---

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

              Thursday, November 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 230

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Gladney Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Knight Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
98TH STREET: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Auto Mechanics
ACCELLION INC: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Cochran Class Suit
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Garner Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California

AMARIN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Feb. 10, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERICAN HONDA: Sells Vehicles With Sunroof Defect, Tappana Claims
APPLE INC: OKs $30M to Settle Lawsuit Over Bag Check Policy
APPLE INC: U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh on App Store Monopoly Suit

ASTROTECH CORP: Settlement in Principle Entered in Stein Suit
AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Detail Police Searches Investigation to NME
AYZENBERG GROUP: Faces Ulbrich Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
BELLEROSE HALAL: Faces Reyes Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Butchers
BLINK CHARGING: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 6 Deadline
BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Carlson Suit Sought
CALDER OPERATIONS: Ghauri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
CAPITAL MERCHANT: Lateral Recovery Sues Over Usurious Interests
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Protect Users

DBI SERVICES: Priest Sues Over Ilegal Termination
DERBY WINGS: Duncan et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
DYNAGAS LNG: $1.125M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
EARGO INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 6 Deadline
ENVIROTECH VEHICLES: Faces Mollik Purported Class Action

EXCELSIOR MINING: Issued Misleading Prospectus, Class Action Says
FINANCIAL CENTER: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Rivera Suit Affirmed
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Smith Suit
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Faces Stuart Suit Over 12% Drop of Stock Price
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Montana Court Narrows Claims in Sides Class Suit

GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY: Dicorte Files FLSA Suit in Florida
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Dec. 6 Hearing on Bid to Nix Consolidated Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Robins Kaplan Discusses UK Supreme Court Ruling
H&J INVESTMENTS: Regalado Slams Unpaid OT, Biometric Data Retention
HALLRICH INC: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Dimidik Says

HIREQUEST INC: Settles Class Action in Canada for $200K
HOEGH LNG: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 27 Deadline
HSBC BANK: Judge Certifies Class Action Over $30MM Ponzi Scheme
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement Agreement Entered in McNair Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement Reached in Nguyen Class Suit

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Summary Ruling on Preferred B Voting Rights Upheld
INTREPID DETOX: Monroe Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
INVITATION HOMES: Court Extends Class Cert. Briefing in Rivera Suit
JARDINE LLOYD: Class Action Hearings Conclude in NSW Supreme Court
JUUL LABS: Escambia School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth

JUUL LABS: Haleyville City Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Autauga County Says
KURA SUSHI: $1.75M Settlement Reached in Gomes Suit
LANE LOGIX: Underpays Traffic Controllers, Hosmer Suit Claims
LEDGER SAS: Baton's 1st Amended Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
LIVE NATION: Rosen Law Probes Firm for Possible Securities Lawsuit
LML HOSPITALITY: Segarra Files Labor Class Action in N.Y.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Class Cert. in Davis Suit Flipped

MAPLE HILL: Milk Products Contain Sugar, Stevenson Suit Alleges
MEREDITH CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action
MICHIGAN: Western District Court Dismisses Moore v. MDOC & LCF Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Jan. 21 Claims Review Deadline in Canada Suits
MONMOUTH REAL STATE: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Maryland

NATIONAL DELIVERY: Order Denying Arbitration in Cuneo Suit Reversed
NATIONAL GENERAL: Dismissal of Davie Police Securities Suit Upheld
NOVAVAX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
NOVAVAX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
NOVAVAX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline

NOVAVAX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
ON24 INC: Goemer Sues Over Share Price Drop
OS RESTAURANT: Sanders Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit for Waitresses
PADDY MURPHYS: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dancers
PEPPERIDGE FARM: New York Court Dismisses Kamara Consumer Suit

PILOT TRAVEL: Waltrip's Reply to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Nov. 29
PILOT TRAVEL: Waltrip's Time to Reply to Arbitration Bid Extended
PIZZA HUT: Delivery Driver Sues Franchisee Over Work Expenses
SALVATION ARMY: Faces Class Action Over Rehabilitation Program
SNAP INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 10, 2022 Deadline

SOUTHWEST SOCCER: Faces Class Action Over Robocall Texts
TENNESSEE: Faces Class Action Over Ban on Mask Mandates
TIMIOS INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged July 2021 Data Breach
TRAVELERS HOME: $3.4M Class Deal in Stechert Suit Wins Prelim. OK
TRUE SELECT: Faces Larson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation

U.S. BANCORP: Appeal Pending in Visa Damages Action
UNITED STATES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in PACER Fee Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: S.D. New York Moves Susana v. ICE to E.D. Virginia
USIC LOCATING: Nicholson FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
WAVELAND SERVICES: $290K Class Deal in McClure Suit Wins Final OK

ZILLOW GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
ZUMIEZ INC: Status Conference in Herrera Suit Continued to Dec. 9

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Gladney Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEVI GLADNEY, 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-03792-RMG
(D.S.C., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Knight Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK KNIGHT, as Administrator of the Estate of Peter Knight,
deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03794-RMG
(D.S.C., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Decedent was diagnosed with prostate cancer and leukemia. His
diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

98TH STREET: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Auto Mechanics
---------------------------------------------------------------
GENARO RAMOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 98TH STREET AUTO SERVICE INC. d/b/a/ SHELL
GAS STATION, ASTORIA AUTO CENTER INC. d/b/a BP GAS STATION, ASTORIA
AUTO CARE, INC. d/b/a BP GAS STATION, NARINDER SINGH, HARDEEP
SINGH, and JASSPRED SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06429
(E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated mechanics overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto mechanic
from July 4, 2019 until February 21, 2021.

98th Street Auto Service Inc., doing business as Shell Gas Station,
is an operator of a gas station located in Corona, New York.

Astoria Auto Center Inc., doing business as BP Gas Station, is an
operator of a gas station located in Astoria, New York.

Astoria Auto Care, Inc., doing business as BP Gas Station, is an
operator of a gas station located in Astoria, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Justin Cilenti, Esq.
         Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
         CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
         200 Park Avenue - 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 209-3933
         Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
         E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

ACCELLION INC: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Cochran Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied the Proposed
Intervenor's motion to intervene in the case, RICKY COCHRAN, et
al., Plaintiffs v. ACCELLION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-01887-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Introduction

Following an unauthorized data breach of their sensitive personal
information, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging
that the Defendants failed to secure their information in violation
of various state and federal laws. James Jones, Tina Govaert,
Lenora Doty, Tracy Simpson, Elizabeth Shaw, Ann Marie Strohm, Kevin
Corbett, Eula Douglas, Delilah Parker, Alexander Buck, Caren-Butler
Alexander, Karen Godovchik, and Michael Godovchik ("Proposed
Intervenors") seek to intervene in the action and oppose
preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed settlement. The
Plaintiffs and the Defendants both oppose the Proposed Intervenor's
motion to intervene.

Background

In December 2020, Defendant Accellion notified its clients that it
had experienced a data breach. In February 2021, Kroger publicly
confirmed that the personal information of its pharmacy customers
and employees was compromised in the data breach. Kroger confirmed
that "names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, information to process insurance
claims, prescription information such as prescription number,
prescribing doctor, medication names and dates, medical history, as
well as certain clinical services, such as whether the customer
ordered an influenza test" were released (alteration in original).

Several lawsuits, including the action, were filed after the data
breach was announced. On June 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for
preliminary approval of a nationwide class action settlement.
Thereafter, the Proposed Intervenors moved to intervene in the
action. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have filed
opposition briefs. On Sept. 9, 2021, the Proposed Intervenors filed
their reply brief.

Discussion

The Proposed Intervenors argue that the Court must permit them to
intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) because the Parties' proposed
settlement is deficient and does not protect the Proposed
Intervenor's interests. In the alternative, the Proposed
Intervenors argue that they should be allowed to permissively
intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B).

A. Intervention as of Right

To show a right to intervene, a party must show it has (1) a
significant protectable interest, (2) which may be impaired or
impeded, (3) the application is timely, and (4) lack of adequate
representation by the existing parties. "Failure to satisfy any one
of the requirements is fatal to the application, and the court need
not reach the remaining elements if one of the elements is not
satisfied."

Judge Davila holds that the Proposed Intervenors fail to identify a
protectable interest that will be impaired if they are unable to
intervene. They argue that intervention is required because the
terms of the settlement are unfair. Problematically, there is no
"significantly protectable interest incumbent in an opportunity to
object to preliminary approval," because "the Court will make its
determination as to whether final approval should be granted based
on the law and facts before it at that point in time and will not
be influenced by previously granted preliminary approval." Thus,
even assuming Proposed Interveners possess a protectable interest
in the final settlement, that interest alone does not support
intervention at this stage.

But, even assuming it did, the Court has already twice heard
Proposed Intervenors' objections to the proposed settlement --
first at the August 2021 hearing regarding preliminary approval of
the settlement and again at the hearing regarding this motion. It
is thus impossible for Proposed Intervenors to maintain that
intervention is necessary to protect their ability to object to the
settlement.

Finally, courts in this circuit have consistently held that
"intervention of right is unavailable" where, as in the case, the
settlement agreement allows the putative intervenors to protect
their interests by opting out of the settlement class or
participating in the fairness hearing process.

Because the Proposed Intervenors have not demonstrated a
significantly protectable interest, Judge Davila denies their
motion to intervene as of right.

B. Permissive Intervention

In the alternative, the Proposed Intervenors move for permissive
intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). A court may grant permissive
intervention when the applicant for intervention shows (1)
independent grounds for jurisdiction, (2) that the motion is
timely, and (3) a common question of law or fact with the
applicant's claim or defense and the main action.

Although the availability of permissive intervention turns on the
existence of a common question of law or fact rather than the
potential impairment of a significantly protectable interest, it is
discretionary. For the reasons he discussed as to why intervention
is unnecessary in the case -- namely that Proposed Intervenors
already have been able to participate in the fairness hearings --
Judge Davila declines to exercise its discretion to permit
intervention.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila denies the request to
intervene.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mun2njxu from Leagle.com.


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Garner Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONTAN GARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV30681, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-09075 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to timely pay wages following termination of
employment, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure
to provide compliant wage statements.

Albertson's LLC is an American grocery company headquartered in
Boise, Idaho. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
         Ray E. Boggess, Esq.
         Jessica A. Vidal, Esq.
         PAYNE & FEARS LLP
         4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 851-1100
         Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
         E-mail: jkb@paynefears.com
                 reb@paynefears.com
                 jav@paynefears.com

AMARIN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Amarin Corporation PLC ("Amarin" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AMRN) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-19911, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Amarin securities between
December 5, 2018 and June 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Amarin securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 21, 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.

Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company whose lead product since 2008
is Vascepa® (AMR-101) ("Vascepa"), a prescription grade ultra-pure
omega-3 fatty acid derived from fish oil. In July 2012, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") first approved Vascepa to
treat patients with very high levels of triglycerides ("TG"), a
type of fat found in blood, and in December 2019, expanded the
label to include the reduction of cardiovascular disease events,
including heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death in
high-risk patients.

To protect its market share, Amarin sought and obtained dozens of
U.S. patents in connection with Vascepa, including for its
formulation and method of use. Indeed, going into the Class Period,
Vascepa stood to have patent protection until 2030, when the last
patent was set to expire. At the same time, Amarin was engaged in
patent litigation against applicants who submitted Abbreviated New
Drug Applications ("ANDAs") for generic drug products of
Vascepa-exposing the Company to real risks related to the validity
and scope of coverage in its patent portfolio.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there was an increasingly high
risk that certain of Amarin's patents would be invalidated; (ii)
once the District Court invalidated certain of Amarin's patents,
there was little to no chance of reversing that ruling; (iii) the
Company's litigation was preventing it from effectuating a
successful takeover; (iv) Defendants were downplaying the true
threat the ongoing ANDA litigation posed to the Company's business
and future prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

After markets closed on March 30, 2020, Defendants partially
revealed the truth about the strength of Amarin's patent portfolio.
That day, the Company announced that "the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada's rul[ed] in favor of the generic
companies in the company's patent litigation against two filers of
abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, for Amarin's VASCEPA®
(icosapent ethyl) capsule franchise."

On this news, Amarin's share price plummeted over 70.5% to close at
$4.00 on March 31, 2020, on heavy trading volume.

Analysts recognized that investors were beginning to learn about
weaknesses in the patent protection the Company had touted. As
Seeking Alpha ("SA") news editor Stephen Alpher noted in an article
titled "Amarin plunges after court decision on Vascepa" on March
30, 2020, the Company "has lost its patent battle against
generics."

To allay investor concerns, Defendant Thero provided reassurance
that "[w]e believe we are favorably situated to obtain an
injunction against generic launch pending appeal, subject to our
posting a bond to secure generics' lost profits in the event that
generics prevail on appeal." Thus, despite Amarin's loss in the
District Court, Defendants expressed confidence in the appeal, and
in the strength of their patent portfolio and business prospects,
boasting that the Company was continuing to pursue additional
regulatory approval in other countries. Consequently, investors saw
the potential for a revival of Amarin's key patents and still
believed the Company was a viable M&A target.

Then, starting at 10:00 AM ET on September 2, 2020, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held an oral argument for the
Company's patent litigation. The very next day, the Federal Circuit
affirmed the District Court's ruling.

As the oral argument had progressed and the Federal Circuit's
ruling had become known to investors, Amarin's share price fell
over 34.5% to close at $4.30 on September 4, 2020, on heavy trading
volume, as the truth about the Company's patent portfolio continued
to emerge.

As SA news editor Douglas W. House noted on September 2, 2020,
"arguments by attorneys representing the company are not going that
well. Shares are down 27% on almost 7x higher volume 2 1/2 hours
into session." Another SA analyst similarly noted on September 6,
2020, "Amarin shares have taken a beating during the appellate
hearing and especially after the adverse ruling came down on
September 3."

Despite the appellate loss, the Company continued to assure
investors about the strength of its patent portfolio. On September
3, 2020, the Company issued a press release stating that it would
be filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for an en banc
review of the Federal Circuit's decision and "continuing to pursue
additional regulatory approvals for VASCEPA in China, Europe and
the additional countries in the Middle East." The Company further
stated that "[g]eographies outside the United States in which
VASCEPA is sold and under regulatory review are not subject to this
litigation and judgment. No generic litigation is pending outside
the United States." As a result, the market still believed that the
Company was a desirable target and well positioned to effectuate a
successful takeover.

Then, on April 12, 2021, Amarin announced the retirement of
Defendant Thero as President and CEO and the appointment of the
Company's Senior Vice President ("SVP") and Head of Commercial for
Europe, Karim Mikhail ("Mikhail"), as his successor, effective
August 1, 2021. In announcing the "CEO Succession Plan," the
Company highlighted that, previously, Mikhail had been "responsible
for reversing [Merck's] decline in the U.S. market and globally,
accelerating revenue by an additional $380 million through the
launch of ATOZET and driving EBITDA growth through international
expansion. Prior to that, Mr. Mikhail led the successful commercial
launch of dozens of products, including ezetimibe and various
molecules in diabetes, hypertension, immunology, and oncology, and
served as Merck's chief marketing officer for Europe, Middle East
and Africa and chief operating officer for emerging markets."

On this news, the Company's share price fell over 14.3% to close at
$5.08 on April 13, 2021, on heavy trading volume.

As one analyst explained it on April 12, 2021, Amarin "[i]nvestors
may be disappointed in the transition and that it may signal no
near-term M&A on the table (which is the clear and primary bull
case to the stock)." However, the "strategic move could finally
unlock the [C]ompany's value" because as noted on April 13, 2021,
by another analyst, while Defendant Thero "deserves some credit for
overseeing the completion of the landmark REDUCE-IT trial, he also
must take responsibility for their legal failures, their
underwhelming sales performance, and the share price." For the "new
era", Mikhail "brings with him substantial connections in Europe
from his time with Merck."

Despite Defendants' consistent reassurances in the strength of
Amarin's patent portfolio and its abilities to vigorously defend
this critical asset, on June 21, 2021, investors learned "that the
Supreme Court rejected the [C]ompany's bid to revive Vascepa
patents."

On this news, Amarin's share price fell 8.3% to close at $4.54 on
June 23, 2021, on heavy trading volume.

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}

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Feb. 10, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK

HAWAII STRUCTURAL IRONWORKERS PENSION TRUST FUND, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (Consolidated for all purposes
with Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON
STOCK OF AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. ("AMC" OR THE "COMPANY"
(TICKER SYMBOL: AMC)) BETWEEN DECEMBER 20, 2016 AND AUGUST 1, 2017,
BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), INCLUDING PURSUANT TO
AMC'S SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING (THE "SPO") ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 8,
2017 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been reached
in this Action.1 A hearing will be held with respect to the
Settlement on February 10, 2022, at 3:00 P.M. before the Honorable
Alison J. Nathan in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 906, New York, NY 10007.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action
claims asserted in the Action, pursuant to which AMC, on behalf of
all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a Settlement Fund
the sum of eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) in exchange for
the dismissal of the Action with prejudice and a release of claims
against the Defendants and other Released Parties, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of the Class. If you purchased or acquired AMC
common stock (ticker symbol: AMC) during the Class Period,
including pursuant to the SPO, you may be entitled to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund if you submit a Proof of Claim
Form to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services (see
address below), postmarked no later than February 28, 2022 or
submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on February 28, 2022 at
wwww.strategicclaims.net/amc/, and if the information and
documentation you provide in that Proof of Claim Form establishes
that you are entitled to a recovery.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and the Settlement. The Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement (a "Detailed Notice" or the
"Notice") describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the
rights of Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval
Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Class, and/or to object
to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the request by
Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known to be
potential Class Members. You may obtain a copy of that Notice and
the Proof of Claim Form as well as other information at
www.strategicclaims.net/amc/, or by writing to the following
address or calling the following telephone number.

         AMC Securities Settlement
         c/o Strategic Claims Services
         600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
         P.O. Box 230
         Media, PA 19063
         Telephone: (866) 274-4004

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the request by Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, or
otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection in
accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The
objection must be filed and served so that it is received no later
than January 20, 2022. You also have the right to exclude yourself
from the Class by submitting a written request for exclusion from
the Class in accordance with the procedures described in the
Notice. The request for exclusion must be postmarked no later than
January 20, 2022. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you
will be bound by the Settlement and the Judgment, including the
releases provided for in the Stipulation and the Judgment, unless
you submit a request to be excluded.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed Notice
referenced above and/or a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff:

MILLER SHAH, LLP
James E. Miller
Laurie Rubinow
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Toll-Free: (866) 540-5505
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jemiller@millershah.com
Email: lrubinow@millershah.com

DATED: NOVEMBER 2, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK
1 This Summary Notice incorporates by reference the definitions in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 1, 2021
(the "Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms used, but not
defined herein, shall have the same meanings as in the Stipulation.
A copy of the Stipulation can be obtained at
www.strategicclaims.net/amc/. [GN]

AMERICAN HONDA: Sells Vehicles With Sunroof Defect, Tappana Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY TAPPANA, DARRYL ROBERTS, and DUSTIN FULCOMER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-09046
(C.D. Cal., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
and marketing of 2015-2020 Honda and Acura vehicles with sunroof
defect. The defect creates serious danger for vehicle occupants and
others on the road. Drivers of class vehicles have reported sunroof
explosions causing shards of glass to fly through their vehicles,
sometimes while driving at high speeds. The loud explosion and
flying glass distract drivers and create a hazard to the people in
the class vehicles and those around them. Honda has refused to
remedy the sunroof defect and related damage when asked to do so by
vehicle owners and lessees, including the Plaintiffs. Although
Honda has known for many years of this defect and the propensity of
the sunroofs to explode, Honda failed to disclose it to the
Plaintiffs and other consumers before they purchased or leased a
class vehicle. Had they known about the defect when they were
deciding whether to purchase or lease a class vehicle, they would
not have completed the transaction or would have paid substantially
less than they did, the suit asserts.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a North American subsidiary of
automobile manufacturer Honda Motor Company, Ltd., headquartered in
Torrance, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Adam E. Polk, Esq.
         Jordan Elias, Esq.
         Simon S. Grille, Esq.
         GIRARD SHARP LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 981-4800
         Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
         E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                 jelias@girardsharp.com
                 sgrille@girardsharp.com

                - and –

         Matthew Schelkopf, Esq.
         Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
         SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
         1109 Lancaster Avenue
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: (888) 711-9975
         E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
                 jbk@sstriallayers.com

                - and –

         Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
         CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
         361 W. Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com

                - and –

         Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
         GORDON & PARTNERS, PA
         4114 Northlake Lake Blvd.
         Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
         Telephone: (561) 799-5070
         Facsimile: (561) 366-1485
         E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com

APPLE INC: OKs $30M to Settle Lawsuit Over Bag Check Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chance Miller at 9to5mac.com reports that Apple has agreed to pay
out $30 million to settle a lawsuit from employees who say they
were forced to face security bag checks off the clock. This comes
after over 8 years of back and forth in the case, which was first
filed by employees against Apple in 2013. Apple discontinued the
controversial bag check policy in 2015.

This has been a long-running case for Apple. Apple retail workers
filed the class-action suit against Apple in 2013, saying that they
were required to submit to search before leaving for the day,
including searches of their bags, purses, backpacks, brief cases,
and personal Apple devices.

In the lawsuit, employees said they would sometimes have to wait
around for as long as 45 minutes after their shift for this search
to be completed, and they would not be paid for that time. Apple
claimed that the searches were necessary to make sure employees
were not stealing products. Notably, the lawsuit revealed that Tim
Cook was largely unaware of the policy and when two employees
complained directly to Cook about the issue, he forwarded the email
to his HR executives, asking "Is this true?"

A California judge dismissed the class-action suit in 2015, but
that decision was appealed. The United States Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals then asked the California Supreme Court to clarify the
law. In February of 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled that
Apple must pay its retail works for this time.

