for which more than one borrower on that loan
is a Settlement Class Member, the Settlement Administrator will
make a single allocation to that loan payable to all co-borrower or
joint borrower Settlement Class Members on that loan. Payments will
be made by check.

If there is any amount in the Settlement Fund that remains
following the initial distribution of checks to Settlement Class
Members, that amount will be distributed on a pro rata basis to
Settlement Class Members who cashed their initial checks.  If there
is any amount remaining in the Settlement Fund after the secondary
distribution, or there are not enough funds to make a secondary
distribution economically feasible, then upon approval by the
Court, pursuant to the cy pres doctrine, the remaining amount will
be paid to a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The parties will
later apprise the Court if there are remaining funds to distribute
per cy pres, the amount of such funds, and the parties' proposed cy
pres recipient. The Court will then determine whether to accept the
proposed organization, or order the distribution of those funds to
another entity.

The Settlement Agreement provides that all the Class Members other
than those who opted out will release M&T from all actions, causes
of action, claims, demands, obligations, or liabilities of any and
every kind that were or could have been asserted in any form by the
Class Representative or the Class Members. Further, the Settlement
Agreement provides that the Settlement Class Members waive and
relinquish the rights and benefits of California Civil Code section
1542 and similar provisions that may be applicable to class members
residing outside of California.

Notice was sent to the potential class members pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement and the method approved by the Court. The
Class Notice consisted of direct notice via USPS first class mail,
as well as a Settlement Website where the Class Members could view
and request to be sent the Long Form Notice. The Class Notice
adequately described the litigation and the scope of the involved
class. Further, the Class Notice explained the amount of the
Settlement Fund, the plan of allocation, that the Plaintiff's
counsel and the Plaintiff will apply for attorneys' fees, costs,
and a service award, and the class members' option to participate,
opt out, or object to the settlement.

The parties now seek final approval of the class action settlement.
The Plaintiff also seeks: attorneys' fees of 25% the common fund
($831,250); reimbursement of costs totaling $25,922.03; and a
service award of $5,000.

Analysis

Judge Wright finds that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable
and adequate. Accordingly, the grants the Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement. He also finds the amount of attorney
fees requested by the Class Counsel to be reasonable and within the
25% benchmark established by the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff's
requested service award of $5,000 is also reasonable in light of
the time Plaintiff spent and risks she took in bringing and
participating in the litigation.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright grants (i) the Motion for
Final Approval of Class Settlement and (ii) the Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Award. He approves: (1)
$831,250 for attorney fees to the Class Counsel; (2) 25,922.03 for
attorney costs the Class Counsel; and (3) $5,000 for a service
award to the class representative.

The entire action and all claims asserted therein are dismissed
with prejudice, and all dates and deadlines in the action are
vacated and taken off calendar. The Clerk of the Court will close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/p7rsp35t from Leagle.com.


MCKINSEY & CO: Faces Suit on Role Played in Canada's Opioid Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consulting.ca reports that Sotos Class Actions and Goldblatt
Partners have launched a class action lawsuit against consulting
firm McKinsey & Company for its role in fueling the opioid epidemic
in Canada.

McKinsey in February agreed to pay US$573 million to settle an
investigation from 47 state attorneys general into its role in
helping opioid companies boost sales. The firm's work included a
marketing plan for Purdue Pharma to help "turbocharge" OxyContin
sales.

Purdue Pharma last month was dissolved in a US bankruptcy court
settlement that will require the company's owners, the Sackler
family, to pay US$4.5 billion to address the opioid epidemic. The
deal will shield the Sacklers against all civil opioid claims.

The opioid epidemic has left more than 400,000 Americans dead.
Meanwhile, in Canada, there were 21,174 apparent opioid-related
deaths and 24,671 opioid overdose hospitalizations between January
2016 and December 2020. [GN]

MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Faces Class Action Over Lactaid Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that McNeil
Lactaid Supplements are not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration (FDA), and the manufacturers are misleading
customers in their advertising of the products, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Kristin DiCroce filed the class action complaint against
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc. on Oct. 12 in a Massachusetts federal court,
alleging violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA
regulations.

DiCroce alleges the companies unlawfully and misleadingly label and
advertise their Lactaid Supplements with claims that it prevents,
treats, cures, or mitigates lactose intolerance.

"Unlike approved drugs, however, the supplements have not received
the requisite FDA approval as being safe and effective for their
advertised purpose, and thus do not include the attendant 'Drug
Facts' information the FDA deems material to consumers," the class
action claims.

As a result, the packaging amounts to having "illegal drug claims"
and would be deemed "Health Fraud" under FDA guidelines, the
lawsuit states.

DiCroce alleges that by prominently displaying claims that the
product helps with lactose intolerance on its labels and website,
the defendants create the misleading impression that the product
meets all the regulatory requirements.

She's seeking to represent a nationwide class of customers who
purchased the Lactaid Supplements.

She's suing for violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act, unjust enrichment and false advertising, and seeking
certification of the class action, damages, costs, fees and a jury
trial.

American multinational corporation Johnson & Johnson is a household
name, known for developing numerous consumer products, medical
devices and pharmaceutical items that frequent the shelves of
department stores.

Many of the company's products have been reported by consumers as
being faulty or hazardous, leading to a range of class actions
lawsuits being filed.

The Johnson & Johnson lawsuits follow claims that its baby powder
has asbestos in it and is causing cancer, claims of faulty surgical
staples and more. Click here to read about the latest class action
lawsuit related to Johnson & Johnson.

What do you think of the allegations in this case about Lactaid?
Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by John Peter Zavez, Noah Rosmarin,
and Brendan Bridgeland of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C.

The McNeil Johnson & Johnson Lactaid Class Action Lawsuit is
Kristin DiCroce et al., v. McNeil Nutritionals et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11660, in the U.S. District Court District of
Massachusetts. [GN]

MDL 2996:  Cherokee Nation Case Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids, "In
Re: McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate
Consultant Litigation,"MDL No. 2996, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transferred the case captioned The Cherokee Nation v. McKinsey and
Company, Inc. (Case No. 6:21−00200, E.D. Okla., July 6, 2021), to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Charles R.
Breyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Said action involves McKinsey's role in providing advice to certain
opioid manufacturers, most notably Purdue, in the form of sales and
marketing strategies aimed at increasing sales of prescription
opioid drugs, bringing such claims against McKinsey entities as
public nuisance, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment and violation of consumer protection statutes.

The Cherokee Nation moved to vacate the conditional transfer order,
primarily by arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over its
case. But the panel contended that such jurisdictional objections
generally do not present an impediment to transfer and that
centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid
inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/30M6iMJ

MDL 3013: Centralization of Data Breach Cases Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the case "In Re: GEICO Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation," MDL No. 3013, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the
proposed centralization of this litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York or, alternatively, in
the District of Maryland. This litigation consists of five actions
-- three pending in the Eastern District of New York, one pending
in the District of Maryland, and one pending in the Southern
District of California.

Defendants Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity
Company, GEICO Casualty Company, and GEICO General Insurance
Company (collectively, GEICO) filed the motion for centralization.

These actions arose from an alleged data security breach of GEICO's
online sales system occurring between January 24, 2021 and March 1,
2021, which resulted in the exposure of personal information
belonging to GEICO customers, former customers, and certain other
persons. The actions share common questions of fact, including how
the GEICO breach occurred, what security measures were in place at
the time of the breach, and what steps were taken by GEICO in
response to the breach. There are only five actions on the motion,
however, three of which are pending in the same district before the
same judge, and no potentially related actions have been brought to
the panel's attention.  The panel concluded that since only a
minimal number of actions is involved, GEICO has failed to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3B6GjvV

MDL 3014: 10 Ventilator Product Liability Suits Moved to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and
Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3014,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers:

  - six cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts;
  - one case from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware;
  - one case from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida;
  - one case from U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia; and
  - one case from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania,

all to the Western District of Pennsylvania and assigning them to
the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The actions assert overlapping claims for violations of state
consumer protection statutes, breach of warranties and unjust
enrichment arising from recalled ventilators and the potential harm
that can be caused by their alleged inherent defect. The panel
ruled that centralization offers substantial opportunity to
streamline pretrial proceedings; reduce duplicative discovery and
conflicting pretrial obligations; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2XB18Sy

MDL 3015: Eight Sunscreen Product Liability Suits Moved to S.D. Fla
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In case "In Re: Johnson & Johnson Aerosol Sunscreen Marketing,
Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3015,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers:

- three cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey;
- two cases from the the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California;
- one case from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California;
- one case from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida; and
- one case from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York,

to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and
assigns them to Honorable Anuraag Singhal for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The actions share factual questions arising from the alleged
contamination of Neutrogena and Aveeno-branded sunscreens made by
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. with benzene. Plaintiffs in all
actions support centralization. The panel held that centralization
offers substantial opportunity to streamline pretrial proceedings;
reduce duplicative discovery and conflicting pretrial obligations;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3npKcrg

MDL 3016: Consolidation of Two Actions in D. Mass. Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case "In Re: Rahul Chaturvedi Litigation," MDL No. 3016,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denied the proposed consolidation of this
litigation in the District of Massachusetts. The litigation
consists of two actions pending in two districts -- one from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and one from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Rahul
Chaturvedi and his company, Moolex, LLC, are defendants in the
pending actions on the motion.

In case captioned Ascend Capital LLC v. Rahul Chaturvedi and Moolex
LLC, (D. Mass, Case No. 1:21−10972, June 10, 2021), Plaintiff
Ascend Capital seeks a declaratory judgment against Chaturvedi and
Moolex as to the rights to a trademark concerning the word
"NuSpeech."  Meanwhile, in Black Diamond Consulting Group LLC v.
Levy Abdurakhmanov, Rahul Chaturvedi, Moolex LLC and Rantally Trust
Fund, (D. Conn., Case No. 3:21−00722, May 26, 2021) plaintiff
alleges that Chaturvedi, Moolex, and others owe Black Diamond
$350,000 pursuant to a written agreement concerning an unsuccessful
capital funding arrangement.

The panel concluded that although Chaturvedi and Moolex are
defendants in both actions, the events and transactions at issue
are plainly distinct; the two pending actions on the motion do not
share common questions of fact. Moreover, centralization will not
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation, it added.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3m3u277

METHOD PRODUCTS: Horn Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Steven Horn, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Method Products, PBC, Case No.
2021CH04629 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-05621 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Method Products, PBC -- https://methodhome.com/ -- is a company
that produces nontoxic and biodegradable cleaning products,
including home cleaners, hand soap, and laundry detergent.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MIDLAND FOOD: Ward Sues Over Failure to Pay Sufficient Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01999
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 21, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Constitution, as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to pay the Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA and
the OH Const. within the applicable statutory limitations period.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Delivery
Drivers at the Defendant's restaurants work "dual jobs."
Specifically, they deliver food to the Defendant's customers and
receive tips, and they also work inside the store completing
nontipped duties. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other
Delivery Drivers a rate at or close to minimum wage per hour for
work performed while in the store. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and
other Delivery Drivers less than minimum wage per hour for all
hours worked outside of the restaurant making deliveries. In other
words, the Defendant takes advantage of the "tip credit" provision
of the FLSA while the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers are out
making deliveries.

The Defendant requires Delivery Drivers to incur and/or pay job
related expenses, including but not limited to automobile costs and
depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and parts,
insurance, financing, cell phone costs, and other equipment
necessary for delivery drivers to complete their job duties. The
Defendant does not track the Plaintiff's or other Delivery Drivers'
actual expenses nor does the Defendant keep records of all of those
expenses. Defendant does not reimburse the Plaintiff and other
Delivery Drivers for their actual expenses. The Defendant does not
reimburse the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at the IRS
standard business mileage rate. As a result of the automobile and
other job-related expenses incurred by te Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Delivery Drivers, they were deprived of minimum
wages guaranteed to them by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Delivery Driver from February of 2019 until August of 2019.

The Defendant owns and operates multiple Pizza Hut restaurants
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MYLIFE.COM INC: Uharriet Sues Over Privacy Rights Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
James Uharriet, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MyLife.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-08229 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 21, 2021), is brought with regards to the Defendant's
violation of the California Right of Publicity by using Plaintiff's
and Class members' names, likenesses, photographs, and personas in
advertisements for website subscriptions without consent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the
proposed class are private individuals who have no relationship
with the Defendant or the website it owns and operates at
www.mylife.com. The Plaintiff and the Class have never used
mylife.com, nor did they provide their names, ages, addresses,
photographs, or any other personal information to MyLife. The
Plaintiff was seriously distressed to discover that MyLife is using
his name, personal information, and persona to advertise paid
subscriptions to its website. MyLife's advertisements suggest that
the Plaintiff has a criminal record and may be on a sex offender
list.

The Plaintiff and the Class did not consent to MyLife using their
names, personal information, photographs, and personas to advertise
website subscriptions or any other product. The Defendant
advertises its website by publicly displaying teaser profiles of
the Plaintiff and Class members with their names, ages, current and
past cities of residence, workplaces, and other personal
information. Some teaser profiles include photographs. The
Defendant also uses Plaintiff's and Class members' personal
information and personas to advertise its "Premium Membership"
service. Only by purchasing Defendant's "Premium Membership," which
requires monthly payments of $7.95, can subscribers modify, remove,
or prevent others from seeing potentially embarrassing or harmful
personal information about the subscriber on mylife.com.