Now, as reported by Bloomberg, Apple has agreed to pay $29.9
million to employees at its stores where this policy was in effect
in California. The agreement between Apple and the class must now
be approved by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup.

The class in the lawsuit includes 12,000 current and former Apple
store employees in California, according to Courthouse News. As it
currently stands, the employees in the settlement stand to receive
a maximum of about $1,200 apiece. [GN]

APPLE INC: U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh on App Store Monopoly Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in 2019, the U.S. Supreme
Court brought iPhone users one step closer to bringing a massive
antitrust case against Apple to trial when it ruled that App Store
customers could sue the company for using its monopoly power to
drive up prices for apps and in-app purchases.

But now they face a fresh hurdle -- convincing a federal judge to
certify a class comprising millions of Apple customers who paid for
iOS apps and in-app content through the App Store.

The case, now in its tenth year, was initially brought by Robert
Pepper, Stephen Schwartz, Edward Hayter and Eric Terrell in 2011.
It was dismissed by a federal judge in 2013 under a key antitrust
holding in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, where the Supreme Court
ruled that alleged monopolists can be sued only by people who are
directly impacted by the companies' conduct, not by indirect
purchasers. A 2019 decision penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh said
the plaintiffs are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick since
they purchased apps directly from Apple.

Lawyers for Apple told U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
on Nov. 16 that it is not possible to ascertain how many iPhone
users have been injured by Apple's alleged App Store monopoly.

"In order to certify a damages class, plaintiffs need to come
forward with a model capable of showing injury to all or virtually
all of the plaintiffs. It means more than a great number of members
of the class need to be injured," said attorney Cynthia Richman
with Gibson Dunn, who represents Apple.

Apple takes issue with a damages model offered by econometrician
Daniel McFadden, a professor emeritus of economics at the
University of California Berkeley. McFadden analyzed what
commission rates Apple would have charged developers in a
competitive but-for world. Apple currently earns a 30% commission
on App Store sales, though a settlement with small developers the
judge approved on Nov. 16 owers that rate to 15% for three years.

Apple contends that McFadden's model estimates a substantial number
of proposed class members who show no damages, and disputes
McFadden's conclusion that Apple would have charged 10% to 12% if
non-Apple iOS app stores were allowed to exist.

Gonzalez Rogers also questioned those percentages at the Nov. 16
hearing, saying McFadden seemed to be pulling numbers out of thin
air.

Counsel for the proposed class said the model is a reliable enough
method of determining class-wide damages. When Gonzalez Rogers
questioned him about the percentage of uninjured class members,
attorney Aaron Panner with Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel and
Frederick said customers who made purchases from the App Store have
an antitrust injury whether or not they have damages.

"There is antitrust impact from the fact that the Apple store did
not provide choices that they would have provided in a competitive
market, that they were deprived of innovations that they would have
had in a competitive market," Panner said. "So they have an
antitrust injury irrespective of whether they really have
measurable damages."

The adequacy of the model isn't the only obstacle to the case
moving forward, as Gonzalez Rogers already rejected the idea of a
foremarket for Apple's operating system and a tethered aftermarket
for iOS apps and IAP in her ruling in another high-profile lawsuit
over Apple's app store policies.

"Quite simply, it is illogical to argue that there is a market for
something that is not licensed or sold to anyone," she wrote in her
ruling in the case where Epic, the maker of the popular Fortnite
video game, challenged Apple's App Store policies and 30%
commission rate as anticompetitive. "Given the court's rejection of
the foremarket theory, the aftermarket theory fails as it is
tethered to the foremarket," she added.

The judge said the iPhone user plaintiffs seemed to ignore this.
"It's not surprising to me that both sides selectively use my order
for their purposes," she said, noting that iPhone users had defined
their foremarket in the exact same way as Epic Games. "I found it
had no legs."

Panner said the key point is that all customers are subject to the
same anticompetitive constraints in the retail market for iPhone
apps because Apple prohibits alternative iOS app stores.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Rifkin said the App Store is like a
supermarket for apps and in-app purchases. "Apple has forced
consumers who buy iPhones and iPads to shop only in one place," he
said. "And they've been monstrously successful and they have
effectively foreclosed not only competition but choice."

He said McFadden's methodology will be used to calculate damages
using the 400 million discreet Apple IDs currently in existence.

Rifkin was a bit cagey with Gonzalez Rogers when she asked for the
total damages figure but ultimately said he believed it to be
around $7 billion to $10 billion.

Gonzalez Rogers took the case under submission. [GN]

ASTROTECH CORP: Settlement in Principle Entered in Stein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Astrotech Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the entered into a
settlement in principle with the parties in the class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned
Stein v. Pickens, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0322-JRS.

On April 15, 2021, a putative stockholder of the Company commenced
a class action and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Stein v. Pickens, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0322-JRS, in
which it was alleged, among other things, that the Company
improperly included broker non-votes in the tabulation of votes
counted in favor to approve the 2020 Certificate Amendment and,
thus the 2020 Certificate Amendment was defective.

The Company investigated these allegations and disputed them.

Following a period of discovery, the parties entered into a
settlement in principle.

No date to present the settlement to the Court of Chancery has yet
been set.  

On April 30, 2021, the Company filed a validation proceeding in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, In re Astrotech Corporation, C.A. No.
2021-0380-JRS, pursuant to Section 205 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law (the "Section 205 Action").  

The Company did not believe that the filing and effectiveness of
the 2020 Certificate Amendment was either invalid or ineffective.

However, to resolve any uncertainty, the Company determined to
pursue corrective actions to ratify the 2020 Certificate Amendment
through the filing of the Section 205 Action.

"The Company's request for validation from the Court of Chancery
was granted on October 6, 2021, thereby ratifying the 2020
Certificate Amendment and all issuances of shares made pursuant
thereto," the company said.  

Further information regarding the Stein Action and the Section 205
Action is provided in the Schedule 14A proxy statement amendment
and supplement filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021.

Astrotech Corporation is an Austin, Texas-based commercial
aerospace company. The Company currently owns, operates and
maintains spacecraft processing facilities; prepares and processes
scientific research in microgravity; and develops and manufactures
chemical sensor equipment.

AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Detail Police Searches Investigation to NME
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Gallagher, writing for NME, reports that lawyers from Slater
and Gordon and Redfern Legal Centre who are launching a class
action investigation into potentially unlawful searches by New
South Wales Police at Splendour in the Grass have detailed their
investigation to NME, saying they aim to file proceedings by next
year.

On November 16, it was first reported by triple j's Hack that RLC
and S&G are encouraging anyone who believes they were unlawfully
searched at the festival between 2016 and 2019 to confidentially
join the class action. Those impacted by "serious breaches" are
potentially entitled to tens of thousands of dollars in
compensation, RLC and S&G said.

Speaking to NME at S&G's Sydney office on Nov. 16, RLC principal
solicitor Alexis Goodstone said they hoped to file proceedings by
the middle of 2022, urging affected festivalgoers to come forward
and share their experiences before then.

In 2020, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission concluded a
two-year inquiry into NSW Police strip search practices. The
watchdog then released a 150-page report that found there was "grey
area" in the force's protocol when it came to police searches.

As part of the LECC's inquiry, it questioned a NSW police officer
who admitted that the 19 searches he conducted at Splendour in 2018
may have been unlawful. The LECC also found that a 16-year-old girl
was unlawfully searched at the festival in 2018.

This action, focused on Splendour, comes after RLC and S&G's own
2020 investigation into NSW Police strip searches conducted over
the past six years, Hack reported.

"We want anyone who has been subjected to any kind of search at
Splendour in the Grass to come forward," Goodstone tells NME. "That
could be police asking you to take off all your clothes, but it
could also be police just peering down your top or peering down
your trousers or asking you to lift an item of clothing."

"The question of whether someone's being subjected to an unlawful
search or not is not determined by whether drugs that were found or
not. So, people may well be eligible to be part of the class action
and to obtain compensation even if drugs were found on them."

They encourage festivalgoers to reach out even if they are unsure
of whether they were searched unlawfully or not, S&G senior
associate Ebony Birchall adds: "We just want to hear from everyone
who was searched because we can work out if the search was unlawful
or not on our end. It's more about hearing from everyone."

Goodstone says they hope the class actions proceedings also serve
as an impetus for wider change. "We know that strip searches are
harmful and degrading, and we know that in the vast majority of
cases they don't find anything," she says.

"The high numbers of strip searches are, we think, undermining
confidence in police in New South Wales. We think that there's a
real need for change, and we're hoping that the class action will
be a part of that movement for change."

On Nov. 16, a spokesperson for NSW Police told NME that whether a
search had been conducted lawfully was "ultimately a matter for the
Court".

"Police are required to suspect on reasonable grounds that the
circumstances are serious and urgent when determining whether a
strip search is necessary. When making that determination, police
will consider all of the available information, including the risk
of someone overdosing or dying."

When presented with NSW Police's comment, Goodstone said: "I'd be
surprised to find that of all of the strip searches that have taken
place at Splendour or at other music festivals were based on a
reasonable suspicion that the person was at risk of serious harm
because of ingesting drugs." (NSW Police declined further
comment.)

Goodstone says that they believe police had implemented strip
searches at festivals like Splendour in the Grass in a "routine"
fashion that did not meet the "high threshold" for what warrants
such a search. She says that what both their investigations, as
well as that of the LECC, have found is police don't always
understand or apply the law correctly.

"The law sets quite a strict test as to when it's lawful for police
to undertake [strip searches], and that is that police have to have
a reasonable suspicion that you've got something on you that's
unlawful, like drugs, but also that the circumstances are serious
and urgent, so as to make a strip search necessary," she
explained.

"We know from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission that strip
searches in the context of music festivals and targeting people
really for possession of small quantities of drugs are not likely
to meet that serious part of the test.

"On the other hand, we know that most of the searches that go on at
music festivals are for possession, [for] small quantities of
drugs. That's why we consider a lot of the searches happening at
music festivals unlawful, and that's going to be part of the basis
of our claim."

One of the people sharing their story as part of RLC and S&G's
investigation is Chad Helman, who attended Splendour in the Grass
in 2016 aged 25. Helman told NME in an interview on Nov. 16 that as
he was attempting to enter the festival site on its first day, he
was grabbed on the shoulder by a police officer, who claimed a
sniffer dog had sat down as he walked past.

Helman was asked if he had anything on him he shouldn't have, and
after saying he didn't, was told he had "one more chance" to
surrender any illegal items or he wouldn't be able to enter the
festival.

Helman was then taken into a demountable area and had his footwear,
pockets, wallet and phone checked. All that turned up, he says, was
an insulin pen he needs for his diabetes.

A male officer was instructed to come in, who told Helman to take
off his pants and underwear, turn around, and "bend down and open
up". Helman says he felt "invaded" by the search, which he says he
did not consent to. "There was no rights read out to me. None of
that at all. I wasn't asked for or give consent."

Birchall says, "I think that it's really important to say that
actually, in that moment, he did have rights, because the law does
protect people and say that these strip searches can only occur in
certain circumstances.

"When the police do the wrong thing and break the law, that's
actually classified by law as an assault, which then gives right to
compensation. Chad and other people who have been unlawfully
searched do have rights. I think this class action is a really
powerful way to let society know that, and shows the police that
we're watching their conduct, they will be held accountable, and
that they can't get away with doing the wrong thing."

NSW Police declined comment on Helman's account of his search at
Splendour in 2016.

Splendour in the Grass co-founder Jessica Ducrou said in a
statement on Nov. 16 that Splendour organisers had "no insight"
into police search processes at their festivals.

"Splendour wishes to make clear that we had no insight into NSW
Police search processes at our festivals," Ducrou said in a comment
included in the press release from RLC and S&G.

"We do not support drug dog operations as a method to manage a
broader societal challenge that extends well beyond the context of
a music festival. We support our patrons who wish to come forward
to call out and help stop unlawful conduct."

One of the findings of the LECC's report last year was that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were
disproportionately targeted in strip searches, accounting for
between 17.1 to 19.5 per cent of all persons strip-searched, which
Goodstone called a "horrendous" statistic.

"When the use of one of the most invasive police powers has a
disproportionate impact on vulnerable people, including First
Nations people, then we really need to have a good close look at
it," she said.

Goodstone says she hopes that this Splendour investigation can pave
the way for other class or individual actions concerning
potentially unlawful strip searches in other contexts. "We're keen
to use this as a testing ground, and to then use the findings of
this case to expand our reach beyond just [Splendour] and beyond
music festivals."

A coronial inquest into deaths at music festivals back in 2019 made
a number of recommendations for NSW Police, including some that
addressed strip searches.

These included limiting strip searches to circumstances in which
there is reasonable suspicion the person searched has or is
planning to commit an offence of supplying prohibited drugs, that
the search is necessary to prevent "immediate risk to personal
safety", and no less invasive alternative is appropriate.

The Australian Festivals Association, which participated in the
inquest, maintains that "the implementation of the recommendations.
. . remain an important step towards patron safety at festivals",
AFA managing director Julia Robinson said in a statement to NME.

"At the time of release we welcomed the coroner's recommendations
in full as they represented a robust investigation into all factors
relating to the deaths, including any connection with strip search
procedures," Robinson said.

"The AFA maintains that the implementation of the recommendations
provided to all parties as part of the inquest process, remain an
important step towards patron safety at festivals." [GN]

AYZENBERG GROUP: Faces Ulbrich Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ULBRICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AYZENBERG GROUP, INC., ERIC AYZENBERG,
ADRIANE ZAUDKE, KRISTEN VAIK VAZQUEZ, and DOE 1 through and
including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV42580 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and
overtime for all hours worked, failure to provide compliant wage
statements, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and failure to timely pay wages at
separation.

Mr. Ulbrich was hired by the Defendants as a production director
and director of photography in California from December 6 to
December 9, 2020.

Ayzenberg Group, Inc. is a media company headquartered in Pasadena,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Alan Harris, Esq.
         David Garrett, Esq.
         Lin Zhan, Esq.
         HARRIS & RUBLE
         655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (323) 962-3777
         Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
         E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
                 dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                 lzhan@harrisandruble.com

BELLEROSE HALAL: Faces Reyes Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Butchers
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMADO MUNGUIA REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELLEROSE HALAL MEAT INC., HICKSVILLE SUPER
HALAL MEAT INC., MEADOWS HALAL MEAT & GRILL INC., SHIRAZ KHAN, MIAN
S. ALI, ASHRAF R. KHAN, and MUHAMMAD AWAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06413 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated butchers appropriate minimum wages
and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
butcher from November 3, 2016 until June 18, 2021.

Bellerose Halal Meat Inc. is an owner and operator of a butcher
shop, with its principal place of business in Bellerose, New York.

Hicksville Super Halal Meat Inc. is an owner and operator of a
butcher shop, with its principal place of business in Hicksville,
New York.

Meadows Halal Meat & Grill Inc. is an owner and operator of a
butcher shop, with its principal place of business in Fresh
Meadows, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Justin Cilenti, Esq.
         Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
         CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
         200 Park Avenue - 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 209-3933
         Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
         E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

BLINK CHARGING: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blink Charging Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that Blink and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint of the
Consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the District
of Florida.

On August 24, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Michael Farkas (Blink's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael
Rama (Blink's Chief Financial Officer) (the "Bush Lawsuit").

On September 1, 2020, another purported securities class action
lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No.
20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and
seeking to recover the same alleged damages (the "Vittoria
Lawsuit").

On October 1, 2020, the court consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit
with the Bush Lawsuit and on December 21, 2020 the court appointed
Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 19,
2021.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and
functionality of the Blink Network, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Amended Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to
recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Blink's common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19,
2020.

"On April 20, 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which has now been fully briefed
and is ready for review," the Company said.

The Company believes that the claim has no merit, and wholly and
completely disputes the allegations therein.

The Company has retained legal counsel in order to defend the
action vigorously.

The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as
of September 30, 2021 as it determined that any such loss
contingency was either not probable or estimable.

Based in Miami Beach, Florida, Blink Charging Co. (OTC: CCGID)
f/k/a Car Charging Group Inc. -- http://www.CarCharging.com-- is
an owner and operator of electric vehicle charging stations in the
United States and a growing presence in Europe, Asia, Israel, the
Caribbean, and South America.  The Blink Network utilizes
proprietary cloud-based software that operates, maintains, and
tracks the EV charging stations connected to the network, along
with the associated charging data.  The Company has established key
strategic partnerships to roll out adoption across numerous
location types, including parking facilities, multifamily
residences and condos, workplace locations, health care/medical
facilities, schools and universities, airports, auto dealers,
hotels, mixed-use municipal locations, parks and recreation areas,
religious institutions, restaurants, retailers, stadiums,
supermarkets, and transportation hubs.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

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://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-bmy/

If you purchased shares of the above companu 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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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. [GN]

BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Carlson Suit Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that on
Sept. 16, 2021, the parties in the Douglas Carlson suit filed a
stipulation seeking voluntary dismissal of the complaint as moot.

On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported
stockholder of Brooklyn (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.), filed a
verified class action complaint against Brooklyn and its then
current members of the board of directors, for allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duties and violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law.  

In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an
annual stockholder meeting.  

Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment at the same time that he
filed his complaint.  

In order to moot the claim addressed in the complaint, Brooklyn
agreed to hold its annual meeting on June 29, 2021, which date was
subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2021.  

On or about May 6, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation,
which was "so ordered" by the court, extending defendants' time to
respond to the complaint and to file their answering brief in
opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before
July 16, 2021 and providing that plaintiff's reply brief in support
of his motion for summary judgment is due on or before August 20,
2021.

On or about July 12, 2021, the parties entered in a further amended
scheduling order, which provided that defendants were to respond to
the complaint and file their answering brief in opposition to
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before September 16,
2021 and plaintiff was to file a reply brief in support of his
motion for summary judgment on or before October 20, 2021.  

On August 20, 2021, Brooklyn convened its 2021 annual meeting of
stockholders.

Due to the lack of a required quorum, the meeting was adjourned to
September 3, 2021.

Thereafter, Brooklyn obtained a quorum, and the annual meeting was
held on September 3, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, Brooklyn filed a report on Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") announcing the
results of the annual meeting.

On September 16, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation seeking
voluntary dismissal of the complaint as moot.

The Court entered the dismissal on September 16, 2021 with
prejudice as to the named plaintiff and without prejudice as to
other members of the purported class and retained jurisdiction for
the purpose of determining any fee application to the extent it
cannot be resolved amicably by the parties.

"The parties have reached an agreement in principle with respect to
plaintiff's counsel's request for an award of fees and expenses
that is subject to the parties agreeing to the terms of a written
agreement that is presently being negotiated," the Company said.

Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-tech company.
The Company focuses on exploring the role that the human immune
system can have in treating patients with cancer and immunologic
diseases, both as a single agent and in combination with other
therapies. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York.

CALDER OPERATIONS: Ghauri Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Bilal Ahmad Ghauri and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Calder Operations LLC, Unique Operation LLC, Chantilly Oil,
Inc., Mustaqbhai K. Momin-Umatia, Mehboob Ali Momin and Shaukat
Momin, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03699 (S.D. Tex., November 10,
2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief,
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all costs of
the action and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate gas stations and convenience stores all over
Texas where Plaintiff worked as an hourly worker at some time. He
claims to be denied overtime compensation in any given workweek.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Syed Izfar, Esq.
      SYED N. IZFAR
      11111 Katy Freeway, #1010
      Houston, TX 77079
      Phone: (713) 467-0786
      Tel: (713) 467-2424
      Email: syedizfar@sbcglobal.net


CAPITAL MERCHANT: Lateral Recovery Sues Over Usurious Interests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral Recovery LLC, as assignee of Benchmark Builders, Inc., FTE
Networks, Inc., Jus-Com LLC and Focus Wireless, LLC, Plaintiffs, v.
Capital Merchant Services LLC; Green Capital Funding, LLC; Midnight
Capital, LLC, Yitzhak Stern, David Glass and Tsvi Davis, and the
Jane and John Doe Investors, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09336,
(S.D. N.Y., November 11, 2021), is a Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act action against several related merchant
cash advance companies that were allegedly controlled and
manipulated by Yitzhak Stern and David Glass to collect unlawful
debts and otherwise fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in
funds from FTE.

Defendants' companies entered into "Merchant Agreements" with FTE
pursuant to which they paid lump sums to purchase FTE's future
receipts at a discount and FTE agree to repay the face value of its
receipts through daily payments.

Plaintiffs allege that no sale of receipts ever took place and the
said FTE agreements are a disguise to evade applicable usury laws.
They claim that FTE agreements were loans that charged interest
rates that exceeded not less than 100%, and in some instances
exceeded 900%, rates that are far greater than twice the maximum
25% permitted under New York Penal Law.

FTE Networks is the sole owner of Benchmark and the sole owner and
managing member of Jus-Com and Focus Wireless. Benchmark was a
corporation duly organized under the laws of New York with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
     WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
     7 Times Square, Suite 2900
     New York, NY 10036-6524
     Tel. (215) 864-6329
     Email: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com


COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Protect Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a Dallas
consumer has filed a proposed class action in which he alleges
Coinbase failed to safeguard his account against unauthorized
cryptocurrency transactions and then locked him out of the account
for roughly two months.

The 12-page lawsuit against Coinbase Global, Inc. claims the
cryptocurrency exchange breached its contract with the plaintiff by
failing to properly secure his account and allowing it to be
"pillaged by an unauthorized individual or entity."

"At all relevant times, Coinbase had a duty to Plaintiff and the
putative class wherein it would properly secure their private
information and cryptocurrency from unauthorized transactions and
dissemination," the complaint, filed in California on November 8,
alleges.

According to the case, although Coinbase has represented that it
maintains appropriate physical, technical and administrative
safeguards to protect users' account security and confidentiality,
the pilfer of funds from the plaintiff's account indicates
otherwise.

Per the complaint, the plaintiff, who regularly traded in the
Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dogecoin cryptocurrencies, logged into his
account on July 19, 2021 and found that a purchase of $50,000 of
Ethereum had occurred. The plaintiff did not make this purchase or
consent to have any other person or entity make it, the suit says.

On the same day, the plaintiff logged into his Bank of America
account to investigate whether the $50,000 used to buy Ethereum was
actually deducted from his account and found that it was, which
caused the man "great stress and worry," the lawsuit relays.

After the plaintiff lodged a complaint with Coinbase, the exchange
locked the man out of his account for approximately two months,
according to the case.

The lawsuit looks to represent all persons in the United States and
its territories who, within the last four years and through the
date of resolution of the case, had a Coinbase account that was
breached by a source other than the accountholder. [GN]

DBI SERVICES: Priest Sues Over Ilegal Termination
-------------------------------------------------
Kevin Priest, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DBI Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00712 (E.D. Minn., November 11, 2021), seeks collection of
unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Priest was employed by DBI to perform highway and rest stop
maintenance and landscaping until he was terminated as part of a
mass layoff, without any prior notice, on or about October 22,
2021, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
      SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
      7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor
      Annandale, VA 22003
      Tel: (703) 265-1800
      Email: Matt@SutterandTerpak.com


DERBY WINGS: Duncan et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALYSIA DUNCAN and SYDNEE FRITZ, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DERBY WINS, LLC
d/b/a HOOTERS, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00073 (N.D. Ind.,
November 3, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful
policies, patterns, practice or plan that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendant as servers.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant did not pay them and other
similarly situated employees' minimum wage. Instead, they were only
paid the tip credit wage despite the tip credit wage not being
applicable. In addition, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the
Plaintiffs added.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, and all
other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the
premises.

Derby Wings, LLC d/b/a Hooters operates a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Ramsland, Esq.
          RAMSLAND LAW
          8520 Allison Pointe Blvd. Ste. 223
          PMB 65298
          Indianapolis, IN 46250-4299
          Tel: (765) 267-1240
          E-mail: jason@rams.land

DYNAGAS LNG: $1.125M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04512 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Lead Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and Awards Pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4).

The Court awarded the Plaintiffs' Counsel $1,125,000 (25% of the
Settlement Amount) in attorneys' fees. This award is to be
allocated in the sole discretion of Court-appointed Lead Counsel,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP. Judge Nathan also awarded the Lead
Counsel reimbursement of $91,820.88 of litigation expenses.

The attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court will be
payable from the Settlement Fund to Lead Counsel seven days after
entry of the Order, notwithstanding the existence of any potential
appeal or collateral attack on the Order or the Court's Judgment
Approving Class Action Settlement.

Judge Nathan awarded Plaintiffs FNY Partners Fund LP, Mario
Epelbaum, Scott Dunlop and Irving Braun compensatory awards of
$2,500 each for their time and effort expended in prosecuting the
Action.

The compensatory awards approved will be payable from the
Settlement Fund to the Plaintiffs seven days after the Effective
Date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3c56y5e2 from Leagle.com.


EARGO INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Eargo, Inc. (EAR)
Class Period: 2/25/2021 - 9/22/2021, or shares issued pursuant to
the October 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ear/


If you purchased shares of the above company 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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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. [GN]

ENVIROTECH VEHICLES: Faces Mollik Purported Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company is
facing a class action lawsuit captioned M.D. Ariful Mollik v.
ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493.

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the Company, certain of the Company's
executive officers, Edward R. Monfort, the former Chief Technology
Officer and a former director of ADOMANI, Inc., and the two
underwriters of the Company's offering of common stock under
Regulation A in June 2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to the Company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection therewith.

The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the court.

Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, a third amended complaint,
and a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by
putative class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric
Drivetrains, LLC. Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a
putative class representative.

On October 27, 2020, the Company answered the fourth amended
complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead
Securities (together the "Underwriters") filed a cross-complaint
against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for
the Company's initial public offering (the "Underwriting
Agreement").

On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
Underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.

Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the
Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement.

On January 14, 2020, Mr. Edward R. Monfort filed a cross-complaint
against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of
the Underwriting Agreement.

On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

On February 18, 2020, the Company filed an answer to Mr. Monfort's
cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.

On March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed its motion for class
certification.

On March 17, 2021, the court held a case management conference.

At the case management conference, the court set a tentative
schedule for class discovery and briefing on the motion for class
certification. On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI
filed a stipulation extending the deadline for class certification
discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class
discovery on September 28, 2021; defendants' opposition to the
motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021; plaintiff's
reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021; a case
management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for
hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification.
Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort.

The Underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains
on the primary claims in this matter.

All defendants are maintaining their cross claims against each
other.

On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains' counsel moved to be
relieved as counsel and on August 23, 2021, the court granted this
motion. Also on August 23, 2021, the Clerk of Court issued an order
to show cause why the complaint should not be stricken and matter
dismissed for failure to retain new counsel to Electric
Drivetrains.

"On October 28, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed a substitution of
attorney, substituting J. Ryan Gustafson of Good Gustafson Aumais
LLP as its new counsel. A case management conference and hearing on
the order to show cause are set for December 13, 2021," the Company
said.

The Company believe that the purported class action lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. is a provider of purpose-built
zero-emission electric vehicles focused on reducing the total cost
of vehicle ownership and helping fleet operators unlock the
benefits of green technology.

EXCELSIOR MINING: Issued Misleading Prospectus, Class Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto-based mutual fund is suing Vancouver-based Excelsior
Mining Corp. and two senior executives, claiming in a class action
that the company issued a misleading prospectus that didn’t
disclose significant problems with carbon dioxide at its flagship
Gunnison copper mine in Arizona.

The lead plaintiff, MM Fund, filed a notice of civil claim under
the Class Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on November 1, naming
Excelsior Mining, company president and CEO Stephen Twyerould and
chairman Mark Morabito as defendants. According to the claim, the
company issued a prospectus in late 2020 and supplemented it a
couple of months later as it was wrapping up a $31.7 million public
offering in February 2021. MM Fund claims it bought 500,000 units
in the offering, each unit consisting of one common share and one
warrant, exercisable in August 2022 for $1.25 a share.

However, the fund claims the prospectus "failed to fully, truly and
plainly disclose all material facts" about the company and the
securities on offer. Beginning construction in December 2018,
Excelsior’s Gunnison project is less than 100 miles from Tucson,
Arizona, and is set to produce up to 125 million pounds of copper
in the last stage of its three-stage development production plan. A
year later, the company announced that the project had been
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, touting a
production rater of 25 million pounds of copper a year in its first
stage of operations.

But in May 2021, the company disclosed in regulatory filings that
the Gunnison mine was having problems with carbon dioxide bubbles
that hampered the mine’s copper production rate. In September
2021, Excelsior admitted in a news release that the carbon dioxide
issue would mean the Gunnison project would not achieve its
25-million-pound goal and that "the project’s operations costs
would substantially increase."

MM Fund claims the prospectus misrepresented the Gunnison project,
alleging that the defendants "were already experiencing problems
caused by the presence of carbon-dioxide … which negatively
impacted flow rates at the wellfield, negatively impacted mineral
production, [and] caused delays and increased the operational costs
of the project."

"As a result of the misrepresentations in the Prospectus, the
securities of Excelsior were sold to the public at an artificially
inflated price," the claim states.

MM Fund seeks class certification and damages for misrepresentation
under the Securities Act. The allegations have not been tested or
proven in court, and the defendants had not responded to the
lawsuit by press time. [GN]

FINANCIAL CENTER: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Rivera Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Financial Center First Credit Union,
Appellant-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant v. Miguel Rivera,
Appellee-Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case
No. 21A-CC-845 (Ind. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirms
the trial court's order denying Financial Center's motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss Rivera's class action allegations.

Case Summary

Miguel Rivera entered into a retail installment contract and
security agreement with Financial Center, in order to purchase a
used 2011 Mercedes-Benz. Rivera defaulted on the payments, and
Financial Center repossessed and then sold the car. A deficiency
balance remained, and Financial Center filed an action seeking to
recover that balance. Rivera answered and filed a counterclaim
alleging that Financial Center committed violations of the Uniform
Commercial Code ("UCC"). Financial Center filed a motion for
summary judgment as to all claims.

While the summary judgment motion was pending, Rivera filed a
motion for leave to amend his answer and sought to alter his
counterclaim by: (1) specifying the alleged violations of the UCC;
and (2) converting the claim into a class action. The trial court
denied the motion for summary judgment and, on the same day,
granted the motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Financial Center moved to compel arbitration of the amended
counterclaim and to stay the other components of the action in the
meantime. After a hearing on April 1, 2021, the trial court denied
Financial Center's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss
Rivera's class action allegations. Financial Center appeals the
denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

Issue & Discussion

Financial Center contends that the trial court erroneously denied
its motion to compel arbitration of the amended counterclaim. The
Court of Appeals addresses a single issue: Whether the trial court
erred in denying Financial Center's motion to compel arbitration of
Rivera's amended counterclaim.

The parties do not dispute that the arbitration agreement is a
legal, enforceable contract. Rather, they differ as to whether
Financial Center has waived its right to compel arbitration of the
counterclaim. Financial Center contends that the amended
counterclaim "included several new individual Claims along with a
novel class action Claim." Thus, Financial Center argues, the
amended counterclaim is a new claim, and one that has not yet been
litigated.

Mr. Rivera disagrees and contends that "Financial Center's
deficiency claim and Rivera's UCC counterclaim constitute one
'claim' because they are interdependent and inextricably
intertwined." Thus, Rivera contends, Financial Center has waived
its right to compel arbitration of the counterclaim, having elected
to file its deficiency claim in the trial court or, in the
alternative, having litigated Rivera's counterclaim.

The Court of Appeals finds Financial Center's conflicting arguments
to the contrary unconvincing. First, Financial Center has
repeatedly argued that "Rivera is arguing that our $6,000
deficiency judgment has waived our right to compel arbitration of
all future claims, including counterclaims, class action claims,
etc." The Court of Appeals agrees that this is an untenable
position of Rivera's. Claims and counterclaims do not suddenly
become one claim simply because they relate to one another or have
factual or legal disputes in common. Financial Center, however,
ignores Rivera's alternative argument: Financial Center litigated
Rivera's counterclaim when it was still individual in nature, did
not prevail on its motion for summary judgment, and then sought to
have that same claim sent to arbitration. This is not an argument
about "any other future claim or cause of action that arises
between the parties," but about a single specific claim that
Financial Center itself has sought to establish is separate from
the later-added allegations. In short, Financial Center does not
articulate a response to the argument that it has already litigated
the specific individual counterclaim.

Second, the Appellant places a great deal of emphasis upon the
well-known public policy favoring arbitration and the honoring of
contractually evinced intent of parties to arbitrate. The Court of
Appeals cannot, however, treat that policy preference as a magic
wand. Just as a contract containing an arbitration provision
establishes the circumstances in which parties to the contract
agree to arbitrate, so too does it establish the circumstance in
which the parties do not agree to arbitrate.

Third, Financial Center argues that it has met the requirement to
"prove that the disputed matter is the type of claim that the
parties agreed to arbitrate." The focus of the Court of Appeals'
inquiry is whether the claim is the type of claim that the parties
agreed to arbitrate and not, as Financial Center's argument
suggests, whether it is a "claim" as contemplated by the contract.
As we have explained, if Financial Center was seeking to compel
arbitration of Rivera's individual claim, then it sought the
impermissible second bite at the apple. If Financial Center sought
to arbitrate Rivera's class action claim (to the extent, if any,
that claim was separable from Rivera's individual claim, a
suggestion about which we express skepticism) then that claim is
expressly not of a type that the arbitration clause contemplates.
The trial court, accordingly, properly denied the motion to compel
arbitration of Rivera's counterclaim.

Conclusion

The trial court did not err in denying Financial Center's motion to
compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. The Court of
Appeals affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/htuxezmr from Leagle.com.

Benjamin C. Hoffman -- Ben.Hoffman@lewisbrisbois.com -- in
Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for the Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Gibson, in Carmel, Indiana, Attorney for the Appellee.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Smith Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JACOB SMITH, Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY CORP. AND
FIRSTENERGY SERVICE CO., Defendants. BRIAN HUDOCK AND CAMEO
COUNTERTOPS, INC., Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al.,
Defendants, JAMES BULDAS, Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-3755, Lead Case No. 2:20-cv-3954, Case
No. 2:20-cv-3987 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
filed in these three consolidated cases.

Background

On July 27, 2020, Jacob Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al.,
2:20-cv-3755 was filed as a putative class action ("Smith Action").
The Complaint alleged that the FirstEnergy Defendants engaged in a
bribery scheme resulting in the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("H.B.
6"), in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-196, the Ohio
Corrupt Practices Act ("OCPA"), and other common and statutory law.
According to the Complaint, HB 6, which went into effect on Oct.
21, 2019, created a monthly surcharge on consumer electric bills to
provide subsidies to two of FirstEnergy's failing nuclear power
plants. The Smith Action asserted allegations on behalf of "all
persons and entities who have and/or will have to pay a monthly
surcharge for electric pursuant to HB 6."

On July 31, 2020, James Buldas initiated James Buldas v.
FirstEnergy Corp. et al., 2:20-cv-3755, also a putative class
action ("Buldas Action"). imilar to the Smith Action, the Buldas
Action asserted allegations on behalf of "all persons and entities
resident in the State of Ohio who have and/or will have to pay a
monthly surcharge for electric service pursuant to HB 6."

On Aug. 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed Brian Hudock and Cameo
Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., 2:20-cv-3954, a
third putative class action ("Hudock Action"). Like Smith and
Buldas, the Hudock Action asserted allegations on behalf of "all
persons and entities resident in the State of Ohio who have and/or
will have to pay a monthly surcharge for electric service pursuant
to H.B. 6."

On Aug. 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs in the Smith, Buldas, and Hudock
Actions filed a joint motion with the Defendants to consolidate the
three actions, which the Court granted. On Sept. 8, 2020, Plaintiff
Smith filed a motion for appointment of interim co-lead class
counsel, which the Court granted. The Plaintiffs have now filed an
unopposed motion for class certification in all three actions.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class defined as: "All persons
and entities resident in the state of Ohio who have and/or will
have to pay a monthly surcharge for electric service pursuant to HB
6."

House Bill 6 was scheduled to impose the nuclear bailout fee on all
ratepayers throughout the State of Ohio. In addition, customers of
FirstEnergy's Electric Distribution Utilities ("EDUs") continue to
pay a legacy bailout fee for two old coal-powered plants and, until
recently, paid tens of millions of dollars of rate stabilization
charges, also known as "decoupling." While collection of these fees
has been suspended, FirstEnergy allegedly collected fees before
such corrective legislation.

The Plaintiffs contend that they have met their burden under Rule
23(a) and move for class certification under Rules 23(b)(1)(A),
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). Judge Sargus agrees.

A. Rule 23(a)

The burden is on the plaintiff to establish a right to class
certification. Following the proposal of a properly defined class,
which Plaintiffs in this case have done, they must satisfy the
prerequisites set forth in Rule 23(a): (1) the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Judge Sargus finds that (i) FirstEnergy's estimate that they serve
over 2 million Ohio EDUs customers satisfies the numerosity
requirement of Rule 23(a); (ii) the claims asserted by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Class depend on a common
contention of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide
resolution, and the inquiries necessary will generate common
answers that are likely to drive resolution of the lawsuit; (iii)
because the proposed Class representatives seek to prosecute the
same claim for themselves and for the absent Class members, under
identical legal theories, typicality is established; (iv) the Named
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Class; and (v)
the Plaintiffs' counsel has dedicated and, the Court anticipates
will continue to dedicate, high levels of legal skill and resources
to the vigorous prosecution of the class action litigation.

B. Rule 23(b)(3)

The Plaintiffs seek to certify this Class as an opt-out class
action under Rule 23(b)(3). Class certification pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) is appropriate whenever the Court finds that (1) common
questions of fact or law predominate over individual questions
("predominance"), and (2) class treatment of plaintiff's claims is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy ("superiority").

Judge Sargus finds that answering the central questions of whether
the Defendants' conduct warrants an award of damages pursuant to
RICO, OCPA, and/or statutory and common law claims with regard to
the entire Class is preferable to separate litigation of individual
claims. These questions predominate over possible individual
questions since the alleged wrongful conduct was the same with
respect to all Class members and can be determined on a class-wide
basis. No individual issues are likely to be raised to defeat
predominance.

Judge Sargus also finds that the certification of the Class is a
superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy. All of the Class members' alleged damages were caused
by a single course of conduct: The Defendants' conduct that is
allegedly in violation of RICO, OCPA, and/or Ohio statutory and/or
common law.

C. Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as to the entire proposed
class, and Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites are met. Thus, certification
under 23(b)(2) is appropriate. A Rule 23(b)(1)(A) class action is
utilized when separate actions would create incompatible standards
of conduct for the party opposing the class, or when the interests
of the members not parties to the litigation would be impeded by
individual adjudications. In the case, the Plaintiffs contend, and
Judge Sargus agrees, that separate prosecution of the classs
injunctive and declaratory relief claims would create the risk of
inconsistent adjudications that could lead to incompatible
standards of conduct for the Defendants. Thus, certification under
Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is proper as well.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Sargus grants the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification. The Case remains open.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5fda3b4x from Leagle.com.


GINKGO BIOWORKS: Faces Stuart Suit Over 12% Drop of Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN STUART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GINKGO BIOWORKS HOLDINGS, INC. F/K/A SOARING
EAGLE ACQUISITION CORP., HARRY E. SLOAN, JASON KELLY, and MARK
DMYTRUK, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08943 (N.D. Cal., November
18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false
and/or misleading proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning Ginkgo's business to trade Ginkgo securities
at artificially inflated prices between May 11, 2021 and October 5,
2021. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to disclose
that: (1) Ginkgo's failure to derive real revenue from third-party
customers left it almost completely dependent on related parties;
(2) as a result, most, if not all, of the company's revenue came
from related parties the company created, funded, or controlled
through its ownership and board seats; (3) the company was
misclassifying and underreporting related party revenue in order to
conceal the company's near total-dependence on related parties; (4)
many of the company's new research and development (R&D) partners
are undisclosed related parties and/or facades; (5) as a result,
the company's valuation was significant less than the Defendants
disclosed to investors; and (6) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

When the truth emerged, Ginkgo's shares fell $1.39 per share, or
approximately 12 percent, to close at $10.59 per share on October
6, 2021, damaging investors, added the suit.

Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Soaring Eagle
Acquisition Corp., is a biotechnology company headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 785-2610
         Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

GLOBAL TRAVEL: Montana Court Narrows Claims in Sides Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA SIDES, et al., Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL TRAVEL
ALLIANCE, INC., Defendant, Case NSo. CV 20-53-BLG-SPW (D. Mont.),
Judge Susan P. Waters of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana, Billings Division:

    (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
        and

   (ii) granted in part and denied in part Defendant Global
        Travel's Motion to Dismiss.

Background

Global Travel sells educational travel packages to students,
including trips to Washington D.C. and New York City. The
Plaintiffs are various parents and students who booked trips for
Spring 2020. These trips were cancelled on March 13, 2020, due to
safety implications from the COVID-19 pandemic. In the cancellation
letter, Global Travel detailed their standard cancellation policy,
refund policy, their trip protection plans, and their right to
cancel trips for safety reasons. In a second communication, Global
Travel gave affected participants the option to reschedule their
planned trip or receive a partial refund, with the amount of the
refund depending on how close the original trip date was.

The Plaintiffs are parents and school administrators who, on behalf
of the children, demanded full refunds but only received partial
refunds. Global Travel contends that their voucher and partial
refund arrangement conforms to, and even goes above and beyond, the
terms and obligations of the Booking Agreement. The Plaintiffs'
core contention is that Global Travel conflated the safety
cancellation policy and the voluntary cancellation policy,
resulting in underpayment of refunds.

The Plaintiffs raised six claims in their operative Third Amended
Complaint: Negligence, breach of contract, violations of the
Montana Consumer Protection Act (MTCPA), declaratory and injunctive
relief, an equitable constructive trust, and the previously
mentioned class action certification. Global Travel moved for
dismissal of all six claims.

Judge Cavan recommended denying class certification and granting in
part and denying in part Global Travel's motion to dismiss.
Specifically, Judge Cavan recommended dismissing the negligence
claim and the declaratory and injunctive relief claim, as well as
denying class certification.

The Plaintiffs object solely to dismissal of the negligence claim.
Global Travel objected to the magistrate's denial of their motion
as to the breach of contract and MTCPA claims. Each party responded
to the other's objections.

Discussion

1. Class Certification

As previously mentioned, the Plaintiffs brought a Motion for Class
Certification. Their proposed class contained all persons who
purchased Global Travel packages under the 2019-2020 Booking
Agreement for travel after Jan. 31, 2020, whose trips were
cancelled or postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic but did not
receive full refunds.

Judge Waters explains that class action certification is governed
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, requiring sufficient
numerosity, commonality, and typicality of named plaintiffs, among
other requirements. Judge Cavan determined that as a threshold
matter, the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate through evidentiary
proof that any of the Rule 23 factors are satisfied. The Plaintiffs
did not object to this finding. Judge Waters finds that Judge Cavan
did not commit clear error in this determination and therefore
adopts his finding that the Motion for Class Certification should
be denied.

2. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant seeks to dismiss the five remaining claims:
Negligence, breach of contract, violation of the MTCPA, declaratory
and injunctive relief, and imposition of an equitable constructive
trust. Judge Cavan recommended granting dismissal of the negligence
and declaratory relief claims, with leave to amend the latter.
Judge Cavan determined that the Plaintiffs plausibly stated claims
for breach of contract, violations of the MTCPA, and therefore the
contingent equitable trust claim as well. The Plaintiffs object to
the magistrate's recommendation of dismissal of the negligence
claim and the Defendant objects to the recommended denial of their
motion as to counts II, III, and V. The Defendants also object to
Judge Cavan's recommendation that the Plaintiffs be allowed leave
to amend their declaratory relief claim.

a. Negligence

Judge Cavan determined that, because Global Travel would have no
duty to the Plaintiffs in the absence of the Booking Agreement,
Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a negligence claim. He
determined that the Plaintiffs' claim was solely based on the
alleged breach of the terms of the contract and therefore the
Plaintiffs' remedy is for breach of contract. The Plaintiffs object
and assert that Judge Cavan failed to consider that Montana law
allows for concurrent negligence and breach of contract claims
where the facts support a heightened duty of care as well as a
contractual relationship.