By using Plaintiff's and Class members' names, likenesses,
photographs, and personas in advertisements for website
subscriptions without consent, MyLife has violated their
intellectual property and privacy rights. Plaintiff and the Class
have the right not to have their personas exploited to promote a
product with which they have no relationship and no interest in
supporting. Plaintiff and the Class have an economic interest in
their personas, which MyLife has stolen, and a privacy interest in
their personas, which MyLife has violated. By these actions, MyLife
has violated the California Right of Publicity, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Mr. Uharriet resides in
San Mateo, California.

The Defendant owns and operates the website mylife.com.[BN]

The 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
          Phone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          Email: mram@forthepeople.com
                 mappel@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          102 Bergen St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (347) 645-0464
          Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com

               - and -

          Sam Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703-3515
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (509) 4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


NATIONAL PARALEGAL: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Paralegal
College. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. National Paralegal
College, Case No. 1:21-cv-08653 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2021).

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

National Paralegal College (NPC) -- https://nationalparalegal.edu/
-- is a for-profit online distance learning college headquartered
in Phoenix, Arizona and focused on legal education.[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


NATROL LLC: Lavalley Sues Over Mislabeled Liquid Melatonin
----------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA LAVALLEY, Plaintiff v. NATROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-30104 (D. Mass., October 7, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant to obtain monetary and
other appropriate relief for herself and members of the Class as a
result of the unlawful conducts of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, who has purchased a bottle of Natrol-manufactured
Liquid Melatonin, alleges that the Defendant has misrepresented its
Natrol Liquid Melatonin and deceived its customers, including her
and numerous other consumers. The prominent label on the front of
the product's bottles boldly represented that it was "100%
Drug-Free." However, the product stated on the back that it
contained ethyl alcohol and therefore was not "100% Drug-Free."

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated customers were injured by the Defendant's unlawful conduct
which constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the
conduct of trade and commerce and violates Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 93A.

Natrol, LLC manufactures and distributes various health products,
including vitamins, minerals, and supplements as well as numerous
lines of health and wellness products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Crick, Esq.
          RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
          Boston, MA 02114
          Tel: (617) 340-9225
          Fax: (888) 622-3715
          E-mail: k.crick@rightsprotect.com

                - and –

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

NESTLE USA: December 27 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers nationwide who purchased
specific Ferrara or Nestle USA candies between Feb. 9, 2013, and
Sep. 23, 2021, may be eligible to receive up to $8 without proof of
purchase thanks to a recent $3.7 million class action settlement.

Settlement Class Members include residents of the United States who
purchased one or more cardboard boxes of Raisinets, Buncha Crunch,
Butterfinger Bites, Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels, Rainbow
Nerds, SweeTarts, Spree, Sno-Caps, Runts, or Gobstoppers between
Feb. 9, 2013, and Sep. 23, 2021.

Plaintiffs in the Ferrara Candy class action lawsuit allege Ferrara
and Nestle USA both intentionally underfilled their cardboard candy
boxes to deceive potential consumers into thinking more product was
in the box than there actually was.

Further, the plaintiffs say an unacceptable 48 percent of the
overall space within candy boxes was left empty. The plaintiffs
argue they would not have paid the price they did if they knew they
were only getting about 52 percent of the product they expected to
receive.

The company denies any wrongdoing or liability regarding this
matter, and argues the unfilled space helps protect the product and
is not meant to be deceptive.

The Court did not make a ruling or determination of guilt in this
class action lawsuit.

Both parties considered the benefits, risk, cost, and time
associated with continuing to pursue this case and determined the
settlement agreement is in every party's best interests.

Per the Ferrara Candy settlement agreement, eligible Class Members
will receive $0.50 per unit of covered product up to a maximum of
sixteen units, or $8.

A final hearing in the Ferrara Candy settlement will take place
Jan. 12, 2022.

Class Members have a right to object to the proposed settlement
agreement by Dec. 27, 2021.

Class Members who do not want to participate in the settlement but
want to maintain the right to pursue future litigation must exclude
themselves from the Class. To do so, Class Members must ask the
Court to be excluded by Dec. 27, 2021.

Class Members who do not take action will not receive a payment.
Despite that, they'll still be bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, so they will not be eligible to pursue future litigation
regarding this matter.

Class Members who wish to receive compensation in this class action
settlement must submit a valid claim by Dec. 27, 2021.

Who's Eligible
Settlement Class Members include residents of the United States who
purchased one or more cardboard boxes of Raisinets, Buncha Crunch,
Butterfinger Bites, Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels, Rainbow
Nerds, SweeTarts, Spree, Sno-Caps, Runts, or Gobstoppers between
Feb. 9, 2013, and Sep. 23, 2021.

Potential Award
$8

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase is required, but have to provide information
on when/where the products were purchased.

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM
https://www.ferraracandyboxclassaction.com/ClaimForm.dtm
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
12/27/2021

Case Name
Thomas, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al., Case No. BC649863, in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles

Final Hearing
01/12/2022

Settlement Website
FerraraCandyBoxClassAction.com

Claims Administrator
Claims Administrator
Digital Settlement Group, LLC
PO Box 350
Valparaiso, IN 46384
info@ferraracandyboxclassaction.com
877-342-0828

Class Counsel
Ryan J. Clarkson
Shireen M. Clarkson
Bahar Sodaify
Zach Chrzan
CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC

Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP

Defense Counsel
Dale J. Giali
Keri E. Borders
MAYER BROWN LLP [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Disabled in Action to Update on Class Claims Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization, BROOKLYN
CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a nonprofit organization,
PAULA WOLFF, an individual, JEAN RYAN, an individual, EDITH
PRENTISS, an individual, and DUSTIN JONES, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JAMES
O'NEILL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
City Police Department, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-8354 (VEC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caprioni of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ordered the Plaintiffs to update
the Court as to whether they are dropping their class action claims
or whether they plan to file a motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement.

On Oct. 5, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in principle. The
action was brought as a putative class action. The claims of a
certified class, or a class proposed to be certified for purposes
of settlement, may only be settled with the Court's approval and
after certain procedures have been followed.

Judge Caprioni ordered the Plaintiffs to update the Court as to
whether they are dropping their class action claims or whether they
plan to file a motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement. If the Plaintiffs abandon their class action claims,
the Court will enter a 60 Day Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/84wsbtxx from Leagle.com.


NORTH MIDLAND: Derbyshire County Council to Complete Link Road
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a new mile-long link road is to be completed
by council workers after the original contactors North Midland
Construction North Ltd. went into administration.

According to BBC News, Derbyshire County Council said the road
linking Woodville and Swadlincote was four weeks off completion
when the firm folded earlier this month.

The GBP13.4 million project has been designed to unlock land for
redevelopment and ease congestion on existing roads, BBC News
discloses.

The road will remain closed until the outstanding work is finished,
BBC News notes.[GN]



ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 19
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Organogenesis Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGO)
resulting from allegations that Organogenesis may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2177.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 12, 2021, Value Investors Club
issued a report alleging issues at Organogenesis, indicating that
the Company has been improperly billing the federal government for
$250 million annually. The Company also set the price for its new
wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high[,]" which Medicare
reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for doctors to use
through large rebates.

On this news, Organogenesis shares fell $1.70, or 14%, to close at
$10.35 per share on October 12, 2021, damaging investors.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Cornwell Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Cornwell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONIC N.V., PHILIPS R.S. NORTH AMERICA,
LLC., TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:21-cv-04860 was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, 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-01443-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Philips North America LLC -- http://www.usa.philips.com/-- is
located in Miami, Florida and is part of the Audio and Video
Equipment Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Esq.
          BABIN LAW, LLC
          22 East Gay Street, Ste. 200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 761-8800
          Fax: (614) 706-1775
          Email: steven.babin@babinlaws.com


PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: McGuire Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hon. Bartholomew S. McGuire, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philips North America,
LLC, Philips Healthcare Informatics, Inc., PHILIPS R.S. NORTH
AMERICA, LLC. formerly known as: RESPIRONICS INC., KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V., Case No. 1:21-cv-11153 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-01479-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Philips North America LLC -- http://www.usa.philips.com/-- is
located in Miami, Florida and is part of the Audio and Video
Equipment Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICES, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (978) 744-8000
          Fax: (781) 593-8001
          Email: kjm@helpinginjured.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emma D. Hall, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 742-9700
          Fax: (617) 742-9701
          Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com


PHILIPS NORTH: Landers Suit Moved From E.D. Ark. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVE LANDERS, SR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS
RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, and KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., Case No.
4:21-cv-00740, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01463-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment by designing, manufacturing, and selling
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care with defective polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
         Will Crowder, Esq.
         THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
         1101 Garland Street
         Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
         Telephone: (501) 374-1058
         E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
                 willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

RAM JACK OHIO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carmichael Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE CARMICHAEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAM JACK OHIO LLC; and RICHARD
FOLLETT, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01961 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 15,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Carmichael was employed by the Defendants as inspector.

RAM JACK OHIO LLC provides expert foundation inspection and repair
services to commercial and residential customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Granovsky & Sundaresh PLLC
          Benjamin R. Delson, Esq.
          Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
          600 Superior Ave. East, Suite 1300
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 600-7994
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5500
          E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
                  ag@g-s-law.com

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 19
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVNC)
resulting from allegations that Revance may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2179.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) posted Form 483 to its website citing issues
found during the inspection of a Revance facility in July 2021. The
FDA noted a working cell bank as a cause of rejected GMP lots of a
product, discrepancies between the manufacturing process compared
to that proposed for licensure, and said the Company's quality unit
"lacks the responsibility and authority for the control, review,
and approval of outsourced activities…".

On this news, Revance share prices dropped $6.85, or over 25%, to
close at $20.45 on October 12, 2021.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

SIEMBA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. SIEMBA L.L.C. d/b/a ENZO'S
PIZZERIA and ROBERTO COLLADO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05585
(E.D.N.Y., October 7, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act  and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around January 2020
to work simultaneously as a cook, food preparer, and porter for the
Defendants' restaurant. His employment with the Defendants ended on
or around June 27, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he and other similarly situated were paid by the
Defendants below the prevailing minimum wage. Despite working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendants deprived them of overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay. Instead, they were only paid straight time hourly
rate regardless of the number of hours worked in any given week.
Moreover, the Defendants allegedly had a policy of automatically
deducting one hour each workday for a meal break although the
Plaintiff rarely took a full hour break. The Plaintiff also claims
that he never received any spread of hours premium for working such
shifts, as required under the NYLL, added the suit.

Siemba L.L.C. d/b/a Enzo's Pizzeria operates Italian restaurant
owned by Roberto Collado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1180
          Fax: (212) 465-1181

SNAP INC: Sued Over Failure to Destroy Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------
S.W., a Minor, through her Guardian, JASON WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. SNAP INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2021L001112 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir.
Ct., DuPage Cty., Oct. 21, 2021), is brought against the Defendant
for its violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act, for failing to make publicly available a written biometric
data retention and destruction policy.

The Defendant is the maker of Snapchat, a mobile application that
allows its users to take pictures and record short videos and share
them directly with other Snapchat users or broadcast them to their
followers by posting them as Snapchat Stories. One of Snapchat's
most popular features is its image editing capability, which
consists of software-defined lenses and filters. Snapchat's Lenses
and Filters work by detecting, identifying, tracking, storing and
processing the unique facial landmarks of its users and then using
such facial biometrics to apply Defendant's Lenses or Filters.
Specifically, the Snapchat app's Lenses and Filters track 93
individually identifiable facial geometry "landmarks". These 93
facial landmarks are visualized below by Defendant's explanation of
how Defendant's "Lenses Studio" works.

As a user of Defendant's Snapchat application in Illinois, the
Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other
remedies as a result of the Defendant's violations of the BIPA for
failing to make publicly available a written biometric data
retention and destruction policy. Notwithstanding BIPA's clear and
unequivocal requirements, the Defendant disregards Illinois
citizens' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
possesses individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without complying with the publication requirements of
the BIPA. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to
comply with the BIPA, as well as an award of statutory damages to
the Class, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff S.W. and her father and Guardian, Jason Williams,
have been residents and citizens of the state of Illinois.

Snap, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that conducts, and is licensed
by the Illinois Secretary of State to conduct business, throughout
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut
          Colin P. Buscarini
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. (Firm ID: 327349)
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
                 aheldut@mcgpc.com
                 cbuscarini@mcgpc.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Cody Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CODY, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-CV-2707 AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment to the extent that the Plaintiffs' claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief, only, are dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Background

Plaintiffs James Cody, Jasmine Borden, Vincent Grover, John Doe,
John Roe, Michael Mosley, and Diedre Wortham were detained in
City's Medium Security Institution ("MSI" or "the Workhouse") at
various points from January to October of 2017. These Plaintiffs
filed suit against City on Nov. 13, 2017, alleging that they had
endured "unspeakably hellish and inhumane conditions" at MSI which
violated their constitutional rights. In their prayer for relief,
the Plaintiffs sought class action certification, monetary damages,
declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

On the day suit was filed, Nov. 13, 2017, none of the named
Plaintiffs was in custody at MSI. However, after that date, named
Plaintiff Eddie Williams was again arrested and detained at MSI
from about March 7, 2018, to May 18, 2018, during which time he
allegedly was "subjected to the same unconstitutional jail
conditions" experienced during his prior detention at MSI.

Additionally, named Plaintiff Callion Barnes, who was detained at
MSI from June 29 to July 31, 2017, was subsequently transferred to
the City Justice Center ("CJC"), where he remained until Jan. 22,
2018. Although Barnes was never transferred back to MSI after July
31, 2017, the Plaintiffs contend that the City could have
transferred him back to MSI "at any moment and without notice or
process."

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs assert that Jasmine Borden, Michael
Mosley, and Eddie Williams were "out on bond while awaiting trial"
on Nov. 13, 2017 and could have been reincarcerated at MSI if their
bonds were revoked for any reason or if they were found guilty of
another crime.

As noted, on July 6, 2021, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show
cause why the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief should not be dismissed as moot. It took judicial notice of
"City Mayor Tishaura O. Jones's Statement on Emptying the
Workhouse, dated June 18, 2021, indicating that no detainees remain
in MSI, as well as the Mayor's update on July 2, 2021, indicating
that the 'budget for the Workhouse has officially been zeroed out
as of July 1.'"

In their responses to the Court's Order, the parties indicate that
from June 17, 2021 to July 31, 2021, there were no inmates housed
at MSI. Subsequently, however, the City transferred approximately
120 inmates from CJC to MSI, due to security disturbances at CJC.
Thereafter, MSI's population hovered at approximately 100 inmates,
where it remained at the time of the Plaintiffs' most recent
responsive filing on Aug. 16, 2021.

The Plaintiffs have also provided several declarations from MSI
detainees dated Aug. 5, 2021, stating under penalty of perjury that
conditions at MSI as of that date continued to be poor due to,
among other things, lack of medical treatment and medical supplies,
insect infestations, clogged drains, malfunctioning toilets with
feces backing up into cells, flooding, and mold.

The putative class action is before the Court on Defendant City's
motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief only, for lack of standing. On
July 6, 2021, the Court also ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause
why their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief should not
be dismissed as moot.

Discussion

The City asserts that "because no Plaintiff was in custody at MSI
when this lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiffs lack constitutional
standing to assert their claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief."

The Plaintiffs concede that no named Plaintiff was in custody at
MSI at the time suit was filed but insist that standing for
declaratory and injunctive relief was nevertheless maintained
because they "were under a credible threat of being reincarcerated
at MSI when they filed suit." The Plaintiffs also contend that the
City should have raised the standing issue at an earlier stage but
that its failure to do so has given all parties and the Court the
advantage of hindsight in assessing whether they faced a "credible
threat" of reincarceration at MSI on Nov. 13, 2017, the date they
filed suit. Finally, the Plaintiffs request that, in the event that
the Court finds that they lack standing to pursue their claims for
equitable relief, they be granted leave to "add a plaintiff who was
incarcerated on the date of filing in order to properly maintain
their standing."

In reply, the City opposes the Plaintiffs' reliance on post-filing
events to support standing at the time of filing suit. The City
likewise opposes the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend,
arguing that such amendment would be futile and unfairly
prejudicial.

Mootness

The Plaintiffs assert that their claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief are not moot because the City has not permanently
closed down MSI and plans to continue using the facility for
overflow purposes and/or to house a disciplinary unit. They rely on
declarations from current MSI inmates, dated Aug. 5, 2021, that
allege continuing poor conditions at MSI. They further maintain
that, even if the City temporarily voluntarily ceases to use the
MSI, their equitable claims are not moot because the City cannot
meet its burden in proving that its conduct would not re-occur.

In response, the City asserts that "circumstances have materially
changed since the Plaintiffs were housed at MSI four years ago"
such that at least the vast majority of their equitable claims are
now moot. In any event, the City argues that the Court need not
reach the question of mootness because the Plaintiffs' equitable
claims fail for lack of standing.

Judge Fleissig concludes that the Plaintiffs are unable to meet
their burden in establishing that any named Plaintiffs had standing
to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief at the time suit was
commenced. The Plaintiffs' claim of future injury is too
speculative to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. The
Plaintiffs can't establish standing based on facts that have
transpired since the filing of the suit. The Plaintiffs offer no
evidence to suggest that Williams, Barnes, or any other named
Plaintiff was under imminent threat of reincarceration at MSI as of
Nov. 13, 2017. Therefore, Judge Fleissig will dismiss those claims
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without reaching the
question of mootness.

Leave to Amend

As part of their response to the City's motion for partial summary
judgment, the Plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint
to include at least one new named plaintiff "who was inside MSI on
November 13, 2017" in order to establish standing for Plaintiffs'
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Fleissig will
not consider that request unless and until it is made in a properly
supported motion and must attach a proposed amended complaint.

In such a motion, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that leave to
amend is warranted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which includes showing good cause, no undue delay or undue
prejudice, and also that the proposed amendment is not futile
because of, for example, mootness4 or other potential deficiencies.
The deadline for City's response to such a motion, and for any
reply, will be governed by the Court's Local Rules.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Fleissig granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment to the extent that the Plaintiffs' claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief, only, are dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Any motion for
leave to amend will be filed no later than 21 days from the date of
the Memorandum & Order. Failure to comply with the Order will
result in the result in the denial of any further leave to amend.

Within seven days of the date of the Memorandum & Order, the
Plaintiffs will file a notice advising the Court what, if any, part
of Corizon, LLC's motion to partially quash the Plaintiffs' amended
subpoena duces tecum relates to the currently pending claims and
therefore remains for the Court's ruling. Failure to comply with
the Order will result in the Court granting Corizon's motion to
partially quash for the reasons stated in that motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ntue5tjw from Leagle.com.


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Plan Members File ERISA Suit to Recover Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Carfora, Sandra Putnam and Juan Gonzales, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of America and TIAA-CREF
Individual & Institutional Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-08384, (S.D. Mass., October 11, 2021) seeks to recover
losses, equitable or remedial relief and redress for breaches of
fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a legal
reserve life insurance company established under the insurance laws
of the State of New York. Plaintiffs are former and current college
professors who have opened TIAA Portfolio Advisor accounts.
TIAA-CREF Individual and Institutional Services, LLC is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America.

TIAA allegedly required the use of fraudulent sales tactics to
induce individuals to transfer assets from their low-fee
employer-sponsored retirement plans to TIAA's high-fee "Portfolio
Advisor" program and other lucrative non-plan products. Employees
and retirees claim to be charged higher fees for products and
services that underperformed those available through their
employers' tax-favored plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
     Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934
     Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com
            aschlichter@uselaws.com
            ssoyars@uselaws.com


TENNESSEE: Knox County BOE Has Leave to Operate Under Policy C-240
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, S.B., a minor student, by and through his parents,
M.B. and L.H. et al., Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR BILL LEE, in his
official capacity as Governor of Tennessee, and KNOX COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-CV-00317-JRD-DCP (E.D.
Tenn.), Judge J. Ronnie Greer of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, granted Defendant Knox
County Board of Education's Amended and Restated Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment only to the extent that it requests leave to operate
under Policy C-240 as it did during the 2020-2021 school year.

Background

On Aug. 16, 2021, the Governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, issued
Executive Order No. 84, which states: "I, Bill Lee, Governor of the
State of Tennessee, having declared a continuing state of emergency
by Executive Order No. 83, dated August 6, 2021, and by virtue of
the power and authority vested in me by the Tennessee Constitution
and other applicable law including Tennessee Code Annotated Section
58-2-107, do hereby order that a student's parent or guardian will
have the right to opt out of any order or requirement for a student
in kindergarten through twelfth-grade to wear a face covering at
school, on a school bus, or at school functions, by affirmatively
notifying in writing the local education agency or personnel at the
student's school."

Not long afterwards, the Knox County Board of Education, in
response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, met on Sept. 1, 2021, to
discuss and vote on a district-wide mask mandate for its school
system, which consists of 90 schools and 60,000 students.
Approximately 8,000 of those students are disabled. By vote of the
board, a mask mandate had been in effect during the entirety of the
previous school year, from August 2020 to May 2021, for all 90
schools. But this year, during the board's meeting on Sept. 1,
2021, it decided not to renew the mask mandate by a vote of 5 to 4,
-- acting at odds with the guidelines of the Knox County Health
Department, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), all of which recommend
masks for all students enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth
grade.

In response to the board's vote, the Plaintiffs, on the following
day, brought a class-action lawsuit in the Court under Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.
Section 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, claiming they are "unable to safely
attend school without increased risks of serious injury or even
death, unlike their non-disabled peers." The Plaintiffs allege that
they suffer from underlying medical conditions that expose them to
a likelihood of severe illness or death from COVID-19, a highly
transmissible and sometimes deadly virus that invades the body
through the mouth, nose, and eyes and spreads through respiratory
droplets that persons produce by speaking, coughing, or sneezing.
Children under the age of twelve are not yet eligible to receive
COVID-19 vaccines, and some children who are old enough to receive
the vaccines may have medical conditions that do not allow their
immune systems to sufficiently respond to them.

All the Plaintiffs are zoned within the public school system of the
Knox County Schools. The Plaintiffs claim that the Knox County
Board of Education has violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act
by not providing them with a reasonable accommodation that would
enable them -- against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic -- to
have safe and "fundamental access to the school building itself."

The Plaintiffs bring suit on behalf of all "current and future K-12
students" who are "eligible to attend public school in Knox County,
Tennessee, during the coronavirus pandemic," who are unable to
receive the vaccine or unable to mount an adequate immune response
to the vaccine, and who suffer from one or more of the following
medical conditions: (a) lung disease, including asthma, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., bronchitis or emphysema), or
other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function;
(b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive
heart failure and/or coronary artery disease; (c) chronic liver or
kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d)
diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e) hypertension; (f)
compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an
organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or
other autoimmune disease); (g) blood disorders (including sickle
cell disease); (h) inherited metabolic disorders; (i) history of
stroke; (j) neurological or developmental disability (including
epilepsy); (k) cancer or cancer treatments; and/or (l) muscular
dystrophy or spinal cord injury.

The Plaintiffs also moved the Court to issue a preliminary
injunction5 that "requires Knox County Board of Education to
enforce a mask mandate" and that "enjoins Governor Lee during this
litigation from enforcing Executive Order No. 84." Last month, the
Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Court heard from several witnesses during the
hearing, including Ms. Ashley Paquette, Jason Yaun, M.D., Jennifer
Ker, M.D., Jon Rysewik, Ph.D., and Mr. Jason Myers.

The Court ultimately granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction and ordered the Knox County Board of
Education to enforce -- with immediate effect -- the mask mandate
that was in place in all Knox County Schools during the 2020-2021
school year, as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for the
Plaintiffs and the Class Plaintiffs. Dr. Ker, however, specifically
identified individuals with autism and tracheotomies as disabled
individuals who may be unable to wear masks, so the Court exempted
these individuals from the mask mandate. Beyond Dr. Ker's
testimony, the parties presented the Court with no evidence by
which it could determine whether additional medical exemptions from
the mask mandate were appropriate. The Court therefore ordered the
Knox County Board of Education to file a list of medical conditions
that it believed warranted further exemptions from the mask
mandate, and it ordered Plaintiffs to respond to that filing.

The Knox County Board of Education has now filed this list, but it
also filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Knox County Board of
Education claims that relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate
because (1) the Court's mask mandate is causing it to suffer
manifest injustice, (2) newly discovered evidence establishes that
the mask mandate is placing an undue burden on it, and (3) the mask
mandate constitutes a clear error of law.

Analysis

The Knox County Board of Education argues that the Court's mask
mandate is causing it to endure manifest injustice because the
exemptions are not flexible enough to accommodate all students who
require an exemption. According to the Knox County Board of
Education, many students who were exempt under last year's
voluntary mask mandate are now not exempt under the Court's mask
mandate. According to the Knox County Board of Education, it is in
"the untenable position of attempting to implement the Court's
order without being able to provide accommodations to students and
employees who cannot wear masks but are neither autistic nor
recipients of tracheotomies." The Knox County Board of Education
claims that, with Policy C-240 in place last year, it was free to
"make individualized determinations that a mask exception was an
appropriate accommodation for" students with disabilities, in
compliance with the ADA.

The Plaintiffs do not agree with Policy C-240 in its entirety.
Although they have no objection to Policy C-240's first and third
exemptions, they object to its second and fourth exemptions. Under
exemption two, the Plaintiffs maintain that the Court should
require individuals to provide the Knox County Board of Education
with documentation -- from the individual's treating physician --
that demonstrates a medical need for an exemption from the mask
mandate. They also contend that exemption four is "too vague in
leaving exemptions to individual principals without specifying any
such conditions or need."

In reply, the Knox County Board of Education claims that "not every
student with a disability has a 'treating physician' who will feel
comfortable drafting an exemption note." Along these lines, it
states that it is aware that one large, local pediatrician's office
has notified patients that it will not approve exemptions to the
Court's mask mandate. In addition, the Knox County Board of
Education points out that many students who will require exemptions
from the mask mandate will not require them for medical reasons but
for behavioral or instructional reasons, which will include
intellectual disabilities or speech impediments.

In resolving the parties' dispute, Judge Greer is compelled to
remind them of the Court's principal function during a
preliminary-injunction proceeding. The Court's role is not to
draft, markup, or enact rules, regulations, policies, or procedures
that fall within the purview of local government bodies, whether on
the topic of a mask mandate or any other topic. Rather, its
function during a preliminary-injunction proceeding is to preserve
the status quo between the parties.