In support, they cite to several cases where the Montana Supreme
Court allowed concurrent negligence claims based on a special
relationship. In Morrow v. Bank of America, the Montana Supreme
Court allowed a negligence claim where a lender advised a client
beyond the ordinary role of lender, such that it created a
fiduciary relationship; a relationship that provided support for a
negligence claim. 324 P.3d 1167, 1177-78 (Mont. 2014). In Billings
Clinic v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., the Montana Supreme Court
allowed a concurrent negligence claim based on asserted breaches of
duty relating to accounting, reasoning that a heightened
relationship exists between professional accountants and their
clients because of the professional duty stewards of money and
assets owe to their clients. 797 P.2d 899, 909 (Mont. 1990).

Judge Waters holds that the Plaintiffs' attempt to shoehorn in a
heightened duty of care based on Global Travel's custody of funds
prior to the trip and offering an "anticipated life, changing
experience" from a school trip falls short. Aside from their bare
assertion that a travel company is entrusted with money "like an
insurance agent or banker," the Plaintiffs offer no further analogy
between the respective duties. Unlike accountants or investors,
travel agents are not entrusted with money for their prudent
advisement; they are paid money to perform a service. Plaintiffs
offer no analysis to convince the Court to bridge this gap. The
Plaintiffs' argument is insufficient to survive dismissal of the
claim and the Court agrees with Judge Cavan's determination that
Global Travel's motion should be granted as to the negligence
claim.

b. Breach of Contract

Judge Cavan determined that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a
breach of contract claim. Specifically, he stated the "Plaintiffs'
allegation that Global Travel conflated the two cancellation
provisions to justify retention of all or part of the Plaintiffs'
payments plausibly states a claim for breach of contract." Judge
Cavan reviewed the provisions of the Booking Agreement, and
concluded that, at this stage, the provision's silence about what
refunds or payments are owed if Global Travel exercises its
cancellation rights creates a plausible breach of contract claim.

Global Travel objects to this finding. It asserts that, because the
Booking Agreement gives Global Travel the authority to cancel or
modify a trip "without liability or cost," the Plaintiffs' claim
for breach of contract is defeated. It further asserts that "where
a traveler's enrollment is cancelled, traveler refunds are governed
by the Standard Cancellation Policy" and that there is no ambiguity
between these provisions. Then, apparently arguing in the
alternative, Global Travel asserts that it did not cancel any trips
and instead rescheduled them; in Global Travel's view, it was the
parents who cancelled when they invoked their refund rights.

Judge Waters disagrees with Global Travel's view. She finds taht
the Standard Cancellation Policy contemplates cancellation by the
traveler -- the subclauses reference the traveler ("you")
cancelling (that is, not Global Travel cancelling) and states that
"all cancellations must be made in writing by mail, fax or email to
cancel@globaltravelalliance.com and should include a reason for
canceling." It is unclear on the face of the complaint and the
Booking Agreement how a traveler would cancel by mail if in fact
Global Travel cancels the trip for safety reasons. As to Global
Travel's argument that it merely postponed trips and the parents
are the ones who chose to cancel, at this stage that question goes
to the merits. Judge Waters agrees with Judge Cavan's finding that
the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract survives the motion to
dismiss.

c. Remaining Claims

Global Travel further objects to Judge Cavan's recommendation that
the Plaintiffs' claim under the MTCPA and claim for an equitable
constructive trust be allowed to proceed. Their objections are
based on and flow from their position that the breach of contract
claim is implausible. However, as stated, Judge Waters finds that
the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their breach of contract claim.
Accordingly, if Global Travel wrongfully withheld traveler funds,
the Plaintiffs may also be entitled to relief under the MTCPA or
entitled to the imposition of an equitable constructive trust.

Judge Watres would also like to note that, as to these objections,
Global Travel apparently misunderstands the form or nature of the
objection process. A proper objection identifies the parts of the
magistrate's disposition that the party finds objectionable and
presents legal argument and supporting authority such that the
district court is able to identify the issues and the reasons
supporting a contrary result. In short, an objection to a
magistrate's findings and recommendations "is not a vehicle for the
losing party to relitigate its case." Judge Waters expects that
future objections will conform to these standards.

Finally, Global Travel objects to Judge Cavan allowing the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their declaratory and injunctive relief
claims. The Ninth Circuit has "adopted a generous standard for
granting leave to amend from a dismissal for failure to state a
claim," citing Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 926 (9th
Cir. 2012). Global Travel urges that any amendment would be futile.
However, given the broad standard mandated by the circuit, Judge
Waters agrees with Judge Cavan that the Plaintiffs should be
allowed to amend their declaratory and injunctive relief claim.

Conclusion

The proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the U.S.
Magistrate Judge are adopted in full. Judge Waters denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. She granted Global Travel's
Motion to Dismiss as to Count I, granted with leave to amend as to
Count IV, and denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hdxvz7s4 from Leagle.com.


GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY: Dicorte Files FLSA Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE DICORTE, Plaintiff v. GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC.
d/b/a BRASS FLAMINGO, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-02582 (M.D. Fla.,
November 3, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dancer at
its Brass Flamingo Gentlemen's Club in Fort Richey, Florida, for
the period of about January 2017 through about December 2020.

The case arises following the Plaintiff's pre-litigation demand
letters sent to the Defendant alleging the Defendant of unlawful
retaliation. In her demand letters, the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant texted pictures and other descriptive information about
her to other local area strip clubs to defame and humiliate her and
to ensure that she would be blackballed and otherwise prevented
from working as an exotic dancer at other local strip clubs.
Subsequently on January 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed suit against
the Defendant alleging the Defendant of violations of the minimum
wage payment requirements of the FLSA and FMWA and for violations
of the FLSA anti-retaliation protections.

Goodfellows of Pasco County, Inc. d/b/a Brass Flamingo operates a
gentlemen's club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charlotte F. Kelly, Esq.
          FERNEE KELLY LAW
          1228 E. 7th Ave. Ste. 200
          Tampa, FL 33605
          Tel: (813) 315-3981
          E-mail: charlotteferneekellylaw.com

                - and –

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

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Dec. 6 Hearing on Bid to Nix Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated case In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc.
The Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed an omnibus opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss on Oct. 5, 2021. A hearing on the
motion to dismiss is set for Dec. 6, 2021.

On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444).

On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:21-cv-00175).

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as interest, fees
and costs.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and assert
that the Company failed to disclose to investors that Amazon.com,
Inc. was developing its own mobile and online prescription
medication ordering and fulfillment service that would compete
directly with the Company.

According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor
service, the Company's stock price fell, causing investor losses.

Lead plaintiff applications were submitted February 16, 2021, and
on April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the
caption In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444) and
appointed Betty Kalmanson, Lawrence Kalmanson, Shawn Kalmanson, and
Janice Kasbaum as Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 7, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
containing substantially similar factual allegations as the prior
complaints, but adding claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case on
August 6, 2021 and Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed an omnibus
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October 5, 2021.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for December 6, 2021.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiffs and members of the class and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

"This litigation is at preliminary stages, and the outcome of any
complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties," the Company said.

Based upon information presently known to management, the Company
has not accrued a loss for this matter as a loss is not probable
and reasonably estimable.

While it is reasonably possible a loss may have been incurred, the
Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in this
matter.

GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website.
GoodRx Holdings serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Santa Monica, California.

GOOGLE LLC: Robins Kaplan Discusses UK Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seth Zawila, Esq., of Robins Kaplan LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the United Kingdom's Supreme Court, its highest court,
blocked a bid for a $4.3 billion class action against Google over
claims the company violated the country's Data Protection Act
(DPA). The claimants alleged that Google misused the data of
millions of iPhone users under the DPA by tracking user internet
usage even when users were assured in notices that they would be
opted out of such tracking by default. The country's supreme court
unanimous decision held that the plaintiffs failed to show
sufficient damages under the DPA and that it was "unsustainable" to
permit the class action without plaintiffs having to prove
financial loss or mental distress.

The ruling marks an important U.K. legal precedent for future
class-action suits under the DPA and may be referenced by other
jurisdictions with similar DPA statutes. It also highlights the
ongoing evolution of privacy law in European markets and the debate
concerning the legal thresholds plaintiffs must meet to show
damages as the result of data misappropriation or breach. [GN]

H&J INVESTMENTS: Regalado Slams Unpaid OT, Biometric Data Retention
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Miguel Valdez Regalado, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown Plaintiff, v. H&J
Investments Corp. and Herminio Gonzalez Gonzalez, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-06046 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2021), seeks redress for
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, as well as any related state law claims, for
failure to pay overtime wages owed, as well as related violations
of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

H&J Investments operates as "Carmelo's Taco Place" where Regalado
worked as a cook. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per week without being paid overtime premiums. H&J Investments also
required Regalado to provide his personalized biometric indicators
and biometric information. H&J Investments collected and stored
Plaintiff's fingerprints and required him to clock-in and clock-out
by scanning his fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine.
Regalado says that he has not been notified where his fingerprints
are being stored, for how long will they be stored and what might
happen to this information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Dore, Esq.
     Daniel Schlade, Esq.
     6232 N. Pulaski, #300
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: (773) 550-3775
     Email: jmdore70@sbcglobal.net
            danschlade@gmail.com

HALLRICH INC: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Dimidik Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Dimidik, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hallrich Incorporated, North Coast Pizza,
Inc., A.E. Szambecki, A. Scott Ritchie, and Scott C. Arbuthnot,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00306 (S.D. Ohio, November 11, 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 Ohio Wage Acts.

Defendants own and manage multiple Pizza Hut franchises throughout
Ohio where Dimidik worked as a delivery driver. Defendants
allegedly took a tip credit from Dimidik 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:

     Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Telephone: (614) 604-8759
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

            - and -

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
     Cincinnati, OH 45236
     Telephone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com


HIREQUEST INC: Settles Class Action in Canada for $200K
-------------------------------------------------------
HireQuest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that as of Sept. 30,
2021 the Company incurred a legal settlement expense of $200,000 to
a class-action lawsuit filed in Canada.

"The selling, General, and Administrative Expenses for the three
months ended September 30, 2021 were approximately $3.0 million, an
increase of 124.2% from $1.4 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2020," the Company said.

This increase is related to increased compensation costs of
approximately $350,000, increased stock-based compensation costs of
approximately $459,000, an increase in the reserve on the Company's
notes receivable of approximately $307,000, and a legal settlement
of $200,000 related to a class-action lawsuit filed in California.

HireQuest, Inc. is a nationwide franchisor of offices providing
on-demand labor solutions in the light industrial and blue-collar
segments of the staffing industry and traditional commercial
staffing.

HOEGH LNG: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Hoegh LNG Partners LP (HMLP)
Class Period: 8/22/2019 - 7/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 27, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-hmlp/

If you purchased shares of the above company 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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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. [GN]

HSBC BANK: Judge Certifies Class Action Over $30MM Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a B.C. judge
has certified a class-action lawsuit against HSBC Bank Canada in
connection with a $30-million Ponzi scheme.

In an investment scheme that was exposed as a fraud in early 2016,
Virginia Tan encouraged investors to lend her money on very
attractive terms for use in her loan business.

She was, however, running a Ponzi scheme that involved the West
Vancouver woman using fresh funds received from investors to pay
out older loans. Such schemes require a perpetual supply of fresh
investment funds to continue and are bound to collapse at some
point.

Jastram Properties Ltd., which invested more than $6 million and
has only recovered about $1.8 million, filed separate class-action
lawsuits against Tan and members of her family, and HSBC. There are
about 80 investors who are class members.

Tan admitted the essential elements of the scheme in a settlement
agreement with the B.C. Securities Commission, a regulatory body,
in 2017.

The class-action lawsuit against Tan, her husband and her son
resulted in a judgment against them amounting to $3.5 million,
which was approved for settlement.

In the case filed against HSBC, the seventh-largest bank in Canada
with 135 branches across the country, Jastram is claiming that Tan
operated the scheme through accounts at the bank from 2011 until
early 2013.

The company alleges that the bank learned of the fraud in early
2013 and ended their business with her, but that she shifted her
banking to other institutions and continued the fraud for another
three years.

It says that it was not sufficient for the bank to terminate its
relationship with Tan, and that it was the duty of the bank to
investigate, advise "appropriate authorities" of the fraud and warn
other financial institutions whose customers' funds were the target
of the fraud, but it failed to do so.

The bank, which opposed the certification application, said it was
"plain and obvious" that the lawsuit did not disclose a cause of
action against the bank, describing the lawsuit as "novel and
dangerous."

HSBC also denied that the record disclosed the existence of common
issues sufficient to justify certification and said a class-action
proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

But in his ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey
Gomery said he was not persuaded by the bank's argument and ruled
in favour of the plaintiff.

In doing so, the judge noted that he was not commenting on the
merits of the plaintiff's case, which will be determined at a later
court proceeding.

Paul Bennett and Mark Mounteer, lawyers for the plaintiff, said
their client was pleased by the judge's decision but remains
unhappy that police have decided not to investigate Tan
criminally.

Sharon Wilks, a spokesperson for the bank, noted that it was a
certification hearing only and the court has not made a
determination on the merits.

She said the bank, whose parent company is headquartered in the
United Kingdom, will defend itself in the action and will argue
that it did not know that Tan was operating the Ponzi scheme. [GN]

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement Agreement Entered in McNair Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company
entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to court
review and approval, to resolve all claims brought by Plaintiff
McNair and the class members.  

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging only PAGA violations and seeking penalties, attorneys'
fees, and such other appropriate relief. This case was consolidated
with the McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage with
a rescheduled trial date of January 18, 2022.  

On October 28, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement, which is subject to court review and approval, to
resolve all claims brought by Plaintiff McNair and the class
members.  

No assurances can be given that such settlement will be approved by
the court.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Settlement Reached in Nguyen Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company
settled all individual claims brought by Jason Nguyen and Tam
Nguyen and each of their arbitration claims were dismissed with
prejudice on Sept 1, 2021.

On April 20, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, entitled
Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et al.

The plaintiffs contend the defendants did not pay purported class
members overtime compensation or provide meal and rest breaks, as
required by law.

The action seeks to invalidate any waiver signed by a purported
class member of their right to bring a class action and seeks
damages, restitution, penalties, attorney's fees, interest, and an
injunction against unfair, deceptive, and unlawful activities.  

On August 23, 2018, the court (1) granted the defendants motion to
compel arbitration as to all claims, except for the plaintiffs'
claims under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA); (2) ordered the plaintiffs to submit their claims (other
than PAGA claims) to arbitration on an individual, non-class,
non-collective, and non-representative basis; (3) dismissed all
class and collective claims with prejudice to the plaintiffs and
without prejudice to putative class members; and (4) stayed all
claims that were compelled to arbitration, as well as the PAGA
claims.

"Plaintiffs Jason Nguyen and Tam Nguyen each submitted their
respective demands for individual arbitration to the American
Arbitration Association," the Company said.

The Company settled all individual claims brought by Jason Nguyen
and Tam Nguyen and each of their arbitration claims were dismissed
with prejudice on September 1, 2021.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Summary Ruling on Preferred B Voting Rights Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Circuit
Court (and the Court of Special Appeals) in granting summary
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the Preferred B voting
rights.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.

The action sought the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders.

The action also sought punitive damages and legal expenses. On July
16, 2018, the Circuit Court entered a Judgment Order  whereby it
(1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Preferred C Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors
to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment); and (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Preferred B
Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not
order the Company to make any payment at that time).

The Circuit Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome
of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal.

On October 2, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals held oral argument
for all appeals in the matter.

On April 1, 2020, the Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Series B
voting rights finding that the voting rights provision was not
ambiguous.  

In response, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to the Maryland Court of Appeals appealing the Court of Special
Appeals opinion, which was granted on July 13, 2020.

All parties submitted their briefs and oral argument was held on
December 4, 2020.

On July 15, 2021, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Circuit Court (and the Court of Special Appeals) in
granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the
Preferred B voting rights and, although the Court of Appeals found
the voting rights provision to be ambiguous, it concluded that the
extrinsic evidence presented to the Circuit Court, which it found
to be undisputed, supported the plaintiffs' interpretation that the
voting rights provision required separate voting by the Preferred B
stockholders to amend the Preferred B Articles Supplementary.

Accordingly, the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles
Supplementary were not validly adopted and the 2004 Preferred
Articles Supplementary remain in effect.

On August 17, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate
returning the case to the Circuit Court for final proceedings.

Thereafter, and in consideration of the Circuit Court's outstanding
Order, co-Plaintiff Camac Fund LP called upon the Company to hold a
special meeting of the Preferred B stockholders for the election of
two directors under the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary.

The Special Meeting was convened on October 13, 2021 and adjourned
by a vote of all shares present to November 23, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
Pacific due to lack of a quorum sufficient for election of
directors.

"On October 25, 2021, the case was assigned to a judge of the
Circuit Court to oversee final disposition of outstanding issues,"
the Company said.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

INTREPID DETOX: Monroe Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
SL MONROE SR., Plaintiff v. INTREPID DETOX RESIDENTIAL LLC, CHAPEL
HILL MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CHAPEL HILL MEDICAL DETOX, and
REBECCA KHAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-82022-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., November 3, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated individuals against the
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants during or around May
2021 as a Behavioral Health Technician until his wrongful
termination on or about October 26, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to
properly pay him overtime compensation for all hours he worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and other relief as the Court
deems equitable and just.

The Corporate Defendants are an addiction treatment center. Rebecca
Khan is an owner, officer, and/or director of the Corporate
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha Walls Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 503-5131
          Fax: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

INVITATION HOMES: Court Extends Class Cert. Briefing in Rivera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INVITATION HOMES,
INC. a Maryland corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-03158-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation
and request to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification as follows.

   -- New opposition deadline:      December 14, 2021

   -- New reply deadline:           January 18, 2022.

   -- Hearing date:                 Feb. 25, 2022

Invitation Homes is a single-family home leasing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qQEYb3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
          Justin J. Fields, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744 2200
          Facsimile: (619) 744 2201
          E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com
                  jfields@duanemorris.com

JARDINE LLOYD: Class Action Hearings Conclude in NSW Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that a lengthy class action trial over
local government insurance mutuals has concluded in the NSW Supreme
Court, but a judgment is not expected for months.

Richmond Valley Council began the action on behalf of 12 NSW
councils in 2018, alleging JLT breached its broker duties and
arranged cover "at less advantageous rates than were available".

JLT says it didn't act as an insurance broker for the group and
"when fairly looked at" cover arranged was not less advantageous
and councils suffered no loss or damage.

Justice Kate Williams heard evidence over almost a month, and on
Nov. 12 reserved judgment.

JLT, now part of Marsh & McLennan, declined to comment following
the conclusion of the hearing.

A spokeswoman previously told insuranceNEWS.com.au it believes the
plaintiff's allegations are "unfounded".

A spokeswoman for the plaintiff previously told
insuranceNEWS.com.au that it understands JLT's defence "is that it
was not acting as the retail broker to local councils in relation
to their two largest lines of insurance, which for NSW councils
cost millions of dollars each year".

"That is, JLT contends that councils have been spending significant
public funds without the benefit of appropriate broking advice
about the best insurance arrangements for it.

"The plaintiff maintains that JLT was its trusted retail broker and
gave it yearly recommendations to remain a member of Statewide,
when the plaintiff says there were cheaper insurance options that
were available."

Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which is acting for the
municipalities, says a similar class action on behalf of Victorian
councils is set to proceed to trial following the conclusion of the
NSW case. [GN]

JUUL LABS: Escambia School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOLS, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, 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-08940 (N.D.
Cal., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama 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.

Escambia County Schools, Escambia County, State of Alabama is a
school district with its offices located at 301 Belleville Ave.,
Brewton, Alabama.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

JUUL LABS: Haleyville City Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
HALEYVILLE CITY SCHOOLS, WINSTON COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, 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-08963 (N.D.
Cal., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama 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 alleges.

Haleyville City Schools, Winston County, State of Alabama is a
school district with its offices located at 2001 20th St.,
Haleyville, Alabama.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Autauga County Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AUTAUGA COUNTY SCHOOLS, AUTAUGA COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, 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-08961 (N.D.
Cal., November 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama 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.

Autauga County Schools, Autauga County, State of Alabama is a
school district with its offices located at 153 W. 4th St.,
Prattville, Alabama.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

KURA SUSHI: $1.75M Settlement Reached in Gomes Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2021, that a settlement was agreed
upon in the amount of $1.75 million in the putative class action
complaint filed by a former employee, Brandy Gomes.

On May 31, 2019, the putative class action complaint was in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, alleging violations of California
wage and hour laws.

On July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action.

In addition, the first amended class action complaint added new
causes of action alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws including a cause of action brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act.

On August 7, 2020, the Company filed its answer to the first
amended complaint, generally denying the allegations in the
complaint.

In May 2021, a joint stipulation was filed requesting a delay in
the class certification hearing date to March 3, 2022, and a
mediation was scheduled for September 24, 2021.

During the mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of
$1.75 million.

The Company recorded an accrued liability of $1.78 million,
including an estimated $30 thousand in employer payroll taxes,
related to this settlement within general and administrative
expenses in the statements of operations during the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2021.

"A court hearing to seek preliminary approval of the settlement has
been scheduled for May 9, 2022," the Company said.

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience." The company is based in Irvine,
California.

LANE LOGIX: Underpays Traffic Controllers, Hosmer Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA HOSMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANE LOGIX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-02076-JRA (N.D. Ohio, November 3, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful practices and policies for not paying its traffic
controllers in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a crew lead traffic
controller between February 2019 and October 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant required her and other
similarly situated traffic controllers to work in pairs and to
drive its vehicles to and from their worksites. However, the
Defendant did not compensate them for all hours they performed work
for the Defendant, that include the time they spent picking up,
transporting, and/or dropping off their work partners. Accordingly,
the time the Plaintiff and other similarly situated traffic
controllers spent picking up, transporting, and/or dropping off
other employees was an integral and indispensable part of their
principal activities. The Plaintiff estimates that she spent
approximately 20-30 minutes per day driving out of her way to pick
up, transport, and drop off her assigned partners, five days per
week, for approximately one and one-half to two and a half hours
per week. As a result, despite regularly working 40 or more hours
per week, they were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed
to make, keep and preserve accurate records of all of the unpaid
work performed by its traffic controllers, the Plaintiff asserts.

Lane Logix, LLC provides traffic control services at worksites
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Blvd.
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

LEDGER SAS: Baton's 1st Amended Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD BATON, et al., Plaintiffs v. LEDGER SAS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02470-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss and dismisses
the case with prejudice.

Defendants Shopify USA, Shopify, Inc. and Ledger filed respective
motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for, among other
reasons, lack of personal jurisdiction.

Background

The Plaintiffs, customers who purchased a hardware wallet to
protect cryptocurrency assets, bring a putative class action
seeking redress for harms they allegedly suffered stemming from a
data breach exposing over 270,000 pieces of personally identifiable
information, including customer names, email addresses, postal
addresses and telephone numbers. The Plaintiffs are customers of
Defendant Ledger), a French company based in Paris that sells
hardware wallets to allow customers to manage cryptocurrency.
Ledger sells its hardware wallets -- the Ledger Nano X and Ledger
Nano S -- through its e-commerce website, which operates on
Defendant Shopify, Inc.'s platform. The Plaintiffs allege they, and
several putative classes, each bought a Ledger hardware wallet on
Ledger's e-commerce website, through Shopify's platform, between
July 2017 and June 2020. When the Plaintiffs made their purchases,
they provided their name, email addresses, telephone numbers and
postal addresses.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise of two security incidents involving
data breaches exposing their contact information. First, the
Plaintiffs allege that between April and June 2020, rogue Shopify,
Inc. employees exported a trove of data, including Ledger's
customer transactional records. Shopify allegedly publicly
announced the theft on Sept. 22, 2020, which involved the data of
approximately 272,000 people. The Plaintiffs allege that Ledger did
not inform them that their data was involved in the Shopify breach
at that time.

Second, the Plaintiffs allege that Ledger publicly announced that
an unauthorized third-party gained access to Ledger's e-commerce
database through an application programming interface key on June
25, 2020 and acquired the email addresses of one million customers
and physical contact information of 9,500 customers. They allege
that Ledger did not disclose that the attack on its website and the
theft of Shopify's data were connected, that Ledger downplayed the
scale of the actual attack, and, as a result, the Plaintiffs and
the putative class members were subject to phishing scams,
cyber-attacks, and demands for ransom and threats. The Plaintiffs
contend that Ledger knew that its customer list was highly valuable
to hackers, because it was a list of people who have converted
substantial wealth into anonymized crypto-assets that are
transferrable without a trace.

The Plaintiffs allege that despite knowing the high value of its
customer list and the need for confidentiality, Ledger did not
implement security measures to protect its customers by regularly
deleting and/or archiving the customer data to protect that
information from online accessibility, and that Ledger failed to
exercise reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing,
safeguarding, deleting, and protecting its customers personal
information that Ledger had in its possession from being
compromised, lost, or stolen, and from being accessed, and misused
by unauthorized persons. Similarly, the Plaintiffs allege Shopify
failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining, retaining,
securing, safeguarding, deleting, and protecting their personal
information in their possession from being compromised, lost, or
stolen, and from being accessed, and misused by unauthorized
persons.

The Plaintiffs are five Ledger customers who reside, respectively,
in California, Georgia, New York, London, United Kingdom and Tel
Aviv, Israel. They purport to represent several classes and
subclasses, ranging from customers internationally to customers in
particular states who suffered particular harms. The Plaintiffs
bring claims for, among others, negligence, negligence per se,
injunctive relief and remedies under California's unfair
competition law, Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act and New
York's General Business Law.

The Defendants include additional factual background relevant to
the Court's jurisdictional inquiries at the motion to dismiss
stage. Shopify USA states that it is incorporated in Delaware, has
its principal place of business in Ontario, Canada, and never had a
business relationship with Ledger. Shopify Inc., explains it is a
Canadian corporation that it is not registered to do business in
California and, does not have any employees in California. It
explains that the "rogue" individuals who were responsible for the
data breach of Shopify, Inc.'s platform were not employees of
Shopify or any of its affiliated companies, but independent
contractors of a company called TaskUs, who were located in the
Philippines. Ledger explains that it is a French company with no
California or U.S. employees.

Defendant Ledger Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the
case. Remaining Defendants Shopify USA, Shopify, Inc. and Ledger
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on multiple
grounds, including for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.

Discussion

There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: (1) general
jurisdiction and (2) specific jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs contend
that the Court has general jurisdiction (and, in the alternative,
specific jurisdiction) over Shopify USA and specific jurisdiction
over Shopify, Inc. and Ledger.

Judge Chen holds that the Court lacks general jurisdiction (and
specific jurisdiction) over Shopify USA, and lacks specific
jurisdiction over Shopify, Inc. and Ledger. First, he finds that
the Plaintiffs' observation that Shopify USA's place of business at
the time of the data breach was in California does not establish
the Court's general jurisdiction over Shopify USA. Courts have
uniformly held that general jurisdiction is to be determined no
earlier than the time of filing of the complaint. The Plaintiffs
are also unable to show that this is such an exceptional case where
Shopify USA's contacts are so "continuous and systematic" as to
"'approximate physical presence' in California."

Second, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs fail to show (1) that
the Shopify, Inc. "purposefully directed" their activities towards
California, and (2) that their claims "arise out of" Shopify's
forum-related activities demonstrate. Therefore, the Court lacks
specific jurisdiction over Shopify Inc (and, correspondingly, over
Shopify USA). The Shopify Defendants are dismissed from the action.
And, because the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden to
demonstrate that Ledger "purposefully directed" its activity at
California, and that Plaintiffs' claims "arise out of" Ledger's
California-related activities, the Court it lacks specific
jurisdiction over Ledger. Thus, Defendant Ledger is dismissed from
this action.

Having concluded that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
any of the three Defendants in the case, Judge Chen turns to the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
The Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery articulates
six issues pertaining to the Shopify Defendants and three issues
pertaining to Ledger that they would seek to investigate.

Judge Chen concludes that the Plaintiffs' requested discovery is
not based on any prima facie evidence that the undisputed evidence
presented by the Defendants is false or inaccurate. Accordingly, he
concludes jurisdictional discovery is based on speculation and is
therefore unwarranted. He denies the Plaintiffs' request. In light
of his finding that jurisdictional discovery is unwarranted, Judge
Chen concludes that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to
attempt to amend their complaint to assert personal jurisdiction
over any of the three Defendants.

Conclusion

Judge Chen concludes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over Defendants Shopify USA, Shopify, Inc., and Ledger.
Accordingly, he grants each Defendant's respective motion to
dismiss. He further concludes that jurisdictional discovery is
unwarranted and thus denies the Plaintiffs' request for
jurisdictional discovery. For the reasons he explained, Judge Chen
finds that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to attempt to assert personal jurisdiction over
Defendants. Thus, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 55, 56, and 58. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/436yw7ym from Leagle.com


LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Lightspeed Commerce, Inc. ("Lightspeed" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LSPD) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06365, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lightspeed
securities between September 11, 2020 and September 28, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lightspeed securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 18, 2022 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.

Lightspeed provides commerce enabling Software as a Service (SaaS)
platform for small and midsize businesses, retailers, restaurants,
and golf course operators in Canada, the United States, Germany,
Australia, and internationally. The Company's cloud platforms are
designed interrelated elements, such as omni-channel consumer
experience, a comprehensive back-office operations management suite
to improve customers' efficiency and insight, and the facilitation
of payments. Lightspeed's platform functionalities include full
omni-channel capabilities, order-ahead and curbside pickup, point
of sale, product and menu management, employee and inventory
management, analytics and reporting, multi-location connectivity,
loyalty, customer management, and tailored financial solutions.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lightspeed had misrepresented
the strength of its business by, inter alia, overstating its
customer count, gross transaction volume ("GTV"), and increase in
Average Revenue Per User ("ARPU"), while concealing the Company's
declining organic growth and business deterioration; (ii)
Lightspeed had overstated the benefits and value of the Company's
various acquisitions; (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated
its financial position and prospects; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On September 29, 2021, market analyst Spruce Point Capital
Management published a report regarding Lightspeed. Spruce Point
also issued a press release summarizing its findings. The summary
stated, among other things, that "[e]vidence shows that Lightspeed
massively inflated its business pre-IPO, overstating its customer
count by 85% and gross transaction volume ('GTV') by 10% -- a
payment volume metric that a former employee described as 'smoke
and mirrors'"; that there was "[e]vidence of declining organic
growth and business deterioration through Lightspeed's IPO, despite
management's claims that Average Revenue Per User ('ARPU') is
increasing"; and that the Company's "[r]ecent acquisition spree has
come at escalating costs with no clear path to profitability, while
management pursues aggressive revenue reporting practices."

On this news, Lightspeed's stock price fell $13.73 per share, or
12.2%, to close at $98.77 per share on September 29, 2021.

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]

LIVE NATION: Rosen Law Probes Firm for Possible Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: LYV)
resulting from allegations that Live Nation may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Live Nation 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-2198.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 November 5, 2021, the Astroworld tragedy
occurred, resulting in at least 9 deaths, hundreds of injuries, and
the hospitalization of 25 people. Live Nation promoted the event.

According to an Associated Press article entitled "Crowd surge
kills at least 8 at Houston music festival," the crowd at
Astroworld "suddenly surged toward the stage during a performance
by rapper Travis Scott, squeezing fans so tightly together that
they could not breathe or move their arms and killing eight people
in the chaos." The article also noted that "[s]ome audience members
said barricades erected near the stage and to separate different
sections of ticket holders prevented fans from escaping."

Since the tragedy, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against Live
Nation, many of which allege that the concert organizers created
conditions that caused the stampedes and failed to provide proper
safety planning, security, and medical personnel. According to a
Billboard article, "[e]xperts have told Billboard that the
litigation over the deadly event – which left eight dead and
scores more injured – could ultimately see hundreds of individual
claims and that potential damages or settlements could reach
hundreds of millions of dollars."

On this news, the Company's share price fell 5.7% on November 8,
2021, the next trading day after the tragedy.

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. [GN]


LML HOSPITALITY: Segarra Files Labor Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Luis Segarra, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LML Hospitality LLC and Christos
Spyropoulos, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06285 (E.D. N.Y., November
11, 2021), seeks to recover overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as redress for Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage
statements for each pay period under the FLSA and New York labor
laws.

Defendants operate as "Prime 1024 Steakhouse" in Roslyn, New York
where Segarra worked as a server. Despite working a twelve-hour
workday, Segarra never received a lunch break during his shifts,
says the complaint. He claims to have worked approximately 72 hours
per workweek without being paid the appropriate overtime premiums
and Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the hours
worked by, and wages paid to, Segarra.

Instead, LML Hospitality paid Segarra pursuant to a tip pool
arrangement wherein they distributed tips and gratuities received
from patrons to Segarra and certain other employees, including
servers, bussers, runners and bar employees. Segarra alleges that
LML operated and imposed an unlawful tip pool, unlawfully retaining
tips owed to tipped employees, thereby depriving them of
compensation due. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lordstown Motors Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action
lawsuit, is pending.

Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18,
2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-616); Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-633); Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-720); Brury, et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case
No. 21-cv-760)); Romano et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.,
(Case No. 21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC, et al. v.
Lordstown Motors Corp. et al., (Case No. 21-cv-1021).

The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George
Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On September 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named
plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting
violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section
14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 9, 2021.

Plaintiffs' response is due by January 17, 2022, and the motion to
dismiss will be fully briefed by March 3, 2022.

The Company intend to vigorously defend against the claims.

"The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process," the Company said.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.

Lordstown Motors Corp. designs and manufactures electric vehicles.
The Company offers electric light duty trucks, pickup trucks, and
other vehicles. Lordstown Motors serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Lordstown, Ohio.

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Class Cert. in Davis Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT,
Appellant v. SAULETTE DAVIS, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, Appellee, Case
No. 2020-CA-1310-ME (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
reversed the Jefferson Circuit Court's July 6, 2020 ruling.

The ruling includes findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order
certifying the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) as a class.

Background

Mr. Brown worked as a youth program worker for Metro Youth
Detention Services, a subdivision of the Louisville Metro
Department of Public Protection. While working in that position,
Brown requested an accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and was offered a modified duty assignment
with the Louisville Zoo until Oct. 22, 2017.

During his time with the zoo, Metro advised Brown of vacant
positions for which he qualified, but he chose not to accept the
offer of alternative employment. Shortly before the expiration of
Brown's accommodated work assignment at the zoo, he was
hospitalized and requested medical leave.

Unfortunately, Brown exhausted all his available leave under the
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA); thus, Metro informed him that it
was unable to grant him further leave and would need to terminate
him. On Nov. 5, 2017, Metro sent Brown a letter terminating his
employment.

Throughout his employment, Brown was a member of the AFSCME, Local
2629 (Union), with nearly 800 members. The Union and Metro were
parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA
provided for members of the Union to challenge any dismissal
through a grievance procedure.

On Mr. Brown's behalf, the Union filed a grievance asking that
Brown be "made whole." According to the CBA, Metro had 45 days to
provide a determination on the grievance -- which it failed to do.
Because of this, the Union advanced Brown's claims to arbitration
and the parties agreed Metro did not timely respond, and Brown
should be reinstated. This left the arbitrator to decide one issue:
what, if any, recompense was Brown due to make him whole other than
reinstatement?

Ultimately, the arbitrator directed Metro to compensate Brown in
back pay and retroactive health insurance benefits. Following
arbitration, Brown was reinstated to his youth program worker
position with no loss in seniority. However, after reviewing
Brown's personnel and pay history, Metro informed Brown it had
discovered it had overpaid Brown by 37.73 hours prior to his
dismissal. Metro thus declined to pay Brown back pay and insurance
benefits during the time prior to his reinstatement.

Metro's failure to pay Brown motivated the Union to file a
complaint in circuit court seeking class certification of all of
Metro's current and former nonsupervisory employees. Metro moved to
dismiss the suit as a class action, and that motion was denied.
On June 25, 2020, the circuit court conducted a hearing to decide
whether to certify the class. The circuit court granted the motion
to certify the class defined in the complaint. This appeal
followed.

Discussion

On appeal, Metro argues the circuit court abused its discretion by:
(1) failing to "probe beyond the pleadings"; (2) improperly
certifying the class; (3) adopting the Union's proposed findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and proposed order; and (4) because a
class action suit is improper for unions.

The Court of Appeals only addresses whether class certification was
proper. It chooses to only address the issue of commonality.

Metro argues the class should not be certified because it is
neither numerous nor do the members have a common issue of law or
fact.

The Court of Appeals opines that the circuit court erroneously
expresses the issue. It determined two questions arise in the
litigation: (1) whether there is a valid and enforceable contract
between the parties; and (2) whether Metro violated the CBA when it
refused to honor the Arbitrator's Award by failing to make Brown
whole. These are not the correct questions. In fact, Metro admits
being a party to the contract in its answer. The only relevant
question is whether it was proper for Metro to unilaterally offset
the arbitrator's award -- not whether there was a breach of the
contract. This issue relates to Brown and only to Brown. It is not
a class issue. There is nothing common to any other member in the
Union and it was unnecessary and excessive to make it a class
action. The arbitration award was solely for Brown. In fact, the
proper case to be brought was to enforce the arbitration award.
There was no question that required the entire Union to become
involved on Brown's behalf. The issue lies between Brown and
Metro.

Hence, the Court of Appeals opines that that the circuit court
abused its discretion. The "common questions of law or fact" did
not predominate over individual cases. In fact, there is no other
individual case. The circuit court's expressions of concern are
unfounded and even unreasonable. Failure to satisfy a CR 23.02
criterion is fatal to certification of a class in Brown's case.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals reverses the
Jefferson Circuit Court's class certification and remands the
matter with instructions to dismiss the case.

All concur.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4btnvb94 from Leagle.com.

Michael J. O'Connell -- moconnell@innovationcounsel.com -- I. Joel
Frockt, in Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs for the Appellant.

I. Joel Frockt, in Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs for the Appellant.
Oral Argument for the Appellant.

David O'Brien Suetholz, Peter J. Jannace, in Louisville, Kentucky.
Brief for the Appellee.

Peter J. Jannace, in Louisville, Kentucky, Oral argument for the
Appellee.


MAPLE HILL: Milk Products Contain Sugar, Stevenson Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH STEVENSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPLE HILL CREAMERY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-09559-JPC (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment, and violations of New York General Business Law
and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraudulent, deceptive,
false, and otherwise improper advertising, sales, and marketing of
its line of organic, zero-sugar milk products. The Defendant
labeled and advertised its milk products without sugar or sweetener
content. In reality, the products contain galactose, a simple
sugar. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations,
the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm in the form of paying
a higher price for them than they would have paid if they had known
that the milk products contained sugar.

Maple Hill Creamery, LLC is a manufacturer of milk products, with
its principal place of business located at 5 Hudson Street,
Kinderhook, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Derek H. Potts, Esq.
         THE POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
         3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
         Houston, TX 77098
         Telephone: (713) 963-8881
         Facsimile: (713) 583-5388
         E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com

                 - and –

         Timothy L. Sifers, Esq.
         Nathaniel Scearcy, Esq.
         1901 W. 47th Place, Suite 210
         Westwood, KS 66205
         Telephone: (816) 931-2230
         Facsimile: (816) 931-7030
         E-mail: tsifers@potts-law.com
                 nscearcy@potts-law.com

                 - and –

         John F. Edgar, Esq.
         Ryan J. Loehr, Esq.
         EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
         2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 2600
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 531-0033
         E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                 rjl@edgarlawfirm.com

MEREDITH CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals issued an opinion on Oct. 18, 2021, affirming the
district court's dismissal of the putative class action filed by a
shareholder.

On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019 (the New York Action).

On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019 (the Iowa
Action).

Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Both complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On November 12, 2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew the New
York Action, and the action has been dismissed.

On November 25, 2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers
Pension Fund was appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa
Action.

On March 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Iowa Action, seeking to represent a class of shareholders who
acquired securities of the Company between January 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2019.

On June 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Iowa
Action.

On October 28, 2020, a U.S. District Judge granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissing the Iowa Action with prejudice at
plaintiffs' cost due to plaintiffs' failure to satisfy applicable
pleading requirements.

Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead
any actionable misstatement or omission, scienter, or loss
causation.

On November 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of the District Court's dismissal.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on October
18, 2021, affirming the district court's dismissal of the case and
denial of leave to amend the complaint.

The plaintiff had until November 1, 2021 to request re-hearing or
review, but did not.

"Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
mandate, closing this case," the Company said.

Meredith is the publisher of, among others, the magazines Better
Homes and Gardens, Living the Country Life, Entertainment Weekly,
Food & Wine, Health, Midwest Living, People, Parents, Real Simple,
Shape, Southern Living, Travel + Leisure, Wood, FamilyFun, Rachel
Ray in Season, and InStyle.[BN]

MICHIGAN: Western District Court Dismisses Moore v. MDOC & LCF Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet T. Neff of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the case,
TERRENCE TERRELL MOORE, Plaintiff v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-117 (W.D. Mich.).

Background

The case is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 by 13 state prisoners housed at the Lakeland Correctional
Facility (LCF). On June 22, 2021, the Court denied the request for
a class action certification and severed the claims of the 13
prisoners-Plaintiffs into separate actions. Plaintiff Moore was
allowed to proceed under the existing case number and was ordered
to file an amended complaint containing only the allegations
relevant to his claims for relief.

The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Lakeland Correctional
Facility (LCF) in Coldwater, Branch County, Michigan. The events
about which he complains occurred at that facility. The Plaintiff
sues Governor Gretchen Whitmer, MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington,
Warden Bryant Morrison, Deputy Warden Robert Ault, Acting
Administrative Assistant Janet Traeore, Doctor Margaret Quellete,
Medical Provider E. Coe Hill, Registered Nurse Lori Blue, Law
Librarian Linda Thompson, Resident Unit Manager Timothy Shaw,
Resident Unit Manager Scott Cline, Corrections Officer Unknown
Part(y)(ies) #1, and Corrections Officer Unknown Minor. He also
names Prisoner Counselors Karen Kowalski, Shawanda Cope, Patrick
Daniels, Kevin Dirchell, and Dennis Randall.

In his amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that in March of
2020, COVID-19 infections at LCF were rampant and that Defendants
failed to adequately protect inmates, including the Plaintiff, from
infection. He states that he became infected and suffered from
coughing, sneezing, diarrhea, fever, headaches, loss of taste and
smell, and weight loss. He asserts that each of the named
Defendants knew or should have known of the imminent danger posed
to Plaintiff and other prisoners by COVID-19 but failed to act in
accordance with their duties to protect the Plaintiff from the
virus, or to ensure that he could access appropriate process to
gain early release from prison.

In the Plaintiff's first motion to amend and supplement pleadings,
he lists all of the Defendants named in the earlier amended
complaint. He also attaches affidavits by himself and other
prisoners, reciting facts related to his claims, as well as
referring to the claims of other prisoners. The Plaintiff attests
that he began to feel sick on March 11, 2020.