Policy C-240 was in place during last year's mask mandate -- as the
parties have now made the Court aware -- so it is necessarily part
of the status quo, and the Court is therefore loath to disturb
Policy C-240 without a showing of harm. The record, however, does
not establish that Policy C-240 will result in irreparable harm to
the Plaintiffs.

First, for students who seek an exemption based on a medical
condition, Policy C-240's plain language already requires
documentation of that medical condition: "Students, employees, and
visitors may be exempted from this policy by the school principal
due to a documented medical condition." Second, Judge Shubb agrees
with the Plaintiffs' contention that exemption four is vague -- it
appears, in fact, to give principals carte blanche to extend an
exemption to virtually anyone -- but the question for the Court is
whether the Knox County Board of Education will enforce this
exemption so loosely that it exposes the Plaintiffs to the threat
of harm. The record -- right now -- contains no evidence to suggest
that the Knox County Board of Education will rely on this exemption
as a loophole for dodging the mask mandate, and the Knox County
Board of Education assures the Court that its processes for
granting exemptions are rigorous and comply with both the Code of
Federal Regulations and Tennessee statutes.

Judge Greer will therefore permit the Knox County Board of
Education, for the time being, to operate under Policy C-240 as it
did during last year's mask mandate, but not without first issuing
a parting caveat. He reminds the Knox County Board of Education
that its school system is no longer under a no longer under a
voluntary mask mandate, and the Court fully expects its mask
mandate to be exactly that: universal, to every possible extent,
with "very few" medical exemptions, as Dr. Yaun said. If the Knox
County Board of Education does not comply in good faith with the
Order, the Court may impose considerable sanctions against it for
civil contempt.

Judge Greer will order the Knox County Board of Education to file
monthly status reports in which it identifies the number of
exemptions it grants every month for students, employees, and
visitors; the full names of the exempted individuals; and the
specific reasons for their exemptions. The Knox County Board of
Education will also inform the Court as to whether any exempted
individual received an exemption under last year's mask mandate as
well. The Knox County Board of Education may move for leave to file
these status reports under seal. The first status report will be
due by Nov. 1, 2021.

Order

Judge Greer granted the Knox County Board of Education's Amended
and Restated Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment only to the extent
that it requests leave to operate under Policy C-240 as it did
during the 2020-2021 school year. He will reserve ruling on the
remaining arguments in the Knox County Board of Education's motion
and will enter an amended judgment consistent with his Opinion. The
Knox County Board of Education's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vhn7upa from
Leagle.com.


TRADITIONAL BAKERY: Delivery Driver Seeks Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Gia Parmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Traditional Bakery, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05182 (W.D. Ark., October 13, 2021), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Traditional Bakery owns and manages a Pizza Hut franchise in
Washington County where Parmer worked as a delivery driver.
Traditional Bakery took a tip credit from Parmer when she was
making deliveries and made her use her own car for deliveries. She
claims that the delivery fee she gets is not enough to cover here
vehicular expenses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com


U.S. BANK: Gibo Appeals Foreclosure Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs EVELYN JANE GIBO, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled EVELYN JANE GIBO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:12-cv-00514-SOM-WRP, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii, Honolulu.

This lawsuit was filed against the Defendant arising from alleged
conduct relating to the non-judicial foreclosure of property owned
by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs complain that that Defendant wrongly advertised
their properties as being sold by quitclaim deed only, even though
the Defendant "knew or through the exercise of reasonable care
should have known that there were no superior claims of title or
priority to its own claim and that it therefore had the power and
the duty to market and sell the property of each member of the
class in fee simple."

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated October
8, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss their first amended
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Evelyn Gibo, et al. v. U.S. Bank
National Association, et al., Case No. 21-16686, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 12,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Evelyn Jane Gibo, Deanne Davidson Hemmens, Patrick
Stephen Hemmens, Vincent Labasan and Jennifer Strike Mediation
Questionnaire was due October 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 9, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on December 9, 2021;

   -- Appellants Evelyn Jane Gibo, et al. opening brief is due on
January 18, 2022;

   -- Appellees answering brief is due on February 17, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants EVELYN JANE GIBO, PATRICK STEPHEN HEMMENS,
DEANNE DAVIDSON HEMMENS, VINCENT LABASAN, and JENNIFER STRIKE are
represented by:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP
          745 Fort Street Mall, Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813-3815
          Telephone: (808) 599-3811

               - and -

          Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq.
          VAN-ALAN SHIMA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1188 Bishop Street, Suite 3408
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4600

Defendant-Appellee U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
banking association, AKA U.S. Bank, N.A., is represented by:

          Andrew V. Beaman, Esq.
          703 Hao Street
          Honolulu, HI 96821
          Telephone: (808) 753-2279

               - and -

          Bernard James Garbutt, III, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000

               - and -

          Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Market Street, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000

U.S. BANK: Partly Compelled to Produce Docs in Maag Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT MAAG, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 21cv31-H-LL (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel production of documents from the
Defendant.

Background

The Plaintiff brings the action against U.S. Bank on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated for violation of their
privacy rights in connection with an alleged data breach in July
2020. Specifically, the Plaintiff "brings the lawsuit on behalf of
himself and the Class Members whose PII [personal identifiable
information] was compromised as a result of the Data Breach and the
Defendant's failure to (i) implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the
PII; (ii) disclose its inadequate security procedures and
practices; (iii) effectively monitor its systems for security
vulnerabilities; and (iv) failure to timely detect, report, and
disclose the Data Breach."

In the operative complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the
following class: All USB customers who reside in California and
whose PII was accessed or otherwise compromised in the Data Breach,
which, according to the Notice of Data Breach provided by USB,
occurred on or about July 30, 2020.

The Plaintiff's operative complaint alleges one cause of action for
violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), Cal.
Civil Code Section 1798.150, et seq.

On March 9, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. On April 8, 2021, Judge Huff
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint. On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the
operative Third Amended Complaint. On May 17, 2021, the Defendant
filed its answer and affirmative defenses. On July 27, 2021, the
Court issued an order regulating discovery. On Sept. 14, 2021, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, which is still pending.

On Sept. 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion. The
Defendant responded on Sept. 24, 2021. The current deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is Jan. 24,
2022.

The disputed written discovery is the Plaintiff's Request for
Production No. 11 which seeks generally the identity and contact
information of putative class members. Specifically, the
Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 11 states: "DOCUMENTS
IDENTIFYING all individuals whose PERSONAL INFORMATION was stored
on the COMPROMISED SERVER at the time of the DATA BREACH including
the number of total individuals, the COMPROMISED SERVER for each
individual, whether the individuals were subject to an arbitration
agreement with YOU, and, if so, which version of the arbitration
agreement the individual is/was subject to."

The Defendant objected to the request on the following grounds:
"U.S. Bank incorporates by reference its General Objections. U.S.
Bank also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, the bank examination
privilege, or another privilege, immunity, or protection from
disclosure, which will be withheld. U.S. Bank also objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent that it asks U.S. Bank to identify whether
the individual whose information was located on the Server were
subject to an arbitration agreement with U.S. Bank and which
version of the arbitration agreement the individuals were subject
to. Determining that information for each of the individuals would
require an individualized file-by-file review of each person's
accounts with U.S. Bank. U.S. Bank is withholding documents on the
basis of this objection. U.S. Bank also objects to this Request as
overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence, and not proportionate to
the needs of the case to the extent it seeks information about the
types of personal information stored on the compromised server for
non-California residents, as information about individuals who are
not residents of California is not relevant to any party's claims
or defenses. U.S. Bank is withholding documents on the basis of
this objection."

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, U.S. Bank
is willing to meet and confer with the Plaintiff regarding this
request.

The parties have since met and conferred about this request. The
Defendant represents that it has agreed to produce a list of names
of putative class members whose information was on the stolen
server and to identify, for each listed individual, the relevant
categories of information that was stored on the stolen server and
the applicable version of arbitration agreement that applies, if
any. The Plaintiff has additionally requested contact information
for these individuals, which the Defendant has not agreed to
produce.

Discussion

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendant to provide the identity
and contact information of all putative class members because it is
"highly relevant to the claims and defenses of the action."
Specifically, he argues that "the information is likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence that will prove or disprove
the Plaintiff's claims or the Defendant's defenses.'" The Plaintiff
also states that the discovery it seeks is "relevant evidence
related to Defendant's affirmative defenses, class certification
and the merits."

In response, the Defendant states that it "has agreed to produce a
list of names of putative class members whose information was on
the stolen server and to identify, for each listed individual, the
relevant categories of information that was stored on the stolen
server and the applicable arbitration version of the arbitration
agreement that applies, if any." It further makes three arguments
in support of why the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be
denied.

First, the Defendant argues that the "Plaintiff does not satisfy
his burden of establishing that contact information for thousands
of individuals is relevant." Second, the Defendant argues that the
"Plaintiff ignores completely his burden of establishing that the
information is proportional." Third, the Defendant argues that
"even if the contact information had some relevance, any interest
that the Plaintiff has in this information is far outweighed by the
putative class members' privacy interests." Finally, the Defendant
states that "in the alternative, if the Court is inclined to permit
discovery of contact information in the case, the Defendant
respectfully requests that the Court permits discovery for only a
sampling of putative class members (250) and implement additional
protective measures governing the Plaintiff's counsel's contact
with putative class members."

As to relevance, Judge Lopez finds that the contact information
sought in RFP No. 11 is relevant. As an initial matter, he notes
that it is common in class actions to produce names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of putative class members. As noted, relevancy
for the purpose of discovery encompasses "any party's claim or
defense." The Plaintiff argues that it "is entitled to the contact
information of the putative class members because it is highly
relevant to both class certification and the claims and defenses of
the action." The Plaintiff points to the specific affirmative
defenses that it seeks to gather evidence about. The Defendant's
argument that Plaintiff "does not come close to meeting his burden
of establishing that the contact information for thousands of
individuals is relevant" is unpersuasive. Accordingly, Judge Lopez
concludes that the disputed discovery is relevant under Rule 26.

With respect to proportionality, the Defendant argues that the
"Plaintiff's request is not proportional to the needs of the case."
It states that the Plaintiff "ignores completely his burden of
establishing that the information is proportional. Nowhere does the
Plaintiff explain why contact information for thousands of
individuals is proportional to the needs of the case.

Judge Lopez finds that the Defendant is correct that the Plaintiff
fails to address why the production of all 5,725 putative class
members' contact information would be proportional in the case. At
this stage of the litigation, however, she will exercise discretion
in ordering the Defendant to provide discovery for a random
sampling of 500 putative class members. She will also implement
additional protective measures governing the Plaintiff's counsel's
contact with putative class members as set forth.

As to privacy, Judge Lopez has balanced the need of the information
against the putative class members' privacy interests and concludes
that the information sought by the Plaintiff should be produced.
She says, the Defendant fails to explain how the disclosure of the
contact information for a sampling of putative class members would
be harmful to them, or why any such harm would not be mitigated by
production of this information subject to a protective order.
Accordingly, Judge Lopez finds that the requested discovery
(contact information for a sampling of the putative class members)
does not constitute a serious invasion of privacy. Additionally,
there is a protective order entered in the case, which courts have
found to be sufficient to protect the privacy of putative class
members.

Because the protective order was entered prior to the issuance of
the discovery order, Judge Lopez orders the following additional
measures in the Plaintiff's communications with the putative class
members. First, the Plaintiff's counsel will identify themselves as
the Plaintiff's counsel in the putative class action. Second, the
Plaintiff's counsel will inform the contacted putative class member
that they have the right not to talk to or communicate with
counsel, and if they decline to talk or communicate, then counsel
will terminate the conversation and not contact them again. Third,
the Plaintiff's counsel will inform each contacted putative class
member that the Court compelled Defendant U.S. Bank to disclose the
putative class member's contact information, and that the contact
information was provided solely for the lawsuit and cannot be
distributed for other uses.

Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Lopez grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Defendant will
produce the requested contact information for a random sampling of
500 members of the putative class. Additionally, the production
will be accompanied by a signed declaration stating how the random
sample was selected. If the sample proves inadequate because of the
inability to locate substantial numbers of putative class members,
or the reluctance of significant numbers of the putative class
members to speak to the Plaintiff's counsel, the Plaintiff may
apply for additional relief after meeting and conferring with the
Defendant's counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4a9z6knb from Leagle.com.


UF HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Jercich, writing for HealthcareIT News, reports that a Florida
resident has brought a lawsuit against UF Health Central Florida
after a data breach potentially exposed the information of more
than 700,000 people.

According to the complaint, which was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on Oct. 14, Chrystal
Holmes is accusing the system of failing to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information.

"Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breach and
data security compromises, UFHCF failed to take appropriate steps
to protect the PII and PHI of [the] plaintiff and the proposed
class from being compromised," read court documents.

Attempts to reach UFHCF for comment were not successful.

WHY IT MATTERS

As reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'
Office of Civil Rights, UFHCF experienced a hacking incident
earlier this year leading to the potential exposure of 700,981
individuals' data.

Between May 29 and May 31, bad actors gained unauthorized access to
UFHCF's computer network.

During that period, said a notice posted to the UFHCF website at
the end of July, patient information -- including names, addresses,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance
information, medical record numbers and patient account numbers, as
well as limited treatment information used for UF Health's business
operations -- may have been accessible.