On March 22, 2020, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with COVID-19 as the
result of a failure to properly quarantine infected inmates. In
April of 2020, prisoner Dre'maris Jackson assisted the Plaintiff
with COVID-19 investigative reports regarding the donning and
doffing of PPE by prison staff. The Plaintiff claims that no masks
or other PPE were issued for staff or inmates at LCF until mid- to
late-April of 2020. He states that, as a result of this conduct, he
received retaliatory misconduct tickets on Sept. 13, 2020; Sept.
24, 2020; and Oct. 18, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he and other
prisoners obtained camera footage showing prison officials donning
and doffing PPE in March, April, and May of 2020.

The Plaintiff also filed a second motion to amend and to supplement
his complaint, in which he merely seeks to add new Defendants to
his action. His motion names Deputy Warden Troy Chrisman, Kirsten
Losinski, Counselor Markiyroe Garrett, Business/Mailroom Manager
Sue Middlestadt, Mailroom Employees Christine Boden and Michael
Stevens, Accounting Assistant Jessica Jones, Lieutenant Christiana
Borst, Lieutenant Frank Sobrieski, and Health Unit Manager Nathan
Mikel. However, the Plaintiff's supplemental pleading is entirely
conclusory. Nowhere in the Plaintiff's motion does he allege any
specific facts against any of the individuals he seeks to add to
this action.

In the Plaintiff's third supplemental pleading, he alleges that the
Defendants have put in place bonds to insure performance of their
duties. He contends that the Defendants have breached the terms of
those bonds and that he is entitled to recover damages as a result
under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.2923. The Plaintiff posits that
his bond claims are properly before this Court under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1352. He states these claims generically with respect to
all Defendants; he fails to allege any additional facts against any
particular Defendant.

The Plaintiff appears to be claiming that Defendants violated his
rights under the Eighth Amendment. He seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Discussion

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any
prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from
such relief. The Court must read the Plaintiff's pro se complaint
indulgently, and accept the Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Applying these
standards, Judge Neff will dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim.

Having conducted the review required by the PLRA, Judge Neff
determines that the Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c). She must next decide
whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3). Although she concludes
that the Plaintiff's claims are properly dismissed, Judge Neff does
not conclude that any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would
be frivolous. Accordingly, she does not certify that an appeal
would not be taken in good faith. Should the Plaintiff appeal this
decision, Judge Neff will assess the $505 appellate filing fee
pursuant to Section 1915(b)(1), unless the Plaintiff is barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of
Section 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the
$505 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.

Disposition

Judge Neff dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint. The dismissal is as
described by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). An order and judgment
consistent with Judge Neff's Opinion will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2kxu6kr9 from Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Jan. 21 Claims Review Deadline in Canada Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that parties have agreed
to a global settlement of all three Canadian class actions and
submitted it to the courts for approval. The claims review deadline
is January 2022.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada.

All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect
purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system
software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and
2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.

Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions and submitted the proposed settlement
agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval.

The final settlement and form of notice were approved by the courts
in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and the claims period
that commenced on November 23, 2020 has closed.

The claims review deadline is January 21, 2022.

Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology
corporation which produces computer software, consumer electronics,
personal computers, and related services.


MONMOUTH REAL STATE: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monmouth Real Estate Investment Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021,
that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit that
was commenced in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in
August 2021.

The Company and the members of Company's Board of Directors are
defendants in a class action lawsuit that was commenced in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in August 2021, prior to
termination of Company's merger agreement with Equity Commonwealth
("EQC"), and which currently remains pending.

The lawsuit alleges that Company's directors violated their legal
duties in connection with the proposed EQC merger and seeks
injunctive relief and damages.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in this lawsuit are
without merit and that in any event the claims are now moot in
light of the termination of the merger agreement.

The Company intends to seek to have this lawsuit dismissed.

However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in obtaining a
dismissal.

"Four other lawsuits that had been brought with respect to the
proposed merger with EQC after the transaction was announced have
since been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in light of the
termination of the EQC merger agreement," the company said.

Monmouth Real Estate Investment Corporation is a real estate
investment trust specializing in net-leased industrial properties.

NATIONAL DELIVERY: Order Denying Arbitration in Cuneo Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CUNEO & another v. NATIONAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS,
INC., & another, Case No. 20-P-1408 (Mass. App.), the Appeals Court
of Massachusetts reverses the Superior Court's order denying
Defendant Contractor Management Services, LLC's motion to compel
arbitration.

Introduction

The issue in the appeal is whether the Plaintiffs' individual
agreements with Defendant Contractor Management Services, LLC (CMS)
constitute "contracts of employment" within the meaning of the
Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) transportation worker exemption, 9
U.S.C. Section 1, such that the agreements are exempt from the FAA
and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act (MAA) applies. On CMS' motion
to compel arbitration, a Superior Court judge concluded that the
agreements were exempt from the FAA, and that, though the MAA would
apply, the arbitration provisions here were unenforceable under
Massachusetts law. He accordingly denied CMS' motion to compel
arbitration.

Background

The Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers for National Delivery
Systems, Inc. (NDS), delivering various retail products to retail
stores across several States in New England. They each executed a
contract with NDS that identified them as independent contractors
and contained an arbitration clause. The Plaintiffs also each
executed an agreement with CMS entitled "System Resource
Subscription" (SRS agreement), which allowed them to be paid by CMS
for work they performed for NDS. The SRS agreements permitted CMS
to make certain deductions from the Plaintiffs' pay for liability
insurance and administrative fees. The agreements also contained
arbitration clauses which included class action waivers.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action, contending that they, as
well as all other similarly situated individuals, were wrongly
classified by NDS as independent contractors when they were in fact
employees of NDS. They allege, inter alia, that NDS violated the
Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, Section 148, and that CMS engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices, in violation of G. L. c. 93A, Section 11,
by requiring delivery drivers to pay fees that could not lawfully
be charged to employees under Massachusetts law.

CMS, in turn, moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration,
arguing that the SRS agreements and their arbitration provisions
were governed by the FAA. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion
asserting that the SRS agreements were exempt from the FAA's
coverage under the transportation worker exemption, 9 U.S.C.
Section 1, and that Massachusetts law therefore governed. They
further argued that, because Massachusetts law deems arbitration
provisions that contain class action waivers unenforceable, citing
Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10, 32 (1st Cir. 2020),
cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2794 (2021), CMS could not compel
arbitration.

Following a hearing, a Superior Court judge agreed with the
Plaintiffs and denied CMS' motion to compel arbitration, as well as
its accompanying motion to dismiss. CMS appealed, addressing only
the denial of its motion to compel arbitration, which is
immediately appealable pursuant to G. L. c. 251, Section 18(a).

Discussion

It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs, who delivered various retail
products across State lines, were "workers engaged in interstate
commerce," such that they qualified as transportation workers under
the exemption. Thus, the primary issue is whether their contracts
with CMS constituted "contracts of employment" such that the
agreements are exempt from the FAA's scope.

In New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S.Ct. 532, 543-544 (2019), the
U.S. Supreme Court held that, when enacting the FAA, Congress
intended the term "contracts of employment" to refer to "agreements
to perform work." The question in that case was whether the term
"contracts of employment" included only contracts between employer
and employee, or whether the term also extended to contracts with
independent contractors. The Court, following the "'fundamental
canon of statutory construction' that words generally should be
'interpreted as taking their ordinary meaning  at the time Congress
enacted the statute,'" quoting Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. v. United
States, 138 S.Ct. 2067, 2074 (2018), looked to the meaning of the
term "employment" as it existed in 1925. Because contemporaneous
understandings of the term did not distinguish the type of worker
but referred generally to "work," the Court concluded that an
agreement to perform work, whether by an employee or independent
contractor, constituted a contract of employment for purposes of
the Section 1 exemption.

CMS argues that the SRS agreements are not "contracts of
employment" under Section 1 because they are not agreements to
perform work. Indeed, the Plaintiffs do not suggest that the SRS
agreements are agreements to perform work. Rather, they argue that,
because they were required to sign the SRS agreements with CMS as a
condition of their employment with NDS and the agreements permitted
them to be paid by CMS for work they performed for NDS, they fall
within the meaning of the term "contracts of employment" as
understood by the Section 1 exemption.

To begin, the Appeals Court holds that there is nothing in the
record, aside from bare allegations in the Plaintiffs' unverified
complaint, to support the Plaintiffs' contention that they were
required to sign the SRS agreements with CMS as a condition of
their employment with NDS. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot rely
on such allegations to overcome a motion to compel arbitration.

Further, the Plaintiffs have not pointed to any cases that
interpret the term "contracts of employment" in Section 1 of the
FAA so broadly. Instead, the Appeals Court finds that they point to
other areas of the law to support their argument.

Conclusion

Because the agreements in the case are not to perform work, they
are not "contracts of employment" under the transportation worker
exemption, the Appeals Court rules. The FAA accordingly governs the
SRS agreements and CMS' motion to compel arbitration should have
been allowed. So much of the order as denied CMS' motion to compel
arbitration is reversed. The case is remanded for the entry of an
order allowing the motion to compel arbitration and staying
proceedings on the Plaintiffs' claim against CMS.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxed2f5p from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL GENERAL: Dismissal of Davie Police Securities Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOWN OF DAVIE POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS' PENSION FUND, Movants-Appellants v. CITY OF
NORTH MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' AND FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT
PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, NATIONAL GENERAL HOLDINGS CORP., BARRY KARFUNKEL,
MICHAEL WEINER, ARTHUR CASTNER, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
21-909-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirms the district court's March 15, 2021 judgment.

The judgment granted the Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs-Appellants' Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Background

In the putative class action, Town of Davie Police Officers
Retirement System and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
("Plaintiffs-Appellants") appeal from the district court's judgment
of March 15, 2021, which followed an opinion and order of Jan. 21,
2021, granting the Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss.

The Amended Complaint was brought under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5, and centers on National General's lender-placed
insurance ("LPI") business, which commenced in or around October
2015 when National General acquired QBE Insurance Group Limited's
("QBE") LPI business, which became National General Lender
Services.

As part of that LPI business, National General underwrote a type of
auto insurance known as collateral protection insurance ("CPI") for
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Company (collectively,
"Wells Fargo"). The Amended Complaint alleges that CPI was
unnecessarily added to Wells Fargo's auto loan customers' accounts
without their consent, and that during the Class Period (between
July 15, 2015 and Aug. 9, 2017, inclusive) the Defendants-Appellees
conspired with Wells Fargo to conceal the CPI scheme from
investors.

The district court dismissed the complaint, principally concluding
that the Plaintiffs-Appellants had failed adequately to allege
scienter. The Second Circuit assumes the parties' familiarity with
the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, which it
references only as necessary to explain its decision to affirm.

The Second Circuit agrees with the district court that the
Plaintiffs-Appellants have not alleged facts amounting to a strong
inference of scienter and thus affirms the court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' section 10(b) claims.

1. Motive and Opportunity

On appeal, the Plaintiffs-Appellants first argue that, contrary to
the district court's analysis, they adequately alleged a motive to
conceal Wells Fargo's CPI scheme from investors arising from "the
concrete benefit secured by National General from underwriting the
lucrative, albeit often-unnecessary, CPI coverage."

The Second Circuit disagrees. It finds that motives that are common
to most corporate officers, such as the desire for the corporation
to appear profitable and the desire to keep stock prices high to
increase officer compensation, do not constitute 'motive' for
purposes of this inquiry." Even assuming that National General's
dealings with Wells Fargo in connection with the CPI scheme
contributed to National General's bottom line, it holds that the
motive that the Plaintiffs-Appellants allege is little more than
the general "desire for the corporation to appear profitable" that
it has repeatedly rejected.

It likewise agrees with the district court that the allegations in
the Amended Complaint regarding the sale of National General common
stock by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., another insurance
company in which members of Karfunkel's extended family owned a
majority stake, are also insufficient. "The 'motive' showing is
generally met when corporate insiders allegedly make a
misrepresentation in order to sell their own shares at a profit."
In the case, the Plaintiffs-Appellants do not allege that any of
the Individual Defendants sold National General shares during the
Class Period, nor even that Amtrust itself sold its shares at a
profit.

2. Circumstantial Evidence

The Plaintiffs-Appellants next contend that they satisfied the
scienter requirement by pleading facts "constituting strong
circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
Under their theory, the Defendants-Appellees' knowledge of the CPI
scheme (and their conscious or reckless concealment of that scheme
from investors) can be inferred from: (1) due diligence that
National General conducted before acquiring QBE's LPI business; (2)
periodic review meetings that National General employees held with
Wells Fargo and the materials that were circulated at those
meetings; (3) a Wells-Fargo-commissioned investigation by Oliver
Wyman, the management consulting firm, and Oliver Wyman's February
2017 report regarding the CPI program; and (4) National General's
"flat" organizational structure.

Again, the Second Circuit is not persuaded. After examining "all of
the facts alleged, taken collectively," it concludes that no
"reasonable person" would "deem the inference of scienter cogent
and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw
from the facts alleged." Considered as a whole, the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' allegations do not suffice to plead scienter
with respect to the Individual Defendants. Nor do these allegations
suffice to plead corporate scienter, as they fail to "create a
strong inference either (1) that someone whose intent could be
imputed to the corporation acted with the requisite scienter or (2)
that the [allegedly false or misleading statements identified in
the Amended Complaint] would have been approved by corporate
officials sufficiently knowledgeable about the company to know that
those statements were misleading."

Disposition

The Second Circuit has considered the Plaintiffs-Appellants'
remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. The Second
Circuit agrees with the district court that the
Plaintiffs-Appellants have not alleged facts amounting to a strong
inference of scienter and thus affirms the court's dismissal of
their section 10(b) claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/k2r5ax69 from Leagle.com.

JOSEPH D. DALEY -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- (Arthur C. Leahy --
artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph D. Daley, Ashley M. Price --
aprice@rgrdlaw.com -- on the brief), Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, in San Diego, California, for the Movants-Appellants.

David A. Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- on the brief,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, in Melville, New York, for the
Movants-Appellants.

DEREK SHAFFER -- derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com -- (Michael B.
Carlinsky -- michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -- Corey Worcester
-- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Ellyde R. Thompson --
ellydethompson@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita N. Sharma --
renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- on the brief), Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in New York City, for the
Defendants-Appellees.


NOVAVAX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Nov. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Novavax, Inc. ("Novavax" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: NVAX) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Maryland on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Novavax securities between March 2,
2021 and October 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until January 11, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Novavax
overstated its manufacturing capabilities and downplayed
manufacturing issues that would impact its approval timeline for
NVX-CoV2373, a protein-based vaccine candidate engineered from the
genetic sequence of the first strain of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus;
(ii) as a result, Novavax was unlikely to meet its anticipated
Emergency Use Authorization regulatory timelines for NVX-CoV2373;
(iii) accordingly, the Company overstated the regulatory and
commercial prospects for NVX-CoV2373; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Novavax shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]

NOVAVAX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 16 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against of Novavax, Inc. ("Novavax" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NVAX) in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on behalf of those who purchased Novavax
common stock between March 2, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented the Company's
progress toward successfully developing its COVID-19 vaccine
(NVX-CoV2373), including: (i) overstating the Company's
manufacturing capabilities and downplaying manufacturing issues
that would impact the approval timeline for NVX-CoV2373; (ii)
concealing that the Company was unlikely to meet its anticipated
EUA regulatory timelines; (iii) exaggerating the regulatory and
commercial prospects for NVX-CoV2373.

On May 10, 2021, The Washington Post reported the EUA filing for
the vaccine was delayed to June at the earliest due to
manufacturing issues. Later that day, the Company confirmed it was
unlikely to seek EUA for NVX-CoV2373 until July at the earliest. In
August, the Company pushed the expected EUA filing into Q4 2021.

On August 5, 2021, the Company reported that it expected to file
for NVX-CoV2373's EUA in the fourth quarter of 2021, rather than
the third quarter of 2021. On this news, the Company's stock price
fell by more than 19%.

Then, on October 19, 2021, Politico published an article entitled
"'They rushed the process': Vaccine maker's woes hamper global
inoculation campaign." The Politico article reported, in relevant
part, that the Company "faces significant hurdles in proving it can
manufacture a shot that meets regulators' quality standards" with
respect to NVX-CoV2373. The Politico article cited anonymous
sources as stating that the Company's "issues are more concerning
than previously understood" and that the Company could take until
the end of 2022 to resolve its manufacturing issues and win
regulatory authorizations and approvals. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell another 14.7%, further damaging
investor.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Novavax
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
January 11, 2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

NOVAVAX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Novavax, Inc. ("Novavax") (NASDAQ:NVAX). The action charges
Novavax with violations of the federal securities laws, including
omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the
company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Novavax's materially misleading statements, Novavax investors have
suffered significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 11, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: March 2, 2021 through October 19, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484)
270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or Email at info@ktmc.com

NOVAVAX'SALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Novavax is a biotechnology company that develops vaccines for
serious infectious diseases, including NVX-CoV2373, a vaccine
developed for COVID-19. Prior to March, 2021, Novavax announced its
plan to complete Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") submissions
for NVX-CoV2373 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
in the second quarter of 2021.

On March 2, 2021, Novavax issued a press release stating the
company had potential for EUA filing in the second quarter of 2021,
and that distribution plans for NVX-CoV2373, as well as agreements
for approximately 200 million doses of NVX-CoV2373, had been
completed and secured. Then, on May 10, 2021, The Washington Post
reported that Novavax's EUA "filing was delayed by manufacturing
regulatory issues, until June at the earliest, according to four
people who had recently been briefed on the company's plans." Later
that day, Novavax participated in a call with investors to discuss
its first quarter 2021 financial results, and confirmed that it was
unlikely to seek EUA for NVX-CoV2373 in the U.S. until July 2021 at
the earliest (the third quarter of 2021). Following this news,
Novavax's stock price fell $15.50 per share, or 8.81%, to close at
$160.50 per share on
May 10, 2021.

Then, on August 5, 2021, Novavax disclosed that it "[e]xpect[s] to
submit for [EUA] to the [FDA for NVX-CoV2373] in the fourth quarter
of 2021[,]" rather than the third quarter of 2021. Following this
news, Novavax's stock price fell $46.31 per share, or 19.61%, to
close at $189.89 per share on August 6, 2021.

Finally, on October 19, 2021, Politico published an article
entitled "'They rushed the process': Vaccine maker's woes hamper
global inoculation campaign." In the article, Politico indicated
that with regard to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine, Novavax "faces
significant hurdles in proving it can manufacture a shot that meets
regulators' quality standards," and that Novavax could take until
the end of 2022 to resolve its manufacturing issues and win
regulatory authorizations and approvals. Following this news,
Novavax's stock price fell $23.69 per share, or 14.76%, to close at
$136.86 per share on October 20, 2021.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Novavax investors may, no later than January 11, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Novavax investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN}

NOVAVAX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 11, 2022 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 15 disclosed that
purchasers of Novavax, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVAX) securities between March
2, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until January 11, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., No. 21-cv-02910 (D. Md.). Commenced
on November 12, 2021, the Novavax class action lawsuit charges
Novavax and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Novavax 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 Novavax class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than January 11, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Novavax is a biotechnology company with product
candidates including, among others, NVX-CoV2373, which is in
development as a vaccine for COVID-19. Prior to the start of the
Class Period, Novavax announced that it planned to complete
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") submissions for NVX-CoV2373
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the second quarter of
2021.

The Novavax class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Novavax overstated its manufacturing
capabilities and downplayed manufacturing issues that would impact
its approval timeline for NVX-CoV2373; (ii) as a result, Novavax
was unlikely to meet its anticipated EUA regulatory timelines for
NVX-CoV2373; (iii) accordingly, Novavax overstated the regulatory
and commercial prospects for NVX-CoV2373; and (iv) consequently,
Novavax's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On May 10, 2021, The Washington Post reported that Novavax's EUA
"filing was delayed by manufacturing regulatory issues, until June
at the earliest, according to four people who had recently been
briefed on the company's plans." Later that day during an investor
call, Novavax confirmed that it was unlikely to seek an EUA for
NVX-CoV2373 in the United States until July 2021 at the earliest -
i.e., the third quarter of 2021. On this news, Novavax's stock
price fell by nearly 9%. Moreover, following Novavax's investor
call, Novavax's stock price continued to fall an additional 13.9%.

Then, on August 5, 2021, Novavax reported that it expected to file
for NVX-CoV2373's EUA in the fourth quarter of 2021, rather than
the third quarter of 2021. On this news, Novavax's stock price fell
by more than 19%.

Finally, on October 19, 2021, Politico published an article
entitled "'They rushed the process': Vaccine maker's woes hamper
global inoculation campaign." The Politico article reported, in
relevant part, that Novavax "faces significant hurdles in proving
it can manufacture a shot that meets regulators' quality standards"
with respect to NVX-CoV2373. The Politico article cited anonymous
sources as stating that Novavax's "issues are more concerning than
previously understood" and that Novavax could take until the end of
2022 to resolve its manufacturing issues and win regulatory
authorizations and approvals. On this news, Novavax's stock price
fell another 14.7%, further damaging investor.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Novavax
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Novavax 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 Novavax class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Novavax class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Novavax 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]

ON24 INC: Goemer Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------
Anna L. Goemer and Gregory C. Goemer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ON24, Inc., Sharat
Sharan, Steven Vattuone, Irwin Federman, Denise Persson, Holger
Staude, Dominique Trempont and Barry Zwarenstein, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-08744, (N..D. Cal., November 10, 2021), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

ON24 is cloud-based digital experience platform that enables
businesses to convert customer engagement into revenue through
interactive webinar experiences, virtual event experiences and
multimedia content experiences. On February 3, 2021, ON24 conducted
its Initial Public Offering, offering 8,560,930 shares of its
common stock to the public at a price of $50 per share for
anticipated proceeds of approximately $428,046,500.

Goemer alleges that the offering documents failed to disclose that
the surge in COVID-19 customers ON24 observed in the lead up to the
IPO consisted of a significant number that did not fit ON24's
traditional customer profile and, as a result, were significantly
less likely to renew their contracts. As these true facts emerged
after the offering, ON24's shares fell sharply, trading as low as
$18.66 per share, a decline of nearly 63% from the Offering Price.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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

OS RESTAURANT: Sanders Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit for Waitresses
------------------------------------------------------------------
SYNASIA SANDERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC, OUTBACK
STEAKHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, L.P. and OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04778-SCJ (N.D. Ga., November 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage
requirements, particularly the tip credit requirements.

Ms. Sanders worked for the Defendants as a waitress at the Outback
Steakhouse in Atlanta, Georgia from approximately July 2016 to
February 2020.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC is a company that operates a nationwide
chain of restaurants under the trade name Outback Steakhouse in
Georgia.

Outback Steakhouse International, L.P. is a company that operates a
nationwide chain of restaurants under the trade name Outback
Steakhouse in Georgia.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC is a company that operates a
nationwide chain of restaurants under the trade name Outback
Steakhouse in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         A. Lee Parks, Esq.
         John L. Mays, Esq.
         PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
         75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 873-8000
         Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
         E-mail: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
                 jmays@pcwlawfirm.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Building, Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

PADDY MURPHYS: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------
MEKHALA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PADDY MURPHYS, INC. dba ECSTASY THEATER,
OLIVIA T. NGUYEN, DOE MANAGERS 1-3, and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01903 (C.D. Cal., November 18, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage, unlawful taking of
tips, illegal kickbacks, forced tip sharing, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to indemnify
business expenses, compelled patronization of employer and/or other
persons, and unfair competition.

Ms. Smith worked as a dancer at Ecstasy Theater, located at 2920 W.
Warner Avenue, Santa Ana, California since 2018.

Paddy Murphy's, Inc. is an operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility under the name Ecstasy Theater, located at
2920 W. Warner Avenue, Santa Ana, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
         CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
         5757 Century Boulevard, Suite 680
         Los Angeles, CA 90045
         Telephone: (310) 507-7924
         Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                 jesenia@kristensenlaw.com

PEPPERIDGE FARM: New York Court Dismisses Kamara Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAWA KAMARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-9012 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin
Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Defendant Pepperidge Farm's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Background

Plaintiff Kamara purchased "Golden Butter" crackers at a Target
store on West 34th Street with the expectation that "wherever
butter could be used in the Product, it would be used instead of
using its synthetic substitutes, vegetable oils." According to an
ingredients list quoted in the First Amended Complaint, the
crackers were indeed made with butter, but also included a lesser
quantity of vegetable oils. Kamara asserts that the presence of
vegetable oils renders the "Golden Butter" packaging misleading or
deceptive because a reasonable consumer would have falsely
concluded that the crackers were "all or predominantly made with
butter."

The Complaint asserts that the packaging's "Golden Butter" label is
misleading or deceptive. The Complaint includes allegations that
seek class-wide relief on behalf of New York purchasers of the
Golden Butter crackers. Jurisdiction is premised on the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), but the
Complaint also alleges complete diversity between Kamara, a citizen
of New York, and Pepperidge Farm, which is alleged to be a
Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in
Connecticut. The Court also has federal question jurisdiction
because the Complaint brings a claim under the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301. The Complaint brings claims
under New York law of negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express and implied warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment, as well
as a claim under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and
350.

Defendant Pepperidge Farm moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. It urges that the product name
"Golden Butter" accurately identifies butter as the crackers'
predominant fat or oil ingredient and that a reasonable consumer
would not understand the "Golden Butter" label to preclude the use
of a lesser amount of vegetable oils.

Discussion

I. The Complaint Does Not Plausibly Allege a Deceptive Act under
the New York General Business Law

Ms. Kamara's consumer-fraud claim under GBL 349 and 350 asserts
that, as a reasonable consumer, she wanted to purchase a product
containing butter in the "amount and proportion" described in the
packaging. Kamara asserts that use of the word butter in the
"Golden Butter" cracker packaging "has a material bearing on price
and consumer acceptance of the Product and consumers do not expect
butter alternatives where the label says, 'Golden Butter' without
qualification."

Judge Castel opines that the Complaint does not plausibly allege
why a reasonable consumer also would believe that the use of butter
precluded secondary usage of other fats or oils, either as an
additional shortener or for external application to enhance the
crackers' appearance. A reasonable consumer would not need to
scrutinize fine print to understand the truth behind a prominent
packaging claim, and unlike Berger, the packaging did not emphasize
simplicity or other virtues. It merely used the phrase "Golden
Butter" without elaboration. The Complaint does not plausibly
allege why a reasonable consumer would understand the phrase
"Golden Butter" to mean that "wherever butter could be used in the
Product, it would be used instead of using its synthetic
substitute, vegetable oil." For these reasons, the Complaint does
not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by
the packaging's prominent use of the term "Golden Butter." Kamara's
claim under GBL 349 and 350 will therefore be dismissed.

II. The Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Will Be Dismissed

The Complaint alleges that Pepperidge Farm negligently
misrepresented the ingredients of the "Golden Butter" crackers and
that because of its special knowledge and experience, it had a duty
to disclose the truth about the crackers' ingredients. It alleges
that the packaging "took advantage of consumer's cognitive
shortcuts."

Judge Castel holds that Kamara has failed to allege negligent
misrepresentation in two respects. First, for the reasons
explained, she has not alleged that Pepperidge Farm imparted
incorrect information to her. Second, the Complaint has not
plausibly alleged a special or privity-type relationship between
Pepperidge Farm and Kamara. The Complaint describes Kamara as one
of many consumers to encounter the "Golden Butter" crackers label
and does not describe a direct relationship between Kamara and
Pepperidge Farm. The negligent misrepresentation claim will be
dismissed.

III. The Breach of Implied Warranty Claim Will Be Dismissed

Ms. Kamara asserts that the "Golden Butter" crackers did not
conform to the affirmations of fact and promises made by Pepperidge
Farm, and therefore were not merchantable. Under New York UCC
2-314(2)(a) and (f), in order for a good to be merchantable, it
must "pass without objection in the trade under the contract
description" and "conform to the promises or affirmations of fact
made on the container or label, if any." In her opposition memo,
Kamara asserts that the crackers were not capable of passing
without objection in trade because they contained "less healthful
vegetable oil in place of butter."

Judge Castel opines that the Complaint does not plausibly allege
that the "Golden Butter" crackers were unfit for human consumption,
as required under New York. As already discussed, Kamara also has
not alleged privity with Pepperidge Farm. The implied warranty
claim will therefore be dismissed.

IV. The Breach of Express Warranty Claim and Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act Claims Will Be Dismissed

Ms. Kamara asserts that the "Golden Butter" crackers breached an
express warranty by falsely claiming "that it possessed
substantive, quality, compositional and/or environmental [sic]
which they did not." An express warranty is an "affirmation of fact
or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the
goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain." "To state a
claim for breach of express warranty under New York law, a
plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a material statement
amounting to a warranty, (2) the buyer's reliance on this warranty
as a basis for the contract with the immediate seller, (3) breach
of the warranty, and (4) injury to the buyer caused by the
breach."

Judge Castel holds that the Complaint does not plausibly allege a
breach of any material statement about the crackers' butter
content. It therefore has not alleged the breach of an express
warranty. Kamara's claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq. ("MMWA"), will also be dismissed
because she has not plausibly alleged an underlying breach of
warranty. Separately, the MMWA's definition of a "written warranty"
requires a written affirmation of fact or promise that "affirms or
promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will
meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of
time." The "Golden Butter" product description does not relate to
defect-free workmanship or a specified level of performance over
time.

V. The Fraud Claim Will Be Dismissed.

Ms. Kamara also brings a claim of fraud. She alleges that
Pepperidge Farm misrepresented the attributes of the crackers and
that its "fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately
identify the Product on the front label, when it knew its
statements were neither true nor accurate and misled consumers."

Judge Castel opines that the Complaint does not plausibly allege
that the "Golden Butter" packaging materially misrepresented the
ingredients in defendant's crackers. Because the Complaint does not
allege a material misrepresentation, the fraud claim will be
dismissed. Separately, the Complaint does not raise the strong
inference of fraud required by Rule 9(b). The package itself
discloses the use of vegetable oils. Even if a consumer did not
expect the product to contain vegetable oils, their disclosure is
not consistent with fraudulent intend. The Complaint's vague
allegations of fraudulent intent do not satisfy the particularity
required by Rule 9(b). The fraud claim will therefore be
dismissed.

VI. The Unjust Enrichment Claim Will Be Dismissed

The Complaint's unjust enrichment claim asserts that Pepperidge
Farm was unjustly enriched because it obtained money and benefits
from Kamara, whose purchase "was not as represented and expected."
"The elements of a cause of action to recover for unjust enrichment
are (1) the defendant was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff's expense,
and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the
defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered. The essential
inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is
whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the
Defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered."

Judge Castel finds that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim
cannot succeed "because it merely duplicates the Plaintiff's other
claims based on the same alleged misrepresentations." The Complaint
also does not plausibly allege why equitable considerations would
weigh against Pepperidge Farm. The unjust enrichment claim will
therefore be dismissed.

VII. Leave to Amend Is Denied

Leave to further amend will be denied, Judge Castel holds. She
says, the Plaintiff, armed with the Defendant's arguments, twice
has been invited by the Court's Individual Practices to seek to
amend. On the first occasion she took the opportunity and filed the
First Amended Complaint. In response to the second pre-motion
letter she did not avail itself of a further opportunity. As the
Individual Practices advised, "The Pre-Motion Letter and response
will be taken into account in deciding whether further leave to
amend will be granted in the event the motion to dismiss is
granted." Certainly, if the Defendant's motion were based on novel
arguments not sufficiently detailed in the pre-motion letters, it
may counsel in favor of granting further leave to amend, but that
is not the case.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Castel granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to
terminate the motion and the related letter-motions. The
Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is denied. The Clerk is
directed to close the case and to enter judgment for the
Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/x96wp4uz from Leagle.com.


PILOT TRAVEL: Waltrip's Reply to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Nov. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTON WALTRIP, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS, LLC, and PILOT CORPORATION Defendants, Civil No.
2:21-cv-00642-GBW-KRS (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted
the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File their
Response to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to
Enforce Class Action Waiver, and Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their response to the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Enforce Class Action
Waiver, and Motion to Dismiss is Nov. 29, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/46n33ywj from Leagle.com.


PILOT TRAVEL: Waltrip's Time to Reply to Arbitration Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTON WALTRIP, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS, LLC, and PILOT CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil No.
2:21-cv-00643-SMV-KRS (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted
the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File their
Response to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to
Enforce Class Action Waiver, and Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their response to the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Enforce Class Action
Waiver, and Motion to Dismiss was Nov. 22, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kz23brs4 from Leagle.com.


PIZZA HUT: Delivery Driver Sues Franchisee Over Work Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Pizza Hut franchisee that runs 130-plus locations in four states
is accused in a lawsuit recently filed in a federal court in Ohio
of systematically underpaying at least 50 delivery drivers by
failing to fully reimburse their job-related expenses.

The proposed class and collective action was brought by Courtney
Dimidik -- who worked as a delivery driver at a Pizza Hut location
in Fairborn, Ohio -- on behalf of similarly situated employees.
[GN]

SALVATION ARMY: Faces Class Action Over Rehabilitation Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
group of men who formerly participated in the Salvation Army's
rehabilitation programs have targeted the charity with a class
action lawsuit under a federal human trafficking law, accusing the
Salvation Army of improperly coercing hundreds of thousands of
people enrolled in its adult rehab programs to essentially work for
free under the guise of therapy.

The lawsuit was filed in Chicago federal court on Nov. 15 by named
plaintiffs, Illinois residents Darrell Taylor and Kevin Lewis;
Darrell Burkhart, of Michigan; and Leevertis Page, of Florida.

They are represented by attorneys David Fish and M. Nieves
Bolaños, of the firm of Fish Potter Bolaños, of Chicago; Anna P.
Prakash, Charles J. O'Meara, Caroline E. Bressman and Matthew C.
Helland, of Nichols Kaster, of Minneapolis and San Francisco; and
Lucy B. Bansal and Janet Herold, of Justice Catalyst Law, of New
York.

The class action lawsuit takes aim at the Salvation Army's Adult
Rehabilitation Center program.

According to the Salvation Army's website, the ARC offers
participants 180-day "residential work-therapy programs providing
spiritual, social, and emotional assistance to those who have lost
the ability to cope with their problems and provide for
themselves."

The lawsuit, however, alleges the Salvation Army uses the ARC
program to secure essentially free labor, to reduce its need to
hire paid employees.

The complaint notes that many participants in the ARC program are
referred to the Salvation Army by courts, as a condition of parole
or probation for criminal offenses.

Others "walk in" the program, arriving by choice. These the
complaint notes are those who are homeless or otherwise
"economically vulnerable."

The complaint accuses the Salvation Army of essentially leveraging
ARC participants' situations against them. The complaint notes the
Salvation Army compels all participants to agree to allow the ARC
staff to restrict their contact with the outside world, and sign
over all of their possessions and prior means of support, including
cell phones and government benefits, including food stamps and EBT
cards, for the duration of their time in the program.

This, the complaint alleges, makes all participants completely
dependent on the Salvation Army for all of their needs.

Further, the complaint asserts the Salvation Army works against
those referred to the program by the courts by threatening to
report their refusal to participate or poor performance to their
probation officers and the courts, which could result in their
return to prison.

The complaint further alleges participants are not paid wages for
their work at Salvation Army thrift stores and other facilities.
Instead, they are paid "gratuities" of $1-$25 per week. The
complaint claims ARC participants are required to work 40 hours per
week, often in physically demanding jobs.

"The Salvation Army is clear about the terms of the exchange the
ARC workforce must make: if they want a bed in an ARC facility,
they must work full-time for effectively zero wages in The
Salvation Army's commercial stores and warehouses, in physically
demanding and often dangerous jobs," the complaint said. "The
Salvation Army therefore engages in a scheme, plan, or pattern
intended to cause its workers to believe that, if they do not
perform the required labor, they will suffer serious harm including
but not limited to financial instability, food insecurity,
homelessness, and inability to obtain paid work."

The complaint asserts the ARC program violates the federal
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to potentially include
anyone who has participated in the ARC program in the past 10
years, a number that could easily run into the hundreds of
thousands of people. The complaint estimated 158,000 people
participated in the ARC program nationwide in 2019 alone.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order the Salvation Army to pay
unspecified damages under the TVPRA law, including punitive damages
and attorney fees.

A spokesperson for the Salvation Army did not reply to a request
for comment from the Cook County Record on Tuesday, Nov. 16. [GN]

SNAP INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 10, 2022 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Snap Inc. ("Snap") (NYSE: SNAP). The action charges Snap
with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions
and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's
advertising business. As a result of Snap's materially misleading
statements made to the market, Snap investors have suffered
significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 10, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: July 22, 2020 through October 21, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com

SNAP'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Snap is an American camera and social media company that develops
and maintains technological products and services such as the
social media application "Snapchat," an eyewear product that
connects with Snapchat and captures video Spectacles, and
advertising products including AR (augmented reality) and Snap
ads.

In its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Snap admits that it generates substantially all of its revenues by
offering various advertising products on Snapchat and that it
monetizes its business primarily through advertising based on its
user data. In June 2020, as part of an ongoing privacy push, Apple
Inc. ("Apple"), which developed and maintains the popular mobile
operating system, iOS, for its mobile devices, publicly announced
new data privacy features for iOS. Following this announcement,
Snap continuously downplayed and misled investors regarding the
impact that Apple's new data privacy features would have on its
business. In April 2021, Apple released the new data privacy
features for iOS.

The truth emerged on October 22, 2021, when Snap filed its third
quarter 2021 report for the period ending September 30, 2021 on a
Form 10-Q, disclosing Snap's weaker-than-expected revenue and
weaker-than-expected guidance because of its advertising business,
due to Apple's privacy changes. In the report, CEO Evan Spiegel
disclosed that Snap's advertising business had allegedly been
affected by recent privacy changes introduced by Apple in its iOS
mobile operating system in June and July. Specifically, Spiegel
claimed that "the new Apple-provided measurement solution did not
scale as we had expected, making it more difficult for our
advertising partners to measure and manage their ad campaigns for
iOS." Following this news, Snap's stock price fell $19.97 per
share, or 26%, to close at $55.14 per share on October 22, 2021.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Snap investors may, no later than January 10, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Snap investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

SOUTHWEST SOCCER: Faces Class Action Over Robocall Texts
--------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims Southwest Soccer Club Tournaments and Southwest
Soccer Club, Inc. have placed unlawful telemarketing calls and
texts to consumers' cell phones without first securing their
consent to do so.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants' communications violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in that they were sent
using automated telephone dialing technology and without
recipients' permission.

"The TCPA was designed to prevent calls and messages like the ones
described within this complaint, and to protect the privacy of
citizens like Plaintiff," the case reads.

Per the suit, the defendants own and operate a soccer tournament in
Southern California and have attempted to promote the event through
telemarketing calls and text messages. The plaintiff, an Orange
County, California resident, claims to have received from Southwest
Soccer Club in October 2021 a call in which an artificial or
prerecorded voice was used. A few days later, the plaintiff
allegedly received "multiple automated marketing text messages"
that read, according to the suit:

"SWSC Thanksgiving College Showcase 2021 held in Temecula. Free
college seminar. College coaches attending. www.southwestsc.org.
Text S Te Text STOP to quit"

"SWSC Thanksgiving College Showcase NOV 27 and 28 a 2 days event.
Deadline NOV 10.Great competition . www.southwestsc.org Text S Te
Text STOP to quit"

The case says the plaintiff was "[a]nnoyed by the unwanted
advertising material" and replied "Who is this," "Leave me alone"
and "Stop" in response. The defendants allegedly sent an automated
response informing the plaintiff that her "stop" text blocked
further texts and that she could text "unstop" to continue
receiving messages.

The plaintiff asserts that says she is not a customer of the
defendants and never provided the companies with any personal
information, much less consent to receive telemarketing messages,
"for any purpose whatsoever."

According to the lawsuit, the calls and texts were sent using an
automatic telephone dialing system, i.e., technology capable of
using a random or sequential number generator to produce telephone
numbers to be called and then dial those numbers without human
intervention. Although the plaintiff concedes that she cannot
allege with certainty that Southwest Soccer Club's dialing system
utilized random or sequential number generators without obtaining
the code for their dialing platform, the number of communications
she received, the pause at the beginning of the call and the fact
that the call was "spoofed" are telltale signs that a predictive
dialer was used, the case alleges.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the U.S. who, within the
last four years and until the date of class certification, received
telephone calls or text messages from Southwest Soccer Club
Tournaments and Southwest Soccer Club, Inc. to their cell phone
through an automatic telephone dialing system or that included an
artificial or prerecorded voice and who never consented to receive
the communications. [GN]

TENNESSEE: Faces Class Action Over Ban on Mask Mandates
-------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Tennessee's ban on mask mandates has harmed
students at a severe risk of illness due to COVID-19 and its
variants as a result of their disabilities, and made it impossible
for public school districts to comply with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.

The 39-page lawsuit against Tennessee Governor Bill Lee and
Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Penny Schwinn argues
that the ban on mask mandates, signed into law by Lee on November
12, 2021, has created "inconsistent and chaotic approaches" in the
state's school districts while subjecting students to the loss of
state or federal funding.

According to the suit, the mask mandate ban in Tennessee interferes
with, obstructs and infringes upon the rights of all students with
a disability who require the protection afforded by universal
masking in a public school setting. The lawsuit moreover contends
the Tennessee ban on school mask mandates intends to work as a de
facto amendment to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as well as the
American Rescue Plan, by imposing limitations on the mechanisms by
which the laws operate.

Further, the ban on mask mandates amounts to an attempt by the
Tennessee General Assembly to "weaken and/or nullify federal law"
by arbitrarily and capriciously limiting the statutory remedies
available to students with disabilities, the case claims.

"The Mask Mandate Ban stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment
of the full purpose and objective of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and must
be enjoined," the lawsuit alleges.

The filing lists that disabilities, as they relate to proposed
class members, include asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, congenital heart disease, coronary artery disease, chronic
liver or kidney disease, neurological or developmental
disabilities, cancer, muscular dystrophy, blood disorders,
compromised immune systems and inherited metabolic disorders.

The eight minor plaintiffs on whose behalf the case was filed are
all students with disabilities who the lawsuit says are medically
vulnerable to severe infection and/or death from COVID-19 and its
variants.

"For these students to enjoy safe passage into their existing
school buildings, classrooms, and extracurricular activities they
require the reasonable modification of universal masking available
under the ADA and Section 504," the suit says.

The lawsuit states that prior to the passage of the state's mask
mandate ban, three U.S. district courts in Tennessee, through
preliminary injunctions, enjoined an executive order that attempted
to impose an opt-out requirement for mask mandates as interfering
with federal rights afforded by the ADA and Section 504. According
to the complaint, the mask mandate ban goes a step beyond Executive
Order 84's primary objective.

"It is a facial attempt to undermine or displace the operation of
the ADA and Section 504 in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the
United States Constitution," the lawsuit alleges. "It discriminates
against individuals with disabilities in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, every
Federal District Court in Tennessee has already ruled that the
State may not interfere with such federal rights."

The plaintiffs stress that masking is necessary to prevent the
spread of COVID-19 and its variants, and protects students with
disabilities who will be or are placed in close proximity to
unmasked students and school staff. [GN]

TIMIOS INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged July 2021 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Timios, Inc.
faces a proposed class action that claims the real estate
transaction services company failed to protect customers' personal
information from unauthorized access.