"Until notified of the breach," Holmes and the other affected
people in the proposed class "had no idea their PII and PHI had
been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social and financial harm," read the complaint.

"The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes," it
continued.

According to court documents, the fact that the incident took place
suggests that UFHCF had not adhered to rigorous security protocols,
including those recommended by the U.S. government.

"The occurrence of the cybersecurity event indicates that
defendants failed to adequately implement … measures to prevent
ransomware attacks," said the complaint.

Holmes, through her lawyers, argues that the information
compromised in the cybersecurity event is "significantly more
valuable" than credit card information.  

Instead, personal information such as name, address, date of birth
and Social Security number "is impossible to 'close' and difficult,
if not impossible, to change," read court documents.

Holmes is accusing UFHCF of negligence, breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duty.

"Plaintiff and class members have a continuing interest in ensuring
that their information is and remains safe, and they should be
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief," argued the
complaint.

THE LARGER TREND

Many of the major cybersecurity incidents over the past year have
been followed by lawsuits accusing healthcare organizations of
failing to adequately protect patient information.

Earlier this year, Scripps Health in San Diego faced several
complaints after a ransomware incident led to a massive network
shutdown.

And in September, a cancer patient sued UC San Diego Health over a
security breach that potentially exposed the private information of
495,949 patients.

ON THE RECORD

"The ramifications of UFHCF's failure to keep secure UFHCF's
current and former patients' PII and PHI are long lasting and
severe," said the complaint. "Once PII and PHI is stolen,
particularly Social Security numbers, fraudulent use of that
information and damage to victims may continue for years." [GN]

ULTA BEAUTY: Filing of Hansber's 3rd Amended Class Suit Due Nov. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAHARA HANSBER, NANG CHAN, and JESUS MORENO, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, Plaintiffs v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC;
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00022-AWI-JLT (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the Parties' Stipulation Re:
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint and Defendant's Deadline to
Respond Thereto.

Consistent with the Court's Order on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and/or Strike, the Plaintiffs will file their further
amended complaint on Nov. 4, 2021.

The Defendant is relieved of its obligation to file a response to
the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages,
Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and Restitution, and thus,
its current deadline to respond to the SAC is vacated. It will file
its response to the Plaintiffs' forthcoming further amended
complaint not later than 21 days after the Plaintiffs file the
same.

By entering into the Stipulation, the Parties in no way waive, and
fully and expressly reserve, any and all rights, claims, remedies,
and defenses they otherwise have or may have in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/6bc2hfuh from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Manker v. Navy Wins Prelim. Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYSON MANKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and NATIONAL No. VETERANS COUNCIL FOR LEGAL
REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-372 (CSH) (D. Conn.), Judge Charles S.
Haight of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued a Supplemental Order granting preliminary approval of the
class action settlement and the class notice.

Background

As of Sept. 16, 2021, Class Representatives Tyson Manker and
National Veterans Council for Legal Redress ("NVCLR"), individually
and on behalf of themselves, NVCLR's members, and a class of
persons similarly situated, on the one hand, and Carlos Del Toro,
in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Navy, on the
other, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in
the litigation, which is subject to review under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and which, together with the
exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions of the
proposed settlement of the Action and the claims alleged in the
Complaint filed on March 2, 2018 on the merits and with prejudice.

Judge Haight has reviewed and considered the Stipulation and
accompanying exhibits. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, he has made a preliminary determination
to certify the following Settlement Class for the purposes of
settlement only: "Veterans who served during the Iraq and
Afghanistan Era -- defined as the period between Oct. 7, 2001, and
the present -- who: a) were discharged from the Navy, Navy
Reserves, Marine Corps, or Marine Corps Reserve with
less-than-Honorable statuses, including General and
Other-than-Honorable discharges but excluding Uncharacterized, Bad
Conduct, Dishonorable discharges, or Dismissals; b) have not
received upgrades of their discharge statuses to Honorable from the
NDRB; and c) have diagnoses of PTSD, TBI, or other  related mental
health conditions, or records documenting one or more symptoms of
PTSD, TBI, or other related mental health conditions at the time of
discharge, attributable to their military service under the Hagel
Memo standards of liberal or special consideration."

Judge Haight finds and concludes that the prerequisites of class
action certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been satisfied for the Settlement Class defined and
for the purposes of the Settlement only. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the
Settlement only, Tyson Manker and National Veterans Council for
Legal Redress are certified as the Class Representatives. The
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of Yale Law School and
the law firm of Jenner & Block LLP are appointed as the Class
Counsel.

The Defendant will publicize the Settlement and Class Notice by
issuing a press release of its own. The Plaintiffs will cause the
Class Notice to be distributed to Settlement Class members in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulation no later than 14 days
after the entry of the Order.

The Settlement Class members will be bound by all orders,
determinations and judgments in the Action concerning the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

Any Settlement Class member may appear in person or through counsel
(at their own expense) at the Fairness Hearing and be heard in
support of or in opposition to the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the proposed Settlement, award of counsel fees, and the
reimbursement of costs. The Court will consider any Settlement
Class member's objection to the Settlement only if such Settlement
Class member has served by hand, mail, or e-mail their written
objection and supporting papers (including any legal support or
evidence in support of the objection and grounds to support their
status as a Class member) such that they are received on or before
21 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing, upon the Class
Counsel.

The Class Counsel will file and serve its application for final
approval of the Settlement no later than Dec. 9, 2021. Along with
the application, the Class Counsel will file and serve an affidavit
stating and describing in detail the communications between the
Class Counsel and recipients of the outreach efforts referred to in
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3sjvs59x from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: District of New Jersey Dismisses Majerska's Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IMMANUEL MAJERSKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-4381 (JMV) (JSA)
(D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey dismisses with prejudice certain of the
Plaintiff's claims.

For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court dismisses with
prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the United States, the
United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals
Service, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, the claims against Chief Judge Freda Wolfson for monetary
relief, and the claims against Governor Phil Murphy in his official
capacity for monetary relief.

Background

The Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee, is proceeding pro se
with an Amended Complaint asserting claims under various federal
statutes and related state law claims. The case arises from the
Plaintiff's federal pretrial detention at the Essex County
Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff sues (1) the United States of America; (2) the United
States Marshals Service; (3) the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey; (4) the United States Department of
Justice; (5) Chief Judge Freda Wolfson; (6) Governor Phil Murphy;
(7) Essex County; (8) Director Alfaro Ortiz; (9) Warden Guy
Cirello; and (10) CFG Medical Services, as Defendants in the
matter.

The Complaint is one of numerous, nearly identical amended
complaints, from pretrial detainees at the Essex County
Correctional Facility, seeking to proceed as a class action. The
Plaintiff, like the other detainees, lists a myriad of federal
claims, but the thrust of the Complaint alleges that the Government
violated his speedy trial rights through Chief Judge Wolfson's
COVID-19 pandemic related standing orders. In those orders, Chief
Judge Wolfson held that the pandemic warranted the exclusion of
various periods of time from the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 3161(h)(7)(A). The Plaintiff also complains about various
pandemic related restrictions at the jail such as limited
visitation, religious services, discovery access, legal research
time, and medical care, as well as slow mail, lockdowns, extreme
quarantines, and a lack of access to attorneys.

The Plaintiff, however, offers no details on how he believes that
any particular Defendant violated his individual rights. Moreover,
apart from Chief Judge Wolfson's standing orders, the Plaintiff
only alleges that Governor Murphy issued unspecified "Covid-19
emergency orders," and that Director Ortiz issued unspecified
"emergency declarations," that somehow violated the Plaintiff's
rights. Beyond these three references, the Complaint does not
specify which the Defendants were involved in which violations, and
simply concludes that all of the Defendants were responsible in
some way.

In March of 2021, the Plaintiff filed the initial complaint, and in
April of 2021, he filed the operative Complaint in the matter. In
terms of relief, the Plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief. In particular, he seeks to vacate unspecified
pandemic related orders and declarations and requests four days of
jail credit for every day in detention "during the period of March
15, 2020 to present."

Discussion

The Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to (1) Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971); (2) the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections
1346(b), 2671 et seq.; (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), (d); (4) the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb et
seq.; (5) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,
42. U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq.; (6) 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986; and (7) the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.
Section 702.

Judge Vazquez first addresses the issue of immunity, as it appears
from the face of the Complaint that the Plaintiff has sued a number
of Defendants that are immune from suit.

A. Immune Defendants

The Third Circuit ruled in Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712,
717-18 (3d Cir. 1979), that sovereign immunity bars claims against
the United States and its federal agencies and officials, unless
the United States explicitly waives its immunity. Stated
differently, "the United States is not subject to suit for
constitutional torts, including the civil rights claims the
plaintiff seeks to raise, and is entitled to absolute sovereign
immunity in this matter." Similarly, federal agencies and entities,
like the United States Department of Justice, the United States
Marshals Service, and the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, are also immune from suit in civil rights
matters, because they have not explicitly waived sovereign
immunity.

As to the Plaintiff's state law claims, absent an explicit waiver
of sovereign immunity, he cannot sue the federal government, Judge
Vazquez opines. He says, sovereign immunity not only protects the
United States from liability, it deprives a court of subject matter
jurisdiction over claims against the United States." Consequently,
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims, and
Judge Vazquez dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims
against the United States, the United States Department of Justice,
the United States Marshals Service, and the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

First, Judge Vazquez finds that injunctive relief is not available
against Chief Judge Wolfson because the Plaintiff has not properly
pleaded that she violated any declaratory decree or that
declaratory relief is unavailable. The Plaintiff expressly seeks
declaratory relief in the matter. In addition, the Plaintiff's bare
conclusions are insufficient to state a claim for relief.
Consequently, Chief Judge Wolfson is entitled to judicial immunity
from Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief.

In addition, the "Chief Judge specifically acknowledged the
importance of the right to a speedy and public trial and balanced
the interests of the Defendants and the public in that right
against the compelling public health and safety issues arising out
of the COVID-19 pandemic." Ultimately, however, without information
specific to Plaintiff's individual circumstances, the Complaint
fails to state a claim for declaratory relief regarding his speedy
trial rights.

For all of those reasons, Judge Vazquez dismisses with prejudice
the Plaintiff's claims against Chief Judge Wolfson for monetary
relief and dismisses without prejudice his claims against her for
injunctive and declaratory relief.

Second, to the extent the Plaintiff asserts claims for monetary
relief against Governor Murphy in his official capacity, Judge
Vazquez dismisses those claims with prejudice. Sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment renders "states generally immune from
suit by private parties in federal court." Governor Murphy is a
state official, and the Plaintiff has sued him in his official
capacity. Consequently, he is entitled to sovereign immunity from
the Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages, and Judge Vazquez
dismisses those claims with prejudice.

B. Federal Tort Claims Act

As to the Plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim
against the United States, the FTCA operates as a limited waiver of
the United States' sovereign immunity. Under the FTCA, the United
States is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a
private individual under like circumstances. An incarcerated FTCA
plaintiff may sue only the United States, may seek only monetary
damages, and may not recover for mental or emotional damages in the
absence of physical injury.

In the present case, Judge Vazquez finds that the Complaint fails
to make any reference to a notice of tort claim, a demand for sum
certain, or that the Plaintiff has otherwise exhausted his FTCA
claim. Accordingly, he dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's
FTCA claim against the United States "for failure to sufficiently
allege the jurisdictional basis" for his claim.

C. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Claims

Next, the Plaintiff broadly claims that all of the Defendants are
liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), (d). Under that Act, Section
1962(c) makes it unlawful "for any person employed by or associated
with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through
a pattern of racketeering activity."

In the present case, Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiff fails
to sufficiently plead the elements of a RICO claim. The Plaintiff
fails to elaborate on how he believes the Defendants formed an
enterprise, what conduct he specifically believes violated RICO,
and what predicates acts he believes were racketeering activities.
Additionally, the Plaintiff failed to plead cognizable RICO losses.
Plaintiffs may only use a civil RICO claim "to recover 'concrete
financial loss' in the form of an injury to property or business,
personal injury or emotional harm are not proper bases for a RICO
claim." All of his claims stem from constitutional violations which
caused personal injuries, which are not proper RICO losses.

Yet, even if the Plaintiff had pleaded proper losses, his bare
conclusions are insufficient to state a claim for relief. He cannot
rely on "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement"
and "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported merely by conclusory statements." Accordingly, Judge
Vazquez dismisses the Plaintiff's RICO claims without prejudice for
failure to state a claim.

D. Religious Claims

Judge Vazquez turns to the Plaintiff's claims under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb et seq.,
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA"), 42. U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. The RFRA "prohibits
the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially
burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the
least restrictive means of serving a compelling government
interest."

In the instant case, the Plaintiff fails to plead any facts
regarding his personal religious beliefs or tenets. He merely
alleges that pandemic restrictions have generally hindered certain
religious practices at the facility. Without specific allegations
as to his personal religious beliefs, the Complaint in its current
form fails to state a claim. Consequently, Judge Vazquez dismisses
without prejudice the Plaintiff's RLUIPA and RFRA claim

E. Supervisory Liability

Next, it appears that the Plaintiff wishes to pursue supervisory
liability claims against Governor Murphy, Director Ortiz, and
Warden Cirillo. As a general rule, however, government officials
are not liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.

Judge Vazquez opines that the Complaint fails to explain how
Governor Murphy, Director Ortiz, and Warden Cirillo personally
violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. The Plaintiff does
allege numerous claims against the Defendants collectively, but
generally fails to specify the individual actions of any Defendant
or the circumstances surrounding their alleged failures.

Finally, to the extent the Plaintiff contends that these Defendants
are liable simply for being supervisors, Judge Vazquez disagrees.
Once again, government officials are not liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of
respondeat superior. In simpler terms, a supervisor is not liable
for the unconstitutional conduct of their employees solely because
he or she is a supervisor.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff's supervisory liability claims are a
collection of legal conclusions, which are insufficient to state a
claim for relief. Accordingly, Judge Vazquez dismisses without
prejudice the supervisory liability claims against Governor Murphy,
Director Ortiz, and Warden Cirillo.

F. Remaining Federal Claims

The Plaintiff's remaining federal claims, his claims under 42
U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, 1986, and the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 702, fail to state a claim. One of the flaws
in the Complaint is that it often alleges that the Defendants acted
in unison, without delineating the actions of each Defendant or
explaining under what circumstances they acted or failed to act.
Alternatively, the Plaintiff often states that someone's rights
have been violated, without specifying which the Defendant or the
Defendants committed the wrong, and then concludes that all of the
Defendants were somehow responsible.

These types of allegations are known as improper group pleading,
Judge Vazquez opines. Mere conclusory allegations against the
Defendants as a group that "fail to allege the personal involvement
of any Defendant" are insufficient to state a claim.

Finally, as no federal claims remain in the case, Judge Vazquez
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New
Jersey Civil Rights Act.

G. Request for Jail Credits

Although his discussion is sufficient to resolve the case, Judge
Vazquez briefly addresses the Plaintiff's request for extra jail
credits. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks four extra jail
credits for every day spent in detention during the pandemic for
unspecified detainees.  Detainees may not, however, use a civil
rights complaint to "challenge the fact or length of their
detention." Rather, detainees must raise any claim "which would
impugn or otherwise overturn the fact or length of detention via a
criminal motion or a habeas petition." As a result, Judge Vazquez
would dismiss the Plaintiff's request for additional jail credits
for that reason as well.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Vazquez dismisses with
prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the United States, the
United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals
Service, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, the claims against Chief Judge Wolfson for monetary relief,
and the claims against Governor Murphy in his official capacity for
monetary relief. He dismisses the remainder of the Plaintiff's
federal claims without prejudice and decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. An appropriate
Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/s3xn4c2v from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schneider, writing for VCY America, reports that all over the
country, chaos is erupting as forced COVID shots are being mandated
by government agencies and by private employers. WND.com reports
that 40% of TSA agents have not received the shot as the mandate
deadline looms. Many pilots are protesting the requirement and
saying this is only the beginning of transportation woes. State
troopers and police officers in many states are saying they will
not accept this forced shot and as such they are either retiring or
being terminated. Just imagine how this is going to impact public
safety.

The medical field is also reeling from this as medical personnel
across the country are losing their jobs. They at one time were
applauded, now they are despised. Western Journal reported that an
anesthesiologist at UCLA was escorted out of the UCLA medical plaza
and placed on unpaid administrative leave for refusing the jab.
Nurses in Illinois have seen a "blanket denial" to their religious
exemptions.

Less than two weeks ago Attorney Mat Staver was with us on
Crosstalk indicating they Liberty Counsel was preparing a class
action lawsuit against the Biden Administration on behalf of
members of the armed forces, federal employees and contractors who
have been unlawfully mandated to the COVID shots or who face
dishonorable discharges from the military or termination of
employment. [GN]

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Court Refuses to Accept Caldwell Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY CALDWELL, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-02861 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies preliminary approval for the proposed
class action settlement.

Judge Alsup states that sadly, it is another class settlement
proposal in which the class counsel get vast amounts of cash but
the class members get merely a cosmetic settlement. Under the
proposed settlement, the parties have agreed that the class counsel
will get $875,000 under a clear sailing agreement.

In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th
Cir. 2011), the court of appeals has held that it is a red flag
indicating a potentially collusive settlement, because "when the
parties negotiate a 'clear sailing' arrangement providing for the
payment of attorneys' fees separate and apart from class funds," a
settlement carries a risk of "enabling a defendant to pay class
counsel excessive fees and costs in exchange for counsel accepting
an unfair settlement on behalf of the class." In fact, the Court's
prior order regarding class actions and class action settlements
forbids such agreements for this exact reason. The proposed
settlement is further unfair to the class members because it is
impossible to know if they will qualify under the new criteria or
not.

A prior order asked the parties to analyze how many class members
would qualify. United found that six class members are likely
ineligible, four class members meet many of the criteria for
eligibility, 13 class members meet most of the criteria, and five
class members lack sufficient records for a determination of
potential eligibility under the criteria.

The Plaintiffs' independent analysis of eligibility found that five
members likely meet the criteria, that seven will be disqualified
based on symptoms linked to comorbid lymphedema, and that 15
members' files lack sufficient evidence to determine eligibility
(e.g., their files did not include photographs).

Both parties state that updated information is needed to
definitively determine eligibility. United points out that the
evidence provided by treating doctors in support of prior requests
for liposuction may not have been complete because the submissions
were based on the prior policy. The Plaintiffs also point out that
existing records could be supplemented by class members seeking
reprocessing of their claim and that more complete records will
likely garner more approvals.

Judge Alsup finds that these responses underscore one issue with
the settlement, namely, that the class members must submit new
claims with supplemental information instead of United
automatically readjudicating the prior claims. Thus, he says, the
class members bear the burden of righting an improper denial.
United does not even agree to affirmatively request the additional
information needed for reprocessing prior denials of the class
members still covered by United or to work with physicians of
denied class members.

True, the Plaintiff's expert has submitted a declaration stating
that the new agreed-upon criteria are reasonable. That is hardly an
unbiased source. Of course the Plaintiff's counsel, once the
parties agreed on the $875,000 in attorney's fees, has a strong
prejudice in favor of the deal.

But even if the new agreed-upon criteria were reasonable in the
case, Judge Alsup holds that it would be unfair to bind the class
to the criteria forever and prevent them from challenging the
reasonableness of the criteria (even if they can dispute the
application of the criteria to their particular circumstances with
their own ERISA claim). The agreement provides no help from the
class counsel to obtain coverage under the new regime. The
agreement provides no assurance that class counsel will represent
class members if their claim is denied under the new criteria and
they seek to bring an ERISA action challenging the application of
the new criteria to their particular circumstances.

The settlement waives all damages claims with the exception of a
fund for out-of-pocket expenses, which is determined as follows
(Settlement at 8): For class members who have paid out of pocket
for liposuction to treat lipedema and who are not covered under a
United Plan as of the Effective Date, there will be an aggregate
cap of $76,200 for all such claims. If this cap is exceeded by 10%
($83,820), then the parties will negotiate in good faith to
formulate a new cap based upon the amount of the approved claims
not to exceed a cap of up to an additional $123,800 (for an overall
total of $200,000).

If the out-of-pocket expenses of class members exceed the $83,820
in funds, then United is under no obligation to formulate a new
cap, it must only negotiate in good faith. If the out-of-pocket
expenses surpass $200,000 then the class members will be out of
luck for any amount above that.

Judge Alsup attempted to appoint an independent expert to determine
the extent to which deserving patients would be denied coverage
under the new medical criteria. He contacted Dr. Karen Herbst, a
medical doctor and researcher specializing in adipose disorders,
who was willing to serve as a court-appointed medical expert under
Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Dr. Herbst was introduced to both
parties in a telephone conference and was questioned about
potential conflicts of interest. United then objected on multiple
grounds, including the fact that Dr. Herbst participated in a May
2019 telephonic meeting with United's medical policy committee to
discuss the use of liposuction for lipedema. This warranted
excusing Dr. Herbst from serving as a court-appointed expert. Judge
Alsup has been left to evaluate the medical criteria without an
expert independent to the parties.

Judge Alsup sees such a large fee for the attorneys, little benefit
to the class members, and substantial downsides to the class --
namely, that the class members are forced to accept the new medical
criteria and cannot challenge them (even when they do not qualify
under the new criteria) and that potentially deserving class
members will be excluded. For these reasons, Judge Alsup denies
preliminary approval for the proposed settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jentwc2x from Leagle.com.


USAPS LLC: Christopher Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Christopher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. USAPS, LLC d/b/a US AUTOMOTIVE PROTECTION
SERVICES, LLC, US AUTOMOTIVE PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC, BRANDON
SCHRADER, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 10, and OTHER JOHN DOE
ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 10, all whose true names are unknown, Case No.
4:21-cv-01209-JAR (E.D. Mo., Oct. 11, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants for their violations under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, by
placing auto-dialed calls to individuals on both the FTC
do-not-call registry and who should be on an internal do-not-call
list.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants does not obtain prior
express written consent to place these autodialed telemarketing
calls, does not abide by the FTC's do-not-call list, and does not
maintain its own internal do-not-call list, and, therefore, is in
violation of the TCPA. These autodialed calls placed by Defendants
caused Plaintiff and class members to suffer actual harm and legal
injury. Plaintiff has suffered aggravation, invasion of privacy,
nuisance due to receiving such calls. The Plaintiff and class
members suffered from the diminished use, enjoyment, utility, and
value of their telephones as these calls interfered with their
access to their cell and residential phones, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas who the
Defendants began contacting via telephone.

USAPS and US Auto, upon information and belief, makes auto-dialed
calls to individuals across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samantha J. Orlowski, Esq.
          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: (314) 451-1314
          Fax: (314) 787-4323
          Email: sam@hklawstl.com
                 joel@hklawstl.com


VAIL RESORTS: Judge Grants Motion to Pause Labor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Duncan, writing for Vail Daily, reports that a federal judge
granted a motion by Vail Resorts to pause a class-action lawsuit
filed in Colorado alleging improper compensation of its employees
while the company settles two similar lawsuits filed in
California.

The motion to stay the case filed in Colorado was strongly opposed
by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, who said it was part of a
plan by Vail Resorts to squash all the lawsuits for the least
amount of money possible and without having to change its
compensation policies.

The two California cases are also seeking class-action status, so
Vail Resorts has argued that settling the two matters should
"resolve and release all outstanding claims against Vail Resorts,"
including the case filed in Colorado.

The California cases contain "weaker claims" that are more limited
in scope than the Colorado case and therefore they should not be
treated as parallel cases, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
Colorado case said in a statement opposing the motion to stay their
case.

The Colorado case "must be allowed to continue in order to end Vail
Resorts' egregious treatment of ski instructors and other hourly
employees," one of the plaintiffs in the case wrote in a
declaration opposing the motion.

"Unless this suit continues and the court determines that Vail
Resorts is violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, these abuses
will continue on a huge scale," the declaration reads.

Gordon P. Gallagher, a federal judge assisting with the Colorado
case, disagreed in an order filed Friday, Oct. 15, that granted the
motion to postpone the case for 90 days.

This order pauses matters pending in the case, meaning Vail Resorts
will not have to produce any of the evidence associated with the
alleged improper compensation requested by the plaintiffs and vice
versa.

Also pending -- and now postponed -- is a request by the plaintiffs
to send information about the lawsuit to current and former
employees who may be eligible to join the case and receive
compensation.

Edward Dietrich, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Colorado case,
declined to comment. Dietrich is representing the now 16 plaintiffs
along with Benjamin Galdston.

Vail Resorts is represented by Jonathan O. Harris and Michelle B.
Muhleisen. Neither Harris and Muhleisen nor Vail Resorts responded
to requests for comment.

A bit of background
The Colorado case was first filed in December 2020 in Colorado
District Court on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark
Molina, who are current or former employees at Beaver Creek
Resort.

The case alleges that Vail Resorts violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as state labor laws in Colorado and eight
other states. The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action
status to prosecute the case on behalf of a larger group or "class"
impacted by the allegations, which, in this case, are current and
former employees who worked for Vail Resorts over the past three
years.

Since the December filing, the three original named plaintiffs have
been joined by 13 other plaintiffs from various states who opted to
join the class-action lawsuit, according to court documents filed
in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The
plaintiffs' allegations include improper compensation for time
worked and improper reimbursement for work-related expenses as well
as "breach of contract and unjust enrichment."

"Vail Resorts is, and has always been, committed to treating its
employees fairly and in compliance with all applicable laws," Jamie
Alvarez, the company's director of corporate communications, wrote
in a statement.

Meanwhile, Vail Resorts has been litigating two similar cases filed
in California District Court by former employees alleging
violations of state labor laws, unbeknownst to the Colorado
plaintiffs or their attorneys.

Defendants involved in potential class-action lawsuits are required
to file a "notice of related case" to let plaintiffs know that
other similar complaints have been filed, Dietrich and Galdston
wrote in a response to Vail Resorts' recent motion to postpone
their case.

According to the Civil Rules for the District of Colorado, parties
must file notice of related cases "at the time of its first
appearance or the filing of its first pleading or document, or
other matter addressed to the court."

By this point, the company had already extended a settlement offer
to plaintiffs in the two cases. The notice was filed alongside the
motion to postpone, or "stay," the Colorado lawsuit for 90 days
while the California settlement procedures take place.

In a response to Vail Resorts' motion to stay the Colorado case,
Dietrich and Galdston said the company should not be rewarded for
what they deemed to be "litigation misconduct."

Alvarez declined to answer a question about why Vail Resorts and
its attorneys failed to file a notice of related case for so long.

A ruling in favor of Vail Resorts
"This court also does not find evidence of the bad behavior listed
by plaintiffs," Judge Gallagher wrote in his order granting Vail
Resorts' motion to stay the case. He cited a different rule than
the local Civil Rules for the District of Colorado, which Dietrich
and Galdston said Vail Resorts violated.

Beyond the alleged misconduct, Dietrich and Galdston said the
claims made in the Colorado case are broader than those made in the
California cases and, therefore, would not be resolved by a
settlement in those cases.

The two California cases are seeking class-action status to
prosecute claims on behalf of a much smaller, California-based
class. The Colorado case, on the other hand, is seeking
class-action status under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
would allow current and former Vail Resorts employees across
various states to opt in and receive compensation.

Gallagher's order was brief, barely six pages, but it gave an
overview of the five criteria, based in legal precedent, that
Gallagher used to come to his decision.

First is to consider the plaintiffs' interests in resolving their
case in a timely manner and "the potential prejudice to (the)
plaintiff of a delay." The second piece of this could refer to a
case's statute of limitations, a law that sets a time limit on how
long legal matters can be prosecuted after the criminal or civil
allegations occur.

Gallagher said this piece was fine given that the proposed stay is
only 90 days and that Vail Resorts offered to stop the clock on the
statute of limitations during that time.

The next two criteria are "burden on the defendants" and
"convenience to the court," according to the order.

Gallagher found that requiring Vail Resorts to start producing a
bunch of evidence around compensation policies and time sheets for
employees when they are about to settle similar lawsuits places an
"undue burden" on the company.

"Proceeding with discovery at a time when there is pending approval
of a settlement would be a waste of defendant's resources,
especially when 12 of the 22 counts in (the Colorado case) pertain
to (claims made in the California cases)," the order reads.

If plaintiffs in the Colorado case decide to opt out of receiving
compensation with the California settlement offer or if "any
non-overlapping claims exist after the settlement," then Vail
Resorts will be asked to present the requested evidence, and the
case will continue.

As to convenience to the court, "judicial efficiency would be best
served by staying discovery while a settlement related to
plaintiffs' claims is being finalized," Gallagher wrote in the
order.

The fourth factor is the interests of any other people who are not
directly involved in the case, which Gallagher said does not apply
here, and the fifth is public interest.

"Regarding the fifth factor, 'the general public's primary interest
in this case is an efficient and just resolution,'" the order
reads.

"We dispute the accuracy of the claims raised by the plaintiffs,
however, to avoid the time-consuming and costly nature of further
litigation, the parties involved have negotiated a tentative
settlement and will seek court approval to finalize and ensure the
outcome is a fair resolution to all," Alvarez said in his statement
on behalf of Vail Resorts.

Vail Resorts must submit documents related to the settlement offer
by Friday, Oct. 22, at which point a hearing will be held to
determine whether a judge wants to grant preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement.

As the California settlements go forward with the Colorado case
postponed, employees that cash in on the settlement offer give up
their legal rights to join the Colorado case.

In recent court documents, Dietrich and Galdston have expressed
intentions to push for full compensation for unpaid wages owed to
plaintiffs in their case. They will also seek "injunctive relief,"
a legal measure that could force Vail Resorts to change its
policies around compensation.

Alvarez declined to disclose the exact settlement offer proposed in
the two California cases but said Vail Resorts believes it is
"appropriate and fair."

After the 90-day stay in the Colorado case is up, the two parties
are required to contact the court within three days to schedule a
status conference to discuss next steps. [GN]

VENICE BAKERY: Edeza Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Edeza, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Venice Bakery, Innovative Baking, LLC, Rich
Products Corporation doing business as: Venice Bakery, Does 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV31081 was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-08087-ODW-MAA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

Venice Bakery -- https://www.venicebakery.com/ -- boasts a
state-of-the-art 100% gluten-free facility, producing the very best
and innovative gluten-free and plant-based pizza crusts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq.
          LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anna Tran Pham, Esq.
          Derek K Ishikawa, Esq.
          Ferry Eden Bagona Lopez, Esq.
          HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
          233 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (415) 835-9000
          Fax: (415) 834-0443
          Email: apham@hkemploymentlaw.com
                 dishikawa@hkemploymentlaw.com
                 flopez@hkemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Monte Kyle Grix, Esq.
          HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
          456 Montgomery Street Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94014
          Phone: (415) 835-9000
          Fax: (415) 835-0443
          Email: mgrix@hkemploymentlaw.com


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Vipshop
Holdings Ltd. ("Vipshop" or the "Company") (NYSE: VIPS) from March
22, 2021 through March 29, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

If you purchased Vipshop securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Vipshop Holdings Ltd
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com.

According to the complaint, Defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley traded while in possession of material non-public
information and that: (1) Defendants obtained the material
non-public information pursuant to their agreements with Archegos
Capital Management's ("Archegos") and as a result of their serving
as prime brokers of Archegos. (2) Defendants knew, recklessly
disregarded, or should have known that they owed a fiduciary duty,
or obligation arising from a similar relationship of trust and
confidence, to Archegos to keep the information confidential. (3)
Nevertheless, while in possession of material, non-public adverse
information, Defendants collectively sold billions of dollars'
worth of Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (VIPS) shares.

During one week in late March 2021, investment banks Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley traded on inside information by selling large
amounts of VIPS stock based on then publicly undisclosed
information obtained through their relationship with troubled
multi-billion dollar family office Archegos Capital Management.

On this news, shares of Vipshop Holdings Ltd. stock fell over 37%
during the week of March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 13, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Vipshop securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/vipshopholdingsltd-vips-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-445/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information:

Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]

VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan Stanley ("Morgan Stanley") and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Vipshop Holdings Ltd. ("Vipshop" or the
"Company") (NYSE: VIPS) American Depository Shares (ADS) between
March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vips.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
traded while in possession of material non-public information and
that: (1) Defendants obtained the material non-public information
pursuant to their agreements with Archegos Capital Management's
("Archegos") and as a result of their serving as prime brokers of
Archegos. (2) Defendants knew, recklessly disregarded, or should
have known that they owed a fiduciary duty, or obligation arising
from a similar relationship of trust and confidence, to Archegos to
keep the information confidential. (3) Nevertheless, while in
possession of material, non-public adverse information, Defendants
collectively sold billions of dollars' worth of Company shares.
Later, when the information became publicly known, the price of the
Company's common stock declined sharply as a result of such
disclosure.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/vips or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Vipshop you have until December 13, 2021, to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Vipshop Holdings Ltd.
(NYSE:VIPS) shares contemporaneously with Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
and Morgan Stanley's allegedly unlawful trades from March 22, 2021
through and including March 29, 2021 (the "Class Period") have
until December 13, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
Tan v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., No. 21-cv-08413, the Vipshop class
action lawsuit. The Vipshop class action lawsuit charges Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Vipshop class action lawsuit was commenced on
October 12, 2021 in the Southern District of New York and is
assigned to Judge Paul A. Crotty.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Vipshop class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Vipshop class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than December 13, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Vipshop class action lawsuit alleges that
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold Vipshop shares to public
shareholders after confidentially learning that Archegos Capital
Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under
management, failed (or was likely to fail) to meet a margin call,
requiring it to fully liquidate its position in Vipshop. The
Vipshop class action lawsuit further alleges that Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses by trading on this
alleged material non-public information. As further alleged by the
Vipshop class action lawsuit, according to subsequent media
reports, defendants unloaded large block trades consisting of
shares of Archegos' doomed bets, including billions worth of
Vipshop securities, late Thursday, March 25, 2021, before the
Archegos story reached the public, sending Vipshop's stock into a
complete tailspin.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Vipshop
shares during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Vipshop class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Vipshop class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Vipshop class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Vipshop class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

WASHINGTON: Rogers Given More Time to Reply to Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL ROGERS, et al., Plaintiffs v. DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C21-5248-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash.), Magistrate Judge Michelle L.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order:

   a. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to
      Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment;

   b. striking the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
      without prejudice to refiling; and

   c. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a first
      amended complaint.

Background

The case is a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights class action. In
the case, the Plaintiffs filed claims against the Washington State
Department of Children, Youth, and Families ("DCYF") and 11 DCYF
employees on the basis that Defendants, through DCYF's Juvenile
Rehabilitation Division, are actively engaged in handcuffing and
holding youths in solitary cells to punish or coerce compliance
with DCYF staff.

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

On Aug. 23, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs an extension of
time to join additional defendants, and on Sept. 7, 2021, the
Plaintiffs submitted their Motion to Amend Complaint. However,
prior to the Plaintiffs' submission of their Motion to Amend
Complaint, the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment
on Sept. 2, 2021. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
primarily argues that Defendants Jody Becker, Rebecca Kelly,
Marybeth Queral, Harvey Perez, Jennifer Redman, Benny Swenson,
Anthony Harper, William Dollarhyde, Oswaldo Rosero, and Michael
Smith are entitled to qualified immunity. On Sept. 9, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed their Extension Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(d), arguing that they require additional
discovery to properly respond to the Defendants' qualified immunity
defense asserted in their Motion for Summary Judgment. On Sept. 15,
2021, the Defendants filed a response opposing the Plaintiffs'
Extension Motion. On Sept. 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a reply
in support of their Extension Motion.

On Sept. 20, 2021, the Defendants filed a response opposing the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint and the Plaintiffs filed a
response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. On Sept.
24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a reply to their Motion to Amend
Complaint and the Defendants filed a reply to their Motion for
Summary Judgment.

Discussion

A. Motion to Strike

First, in the Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Extension Motion,
the Defendants note that the Plaintiffs' counsel failed to meet and
confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the Plaintiffs'
Extension Motion. The Plaintiffs respond that any technical
violation of the Court's meet and confer requirement was remedied,
and in any event, the Defendants were not prejudiced by the
failure.

Judge Peterson finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel promptly cured
their failure to meet and confer before filing the Extension
Motion. As noted in the record, he finds that the Plaintiffs'
counsel promptly remedied the initial failure to meet and confer by
contacting the Defendants' counsel two days after filing the
Extension Motion. At that time, the Defendants did not indicate
they were prejudiced by the Plaintiffs' failure to meet and confer
and that their position would have remained the same regardless if
the meeting had occurred. Furthermore, the Defendants do not
presently argue that they were prejudiced by the Plaintiffs'
counsel's initial failure to meet and confer.

As such, Judge Peterson declines the Defendants' request to strike
the Plaintiffs' Extension Motion and, therefore, will consider its
merits.

B. Motion for Extension of Time

Next, per the Plaintiffs' Extension Motion, the Plaintiffs note
that the Defendants submitted a declaration from Green Hill School
("GHS") Superintendent Jennifer Redman in support of their Motion
for Summary Judgment that includes statements of fact and opinion.
As a result, the Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to an
extension of time to respond so that they may seek appropriate
discovery to address Superintendent Redman's allegations and the
basis for the Defendants' qualified immunity defense.

The Plaintiffs argue that further factual development is needed
through discovery because the Defendants' safety justification for
the handcuffing practices is pretextual. They additionally argue
the Defendants have advocated the necessity of their strip search
practices due to contraband concerns but have refused to provide
the Plaintiffs with any discovery regarding the prevalence of such
searches. The Defendants counter that an extension of time to
respond is not warranted because the Plaintiffs can raise Rule
56(d) in their response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and because the Plaintiffs failed to identify facts that
would change the Court's qualified immunity analysis

Judge Peterson finds that an extension of the Plaintiffs' time to
respond to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is
warranted.  She finds that the Plaintiffs' Extension Motion was
timely filed, and as previously noted by the Court, the Plaintiffs
have been diligent in engaging in the discovery process.
Furthermore, based on the record before the Court, Judge Peterson
finds Superintendent Redman's declaration includes allegations
regarding the Defendants' qualified immunity defense to the
Plaintiffs' claims that the Plaintiffs will need further discovery
to address. In addition, she notes the Defendants filed their
dispositive motion early in the case. The dispositive motions
deadline is not until July 25, 2022, and a trial date has not yet
been set.

Accordingly, Judge Peterson finds the Plaintiffs have adequately
demonstrated a need for an extension of time to respond to the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

C. Motion to Amend Complaint

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint requests leave to: (1)
remove claims pursuant to prior agreement between the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants; (2) to update factual allegations relating to
the ongoing nature of the Defendants' practice of handcuffing youth
in solitary confinement; and (3) to add 11 additional Defendants
recently identified through discovery.

The Defendants argue that though the Plaintiffs were given leave to
amend to add additional defendants by the Court, the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint attempts to correct deficiencies regarding
injunctive and declaratory relief under the Eleventh Amendment
before Judge Richard A. Jones has ruled on the Court's Report and
Recommendation that recommended granting such leave. Consequently,
the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs put the cart before the
horse in attempting to amend where the Court has not yet granted
leave. In the alternative, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs'
proposed amendments would be futile because the Plaintiffs' amended
declaratory and injunctive claims remain barred under the Eleventh
Amendment and because Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive
relief.

Judge Peterson finds that granting leave to amend the Plaintiffs'
claims would not be futile, and therefore, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend Complaint. Due to the pending nature of the Court's
previous Report and Recommendation authorizing the Plaintiffs leave
to amend, the Plaintiffs are directed to file their amended
complaint within 30 days of Judge Jones' determination of the
Report and Recommendation. The amended complaint must conform to
Judge Jones' decision.

D. Motion for Summary Judgment

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Extension Motion requests that the Court
considers the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at the same
time it considers the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motions for class
certification and preliminary injunction, which the Plaintiffs aver
they will file concurrently. The Plaintiffs argue that factual
issues related to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment are
relevant to whether the Court should grant class certification, how
to appropriately define the class, and whether to issue preliminary
injunctive relief. Per stipulation of the parties on Sept. 28,
2021, the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
certification was extended from Dec. 3, 2021, to March 4, 2022.

Judge Peterson holds that the Defendants will not be prejudiced by
the Court's deferred consideration of their Motion for Summary
Judgment due to the necessary discovery that must occur for the
Plaintiffs to respond to the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' amended
complaint. Therefore, based on the Court's grant of the Plaintiffs'
Extension Motion and Motion to Amend Complaint, Judge Peterson
administratively strikes the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and defers its consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d)(1).

In the interest of judicial economy, the Defendants are directed to
re-file their Motion for Summary Judgment after the Plaintiffs have
filed their amended complaint. Though the Court's consideration of
the Defendants' qualified immunity defense may impact its
consideration of the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motions, at this time,
Judge Peterson declines to defer its consideration of the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment any further.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Peterson granted the Plaintiffs'
Extension Motion and Motion to Amend Complaint. The Plaintiffs will
file their amended complaint within 30 days of Judge Jones'
determination of the Court's previous Report and Recommendation
that conforms with Judge Jones' ruling. The Plaintiffs are further
directed to file an accurate redline with the submission of their
amended complaint. Accordingly, Judge Peterson strikes the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to
refiling upon submission of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of the Order to the parties
and to Judge Jones.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wz5nkkr from Leagle.com.


WHOLE FOODS: Cerretti Sues Over Mislabeled Ice Cream Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA CERRETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05516 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 17, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant misrepresented the labeling in its "Organic Chocolate Ice
Cream Bars," or more specifically, "Organic Vanilla Ice Cream
Dipped in Organic Chocolate," depicted amidst chunks of chocolate,
under its 365 brand ("Product").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
representations are misleading because the Product has less
chocolate than consumers expect.

The representations include describing the ice cream bar as coated
in "Chocolate" and "Dipped in Organic Chocolate," next to a
chocolate coated bar, alongside numerous chunks of chocolate. Had
Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would
not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, says
the suit.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. was founded in 1990. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of a range of canned
foods and dry goods. [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

WORKFORCE INC: Faces $10MM Class Action Over Unpaid Training Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren MacDonald, writing for CTV News, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed by a Toronto-area firm is seeking $10
million from two Sudbury-area staffing agencies.

The suit alleges workers were unpaid for training hours, in
contravention of the Ontario Employment Standards Act. The class
action suit has not yet been certified, and the law firm is looking
for others in the same situation to join.

The claim alleges Workforce Inc. and SOS (Sudbury) required
employees to complete training but did not pay them, and sometimes
demanded they pay any costs associated with the training out of
their own pockets, again contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers in Toronto has applied to the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice to certify the claim by a former
client of both agencies.

"Monkhouse Law is also actively seeking others who were not paid
for undertaking training programs in contravention of the Ontario
Employment Standards Act," the email said.

"At this stage, we are looking to the court to certify this as a
class action and to allow the court to deal with the action for the
group because there are many others in the same situation," lawyer
Alexandra Monkhouse said in the release.

"This is the first step of the legal journey toward justice because
the Employment Standards Act is quite clear about this. Time spent
in training that is required by the employer or the law as a
condition of employment will be considered working time and must be
compensated."

The claim alleges Workforce and SOS systemically required employees
to complete training but did not pay them and sometimes demanded
they pay any costs associated with the training out of their own
pockets.

"Individually, they could never afford to hire legal counsel and to
mount this case but that's what Class Actions are for," Monkhouse
said.

"This is a group of people who were wronged by the actions of these
companies and they deserve compensation. It also sends a strong
message to employers not to take advantage of employees."

The claim seeks $10 million to cover lost wages which includes $4
million in punitive damages.

Anyone in a similar situation in the north is asked to contact
their office and share their details at monkhouselaw.com.

Toronto-based Monkhouse Law is an employment law firm specializing
in wrongful dismissal, human rights law, labour law, employment
insurance claims, and denied long-term disability claims.

None of the allegations in the proposed lawsuit have been tried in
court. [GN]

[*] Allens Discusses Key Class Action Developments From 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
Alnes Linklaters disclosed that 2021 has been an unusual year in
many respects and class actions have not been immune from both the
pressures and distractions of COVID-19, and other challenges not
linked to the pandemic. With nine months of the year behind us, a
reasonably clear picture of class action activity is starting to
take shape.

As many of our clients are curious about how these issues are
affecting class action risk, we are releasing this interim update
to provide a high-level snapshot of trends and developments so far
this year.

Our annual Class Action Risk publication will be released early in
the new year to provide a holistic assessment of the impact of
those trends and developments on class action risk.

2021: changing trends or an anomaly?
New filings down
In recent years, we have reported a clear trend of increasing
filings – with a sustained material uptick since 2017. This trend
does not, however, appear to have continued into 2021. Based on an
extrapolation of filings data to 30 September, it looks like
filings in 2021 will come in at around 2014-2016 levels.

It remains to be seen whether this is indicative of a broader
trend, or an anomaly caused by the uncertainties associated with
the funding landscape (discussed below) and the impact of COVID-19
on business more generally. We are certainly not prepared to call a
downturn in class action activity at this stage.

The trends in respect of the number of competing class actions are
largely on par with the last two years and are therefore not the
driving factor for the downturn in claims.

Consumer claims dominate, but also a broad base of other claims
The recent trend of consumer claims dominating the landscape has
continued into 2021. The new consumer filings include claims in
relation to medical devices, superannuation fees, insurance
policies, electricity prices and freight services.

The emerging trend in respect of employment-related claims has also
continued. The claims filed in 2021 so far have related to alleged
underpayment of wages in the government, healthcare, mining and
industrials sectors.

There has also been a broadening base of other types of claims
including in respect of franchisees, treatment of indigenous
persons, environmental contamination, bushfires, resumption of land
and outbreaks of COVID-19.

Shareholder claims, once the most common form of class action, have
fallen to their lowest levels in over a decade. While this might be
attributed to the change in the law in relation to when damages can
be claimed for continuous disclosure breaches (see below), our
sense is that it is more likely to be the result of the pressures
and uncertainties in the funding environment (see also below) –
in that respect, we note that shareholder class actions are the
type of claim most likely to be third-party funded.

Government sector overtakes banking sector as biggest target
The banking and financial services sector has long been the biggest
target for class action filings. This year it is, however, the
government sector that has faced the most claims – this has
included claims in respect of the treatment of indigenous persons,
environmental contamination and damage, underpayment of federal
employees, prisoner safety, and COVID-19 lockdowns.

The healthcare sector has also faced a significant increase in
claims this year. These claims all relate to one type of medical
device (pelvic mesh) and the underpayment of junior doctors. Given
the concentration in these two types of claims, this may be a
momentary uptick for this sector rather than indicative of a
sustained increase in class action risk.

The banking & financial services sector comes in third with a
marked reduction in claims filed compared to previous years. This
is perhaps an indication that class actions arising from issues
exposed in the Royal Commission are beginning to tail off. However,
even if that is the case, we think it is too soon to make any
predictions in respect of a material decline in class action risk
for this sector.

Litigation funding – uncertainty continues
2021 has been another uncertain year for litigation funders, with
the trend of a reduced number of new filings being third-party
funded continuing from 2020.

This is likely to be the result of a combination of pressures on
funders. As discussed below, these include:

the implementation of the requirement for funders to be licensed
and for funding arrangements to comply with the requirements for
managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act;

   -- a proposal for a legislated rebuttable presumption that
funding outcomes that do not return 70% of the proceeds to class
members are not 'fair & reasonable';

   -- the availability of contingency fees for lawyers in class
actions in the Supreme Court of Victoria; and

   -- general uncertainty surrounding the courts' approach to
funding commissions and competing class actions.

Where are class actions being filed?
In Class Action Risk 2021 we noted that, while the Federal Court
was still attracting the vast majority of class action filings,
there had been a significant shift away from new filings in the
Supreme Court of NSW in 2020 in favour of new filings in the
Supreme Court of Victoria -- a shift which we attributed to the
availability of contingency fees for class actions in the Supreme
Court of Victoria. Interestingly, that trend has not been
maintained in 2021 -- while more claims have been filed in the
Supreme Court of Victoria than has historically been the case,
there have been slightly more claims filed in NSW than Victoria
this year.

While the Supreme Court of Queensland has a similar class actions
model to the courts mentioned above, no class actions have been
filed this year (up to 30 September). Two class actions (both in
relation to bushfires) were, however, filed in the South Australian
Supreme Court under its 'representative action' model.

Claims arising from COVID-19 issues
Unsurprisingly, there have been a number of class actions directly
arising from the pandemic. These include:

   -- three class actions brought on behalf of small businesses in
respect of business interruption insurance;

   -- a class action brought against the NSW Government in relation
to the risk of infection in NSW prisons; and

   -- a class action brought against the Victorian Government in
relation to the lockdown in public housing.

This follows six COVID-19-related class actions filed last year –
five in Victoria in respect of outbreaks from hotel quarantine and
in aged care facilities; and one in NSW in respect of the Ruby
Princess cruise ship outbreak.

Things to watch
Proposed legislative reform dealing with the reasonableness of
funding commissions, introducing a rebuttable presumption that a
return to group members in a funded class action of less than 70%
of the gross proceeds of a claim is not 'fair and reasonable'.

The appeal in the COVID-19 business interruption insurance test
cases, which is scheduled to be heard in November 2021 with a
decision expected before the end of the year -- the result of which
will have a significant bearing on the viability of the three
related class actions commenced in recent months.

The hearing of the appeal in the climate change class action
relating to the duty of care owed by the Minister for the
Environment which is scheduled for this month.

A decision in the appeal of the Federal Court's decision that
Worley did not breach its continuous disclosure obligations in only
the second shareholder class action to proceed to judgment. Also a
decision in the shareholder class action against Iluka Resources
following a hearing in May 2021.

The likely introduction of a class actions regime in the Supreme
Court of Western Australia (after more than a decade of debate and
consideration) following the introduction of a bill modeled on the
Federal Court regime in August 2021. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Uses Bankruptcy to Block Baby Powder Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mann, writing for npr.org, reports that Johnson & Johnson is
drawing criticism after using a controversial bankruptcy maneuver
to block roughly 38,000 lawsuits linked to claims that its talc
baby powder was contaminated with cancer-causing asbestos.

The health products giant used a quirk of Texas state law to spin
off a new company called LTL, then dumped all its asbestos-related
liabilities — including the avalanche of lawsuits — into the
new firm.

LTL filed for bankruptcy last week in a federal court in Charlotte,
N.C., a move designed to sharply limit efforts to recover damages
for those who say they were harmed by J&J's baby powder.

"Johnson & Johnson doesn't have this liability anymore. They pushed
all of it into the company they created just to file for
bankruptcy," said Lindsey Simon, a bankruptcy expert at the
University of Georgia School of Law.

As a result, Simon said, "consumers can't recover [damages] against
a big solvent company. They have to recover against this smaller
fictional company created [by J&J]."

The move sparked outrage from lawmakers and consumer advocates.

"J&J knew asbestos laced some bottles but kept it a secret for
decades," Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., tweeted on Tuesday. "Tens of
thousands of women with ovarian cancer are suing, and the company
wants to shield its assets."

In 2018, separate investigations by Reuters and The New York Times
revealed documents showing Johnson & Johnson fretted for decades
that small amounts of asbestos lurked in its baby powder, without
telling regulators.

J&J has repeatedly denied the claim. The company remains one of the
wealthiest corporations in the world, with more than $25 billion in
cash reserves, and has not filed for bankruptcy.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.41BB Asbestos Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., recorded a net asbestos reserves of
$1.41 billion at both September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder, as
well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial
rulings and legislative actions.  The Company also analyzes
developing payment patterns among policyholders and the assumed
reinsurance component of reserves, as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience,
year-by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves, and the Company's evaluations have not resulted
in a reliable method to determine a meaningful average asbestos
defense or indemnity payment.

The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third quarters
of 2021 and 2020 resulted in $225 million and $295 million
increases, respectively, to the Company's net asbestos reserves. In
both 2021 and 2020, the reserve increases were primarily driven by
increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders. The
increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
primarily resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher
than previously anticipated due to the continued high level of
mesothelioma claim filings and the impact of the current litigation
environment surrounding those claims. Over the past decade, the
property and casualty insurance industry, including the Company,
has experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with
regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over
that period there has been a reduction in the volatility associated
with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the overall
asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by exposure to
significant litigation risks, particularly coverage disputes
relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were asserting that
their claims were not subject to the aggregate limits contained in
their policies, to an environment primarily driven by a frequency
of litigation related to individuals with mesothelioma. The
Company's overall view of the current underlying asbestos
environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods, and there
remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future
exposure to asbestos claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3CoLA3o



                            *********

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 ***