At issue in the 30-page lawsuit is a July 2021 data breach in which
hackers reportedly gained entrance to certain devices in Timios's
network and for seven days maintained "unfettered access" to the
data stored therein, including customers' names and dates of birth;
Social Security, driver's license, state-issued ID, passport, tax
identification, military identification and financial account
numbers; and payment card details.

The case claims the breach was a direct result of the defendant's
failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect consumers'
sensitive information, comply with industry-standard data security
practices, properly train employees on cybersecurity measures,
detect unauthorized access to its systems and timely notify those
whose information was compromised.

"As a large and successful company, Defendant had the resources to
invest in the necessary data security and protection measures," the
complaint attests. "Yet, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable
care in the hiring and/or supervision of its employees and agents
and failed to undertake adequate analyses and testing of its own
systems, adequate personnel training, and other data security
measures to avoid the failures that resulted in the Data Breach."

The lawsuit alleges Timios, a title and escrow service company that
offers real estate transaction services, collects and stores a
"massive amount" of personally identifiable customer information in
the course of doing business, and represents in its privacy policy
that it will maintain adequate safeguards to protect the data.

Nevertheless, unauthorized actors were able to gain access to the
Timios network between July 19 and 25, 2021, the suit says. Had the
defendant implemented and maintained reasonable data security
protocols and procedures and complied with standard industry
practices, the breach could have been prevented, the complaint
contends.

Moreover, Timios compounded the damage to consumers whose
information was compromised in the incident by waiting until
October to notify them, the case says. The suit argues that there
is "no excuse" for failing to provide timely notice to victims of a
data breach.

The case claims that those affected in the Timios data breach now
face "a real and imminent substantial risk of identity theft and
other problems" associated with the unauthorized disclosure of
their Social Security numbers and other personal information. [GN]

TRAVELERS HOME: $3.4M Class Deal in Stechert Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KYLE STECHERT, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE TRAVELERS
HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 17-0784-KSM (E.D. Pa.), Judge Karen S. Marston of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The case is a putative class action lawsuit in which Named
Plaintiffs Kyle and Marie Stechert allege that the Defendants, The
Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Co. and 37 of its affiliates
(together, "Travelers"), breached their duties under certain
insurance policies by providing less than 30 days of Extended
Transportation Expense ("ETE") coverage to insureds whose vehicles
were deemed total losses.

The Stecherts held a motor vehicle insurance policy with Travelers.
They claim that their policy included ETE coverage, which required
Travelers to pay for a rental vehicle for a maximum of 30 days
after their vehicle was deemed a total loss unless Travelers
determined that less time was reasonably required to replace the
totaled vehicle. The Stecherts allege that Travelers prematurely
terminated ETE coverage without determining whether the insured
needed additional time to replace the covered vehicle.

In January 2017, the Stecherts filed the lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, claiming
that Travelers had a practice of prematurely denying ETE coverage
without first making a reasonableness determination. The complaint
alleges claims for breach of contract and bad faith denial of
coverage and seeks a declaratory judgment and other equitable
relief. Travelers removed the case to the Court.

Following a period of discovery, Travelers filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, which the Court granted. The Stecherts appealed,
and in September 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the
case for further proceedings. After about six months of additional
discovery, the parties engaged in two "extensive arms-length
negotiation sessions" with an experienced mediator, former
magistrate judge Diane M. Welsh. Following these mediation sessions
and additional negotiation, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle in November 2020 and entered into the Settlement
Agreement in May 2021. The Plaintiffs filed the unopposed Motion on
May 27, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on Oct. 25,
2021.

The Settlement Class consists of individuals who, from Jan. 16,
2011 through May 27, 2021, were issued policies in Pennsylvania
that included ETE coverage, whose vehicles were deemed a total
loss, and who received less than 30 days' of reimbursement for
rental vehicles. As of August 2020, the parties had identified over
17,000 Class Members.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Travelers will make a scaled
payment to each member of the Settlement Class who submits a Valid
Claim Form based on the number of days for which they were
previously reimbursed for a rental vehicle. As detailed in the
following chart, the fewer days for which they were previously
reimbursed, the greater the payment. Based on the scale and the
number of Class Members, Travelers expects to pay over $3.4
million.

The distribution amount per Class Member will be determined in
accordance with the Settlement Class List Data. The Settlement
Class List Data consists of Travelers' claims data, which Travelers
has furnished to Plaintiffs and will update following the
Preliminary Approval. Travelers will also provide sufficient
identifying information so Class Counsel can review and verify the
payment category for each Settlement Class Member.

To receive payment under the Settlement, the Class Members must
submit a Valid Claim Form postmarked by a date no later than 45
days after the Final Settlement Hearing. A Valid Claim Form is a
timely Claim Form that answers any combination of "Agree" or "I
don't remember" to questions asking: (1) whether they held a
Travelers' policy, (2) whether they were in an accident that
resulted in their vehicle being deemed a total loss, and (3)
whether Travelers paid for a rental car for any period of time. A
Class Member is qualified for payment if they answer all three
questions with any combination of "Agree" or "I don't remember."
Travelers will make payments to the Class Members no later than 90
days after the period for submitting claims has expired.

Travelers has also agreed to change its conduct. It has "drafted a
new notice regarding ETE coverage, consistent with the language of
its policies and Pennsylvania law"; it will reference the new
notice in its Pennsylvania state-specific guidelines; and it has
discontinued use of the form letter that was previously sent to the
Stecherts and other similarly situated policyholders.
Finally, separate and apart from the amount to be paid to the Class
Members, Travelers has agreed to pay "all of the costs of notice
and settlement administration," an incentive award of $20,000 for
each class representative, and the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees
and expenses of up to $1.21 million.

The parties have chosen Epiq Class Action and Mass Tort Solutions
to serve as Claims Administrator. Within 21 days of the Preliminary
Approval, Epiq will create a public website with the Individual
Notice, Claim Form, and other information on the Settlement Within
45 days of the Preliminary Approval, Travelers will produce the
Settlement Class List to Epiq and Class Counsel, which will
include, among other details, each Class Member's name, last known
address, claim number, date of loss, and number of rental days
already paid under ETE coverage.

Within 75 days of the Preliminary Approval, Epiq will send a copy
of the Individual Notice and Claim Form to each Class Member's most
recent address. If an Individual Notice and/or Claim Form is
returned as undeliverable, Epiq will resend the Individual Notice
and Claim form to any forwarding address provided or via email, if
that Class Member's email address is known.

The Class Members will have an opportunity to either opt out of the
Settlement or to object and/or intervene by following the
procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. After the
Settlement is finally approved, the Settlement Class will release
Travelers from claims and causes of action related to ETE coverage
that were brought or could have been brought in the action. The
Settlement "does not act to release claims unrelated to ETE
benefits as set forth in the Action, and will not be considered a
release of any unrelated rights and benefits available under the
Policies."

The Stecherts propose that the Settlement Class consist of "all
first party total loss vehicle claimants of personal lines private
passenger policies issued by Travelers entities in Pennsylvania,
with a date of loss from Jan. 16, 2011 to May 27, 2021, who were
paid for 1-30 days under rental reimbursement extended
transportation expenses coverage."

Judge Marston finds that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) are satisfied, and she will conditionally certify the
class. She will appoint Kyle and Marie Stechert as representatives
of the settlement class. Judge Marston also finds that Richard M.
Ochroch and Associates, P.C. and The Locks Law Firm have the
ability and resources to "fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the class." Accordingly, they will be conditionally
appointed as class counsel. She appoints Epiq to serve as the
Claims Administrator and administer the settlement in good faith in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Marston further finds that notice via first-class mail,
website, and toll-free phone number meets the Rule 23 and due
process requirements because it is the best notice practicable
under the circumstances and is reasonably calculated to provide
actual notice to the Class Members. She is satisfied that the
content of the Individual Notice satisfies Rule 23 and due process.
For these reasons, she will preliminarily approve the parties'
proposed settlement agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Marston concludes that after years
of litigation, the Settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel
with the help of an experienced mediator and provides significant
benefits to the Class Members. She is satisfied that preliminary
approval is appropriate. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is
granted. The Final Settlement Hearing is scheduled for April 19,
2022, at 10:00 a.m.

An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tj88w6 from Leagle.com.


TRUE SELECT: Faces Larson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE LARSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE SELECT LLC, d/b/a FIRSTLIGHT HOME CARE,
GUARDIANLIGHT OF NORTHWESTERN VA INCORPORATED, d/b/a FIRSTLIGHT
HOME CARE; KENDRA GHANBARI, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00077-TTC
(W.D. Va., November 3, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants seeking all available
relief for unpaid overtime and for multiple acts of retaliation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an Office Assistant
and a Home Care Worker (Caregiver) since approximately March 1,
2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and
other similarly situated Home Care Workers their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. When the Plaintiff complained to her supervisor as to why
she was not paid an overtime premium, the Defendants via Wendy
Stanton cut the Plaintiff's weekly work schedule from two 24-hour
days to one 24-hour day. In late October 2021, when the Plaintiff
was found out by the Defendants speaking with others concerning
unpaid overtime issues, Defendant Ghandari required her to attend a
meeting with her to require her not to speak with other co-workers
about unpaid overtime. The Defendant also falsely alleged the
Plaintiff was insubordinate and incompetent at her job, asserts the
Plaintiff.

The Corporate Defendants are in the business of providing home care
services to the elderly and others who require hands on home care.
Kendra Ghanbari is the owner, principal and managing agent for the
Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
          1650 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 394-0541
          E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                  ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

U.S. BANCORP: Appeal Pending in Visa Damages Action
---------------------------------------------------
In October 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve
class action claims associated with the multidistrict interchange
litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "Multi-District Litigation").

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
approval of that settlement and remanded the matter to the district
court.

Thereafter, the case was split into two putative class actions:

     -- one seeking damages (the "Damages Action") and

     -- a separate class action seeking injunctive relief only (the
"Injunctive Action").

In September 2018, Visa signed a new settlement agreement,
superseding the original settlement agreement, to resolve the
Damages Action.

U.S. Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that the Damages Action settlement
was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, but is now on appeal.

The Injunctive Action, which generally seeks changes to Visa rules,
is still pending, U.S. Bancorp added.

U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and incorporated in Delaware.


UNITED STATES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in PACER Fee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. government
has agreed in principle to resolve a class action lawsuit brought
by a group of nonprofits alleging the federal judiciary overcharged
the public for access to court documents through its PACER system.

The tentative settlement was disclosed in a status report filed in
federal court in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 15, more than a year
after an appellate court concluded the judiciary improperly covered
some of its expenses with PACER fees.

Terms of the potential deal were not disclosed. Lawyers with the
U.S. Justice Department and for the plaintiffs said the deal still
needs to be finalized and that they hoped to provide an update by
Jan. 20.

William Narwold of Motley Rice, who represents the nonprofits with
Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler, declined to comment, saying the
agreement remains confidential.

Representatives for the Justice Department and the Administrative
Office of U.S. Courts did not respond to requests for comment.

In a 2016 lawsuit, three national nonprofit organizations -- the
National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law
Center and Alliance for Justice -- alleged that PACER fees charged
between 2010 and 2016 were excessive.

PACER, which stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records,
is run by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Users pay
$0.10 per page with a cap of $3 per document (with transcripts
excluded).

The lawsuit was brought as a class action on behalf of anyone who
paid PACER fees from April 2010 to April 2016. The judiciary
collected $923 million in PACER fees during the fiscal years 2010
to 2016, according to court filings.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle in 2018 rejected some of the
plaintiffs' claims while also holding that some of the judiciary's
expenditures went beyond what Congress had authorized.

That included spending $192 million in PACER system fees on court
technology projects, the judge said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit upheld her decision in August 2020.

The case is National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United
States, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No.
16-cv-745.

For the plaintiffs: William Narwold, Meghan Oliver and Elizabeth
Smith of Motley Rice; and Deepak Gupta and Jonathan Taylor of Gupta
Wessler

For the United States: Jeremy Simon and Robert Caplen of the U.S.
Justice Department [GN]

UNITED STATES: S.D. New York Moves Susana v. ICE to E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York transferred the case, JOSE D. SUSANA,
et al., Plaintiffs v. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ("ICE"), et
al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-8892 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Background

Plaintiff Susana, who is currently detained in the Caroline
Detention Facility (CDF) in Bowling Green, Virginia, brings the pro
se action on his own behalf; on behalf of M.A.G.A. (Make Africa
Great Again), an unincorporated association; and as "next friend"
to more than 50 other individuals who either are or were detained
in the CDF. The complaint in the action is labeled, "Torture Victim
Protection Act Class Action Lawsuit." Plaintiff Susana brings the
action as "Priest" and "Next Friend" to the other individual
Plaintiffs. The complaint lists as Plaintiffs another 53
individuals, whom it describes as "a class of refugees as defined
by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees ('UNHCR')."

The complaint alleges that Susana has "jailhouse lawyer, as well
as, next friend standing" to bring claims on behalf of the other
Plaintiffs. Susana seeks to "assert the rights of the below
mentioned refugees who for valid reasons cannot assert the same due
to their incompetence." He requests "sub-class certification" and
asks the Court "for the appointment of class counsel to institute
this action on behalf of these incompetent Plaintiffs." The Court
has learned from the U.S. Department of Justice's Executive Office
for Immigration Review's (EOIR) phone hotline that Susana has
ongoing immigration proceedings in Caroline County, Virginia. The
complaint does not include addresses or any other identifying
information for other 53 individual Plaintiffs. Susana and the
other individual Plaintiffs "digitally signed" the complaint by
typing their names in the signature block.

Named as Defendants in the caption of the complaint are:
Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), "Seven Unknown DOE Agents
of DHS/CDF/Oasis/Global Tel Link et al.," and "United States ex
rel. (Sued individually & officially)." The body of the complaint
lists the following parties as Defendants: "ICE/United States ex
rel."; CDF Superintendent Perry; Chaplain Shoars; Heath Simon (HQ
Rio Chief); P. Morin (SDDO); Michael Coles (DO); J. Collins (DO);
Oasis, which the complaint describes as a "commissary vendor";
Global Tel Link, another "commissary vendor"; Ronnie Sidney, a
mental health specialist with ICE Health Service Corp. The
complaint provides a Washington, D.C. address for the United
States/ICE and lists the CDF's address in Bowling Green, Virginia,
for all other defendants.

In the complaint, which is not a model of clarity, the Plaintiffs
allege that they been detained without due process in violation of
the United States Constitution and international law. They "had
paid their 'debts to society', yet they were twice put in jeopardy
of the loss of their liberty; by the Article III injury-in-fact of
indefinite detention without bonds in the Defendant's (I.C.E.)
custody." The Plaintiffs also allege that employees or agents of
the United States arrested them "without foreign national
Mirandizing; or their right to contact their Consulates for
assistance or representation in any criminal proceedings against
them." The Plaintiffs assert that they were unlawfully detained,
and "void judgments" were entered against them. They also allege
facts regarding their conditions of confinement.

In addition to constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs invoke the
Alien Tort Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1350, asserting claims of intentional infliction of
emotional distress/torture and violations of the international
Convention Against Torture.

The Plaintiffs request the following relief: (1) declaratory
relief; (2) an injunction ordering the Defendants "to not come
within 100 ft. of the Plaintiffs (or their children)"; (3) an order
"granting the Plaintiffs a subpoena duces tecum ordering Defendants
ICE et al., to appear via video conference (or otherwise) before
the Court to Show Cause why a Criminal Arrest Warrant should not be
issued against them in this case"; (4) an order granting the
Plaintiffs permanent resident status; and (5) money damages.

The Plaintiffs also filed a document seeking preliminary injunctive
relief, which they label, "Retaliatory conspiracy to violate CAT by
Attempts to Deprive of Civil Right to Petition Alien Tort Action
Pursuant to 28 U.SC. Section 1350 Motion for Preliminary or
Permanent Injunction Ordering the Defendants to Comply with the
U.S.D.C.C.D.CA's Court's Fraihat v. ICE Order." The motion pertains
to ICE's alleged failure to protect detainees from the risk of
contracting COVID-19. It alleges that that ICE is "still in
noncompliance with the Court order(s)" in "Faour Abdallah Fraihat,
et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. EDCV
19-1546 JGB (SHKx) Date Apri 20, 2020 (MTD Order, Dkt. No. 126)."
The Court understand this to be a reference to an order in Fraihat
v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 5:19-CV-1546 (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 6, 2021), an action regarding conditions in ICE
facilities that was brought in the Central District of California.

In addition to the complaint and motion for preliminary injunctive
relief, the Plaintiffs also filed: (1) a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, purporting to be submitted on behalf of all the
Plaintiffs; (2) a "motion for sub-class certification"; and (3) a
motion to amend/correct the complaint to join the Nigerian
Consulate "as an indispensable High Party to the action, or
subpoenaed to appear in the same."

Discussion

Judge Swain finds that under section 1404(a), transfer appears to
be appropriate in the case. She finds that the underlying events
occurred in Caroline County, Virginia. Susana is detained in the
CDF, and many of the other individual Plaintiffs either are or were
detained in the CDF. Moreover, Judge Swain has learned from the
U.S. Department of Justice's EOIR hotline that Susana has pending
immigration proceedings in Caroline County. Finally, the complaint
provides Bowling Green, Virginia addresses for the individual and
corporate Defendants and the United States is also a resident of
Caroline County. Caroline County falls within the Eastern District
of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. Section 127(a). Venue is therefore
proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b). Based on the totality of the circumstances, Judge Swain
concludes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.

Conclusion

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Swain
waives the provision of Local Civil Rule 83.1 that requires a
seven-day delay before the Clerk of Court may effectuate the
transfer of the case to the transferee courts. Whether the
Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed further without
prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee
court. Summonses will not issue from the Court. The Clerk of Court
is directed to terminate all pending motions. The Order closes the
case.

Judge Swain 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 further directed to mail a copy of the Order
to Plaintiff Susana at his address of record and note service on
the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nxcdnfpx from Leagle.com.


USIC LOCATING: Nicholson FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDRE NICHOLSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. USIC LOCATING SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
21CN-CC00061, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clinton County,
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on November 18, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-06157-FJG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

USIC Locating Services, LLC is a provider of underground utility
services, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Traci L. Martinez, Esq.
         SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
         2000 Huntington Center
         41 South High Street
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: (614) 365-2700
         Facsimile: (614) 365-2499
         E-mail: traci.martinez@squirepb.com

WAVELAND SERVICES: $290K Class Deal in McClure Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Marlin McClure, an individual, for himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waveland Services, Inc., a
Louisiana corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California grants McClure's motion for
final approval of settlement of the wage and hour collective and
representative class action.

Background

From April 2016 until May 2018, Plaintiff McClure worked for
Defendant Waveland on an oil and gas platform on the Outer
Continental Shelf off the coast of California. In 2018, McClure
filed the class action alleging wage and hour violations. McClure
amended the complaint twice.

In the operative second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges:
1) meal period violations; 2) rest period violations; 3) pay stub
violations; 4) unfair competition; 5) failure to timely pay final
wages; 6) civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA); 7) violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA); 8) minimum wage violations; and 9) overtime
violations.

The parties reached a settlement. The Plaintiff sought preliminary
approval of the settlement, which the Court granted. The terms of
the settlement create two classes: the California Class and the
FLSA Collective. The California Class members "are all current and
former hourly employees of Defendant, who worked for Defendant on
oil platforms off the California coast for shifts of 12 hours or
more since June 14, 2014." The FLSA collective members "are all
current and former hourly employees of Defendant, who worked for
Defendant over 40 hours in a single workweek on an oil platform off
any coast of the United States and, during such workweek, were
furnished any meals and/or lodging in addition to other wages from
June 14, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval."

The settlement is non-reversionary, such that unclaimed funds will
not be returned to the Defendant, and provides a Maximum Settlement
Amount (MSA) $290,000. The MSA is inclusive of class counsel's fees
of $95,700 or 33% of the MSA, the class counsel's costs of $6,334,
a service award for McClure of $5,800, and administration costs of
$12,500. The MSA also includes $5,800 in PAGA penalties, of which
75 percent or $4,350 is allocated to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), with the remaining 25% or
$1,450 allocated to the California Class Members who worked between
June 12, 2017 and the date of preliminary approval.

From the net amount, which by the Court's calculations appears to
be approximately $163,866, 40% is allocated to the California Class
and 60 percent to the FLSA Collective. Of the 549 identified class
members, there are 548 individuals with qualifying FLSA claims and
78 individuals with qualifying California law claims. Any unclaimed
FLSA funds will be redistributed to participating FLSA collective
members.

Following preliminary approval, the settlement administrator
implemented efforts to notify the California Class and FLSA
Collective members. Through information provided by the defense
counsel, the administrator compiled a mailing list of 549 Class
Members. The administrator engaged in substantial efforts to effect
notice, mailing notice packets, emailing the Class Members,
establishing a settlement website, and engaging in a telephone
campaign.

As noted, McClure now moves for final approval of the settlement.
The motion is unopposed. The Court held a hearing on Oct. 8, 2021;
Michael Strauss appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and Douglas
Farmer on behalf of the Defendant.

Analysis

A. Final Approval

Judge Mueller holds that the initial finding that the settlement is
fair and reasonable is also supported now by the class member
responses. The FLSA Collective opt-in rates are relatively low,
near 13% at the time McClure filed the motion for final approval;
however, as in other cases, Judge Mueller does not find the
relatively low response rate of potential class members weighs
against approval." Her conclusion in this respect takes account of
the overall favorable recovery rate and the fact that no member of
the California Class or FLSA Collective opted-out or objected to
the Settlement. Accordingly, she finds the settlement is fair and
reasonable with respect to the Rule 23 factors for the California
Class and the FLSA Collective.

B. Attorneys' Fees

The Plaintiff requests attorneys' fees of $95,700. Judge Mueller
finds that multiplying the counsel's hours by their hourly rates
yields a lodestar amount of $133,780. When compared to the $95,700
fee counsel requests, the lodestar multiplier is 0.7 to reflect the
lesser amount of fees requested. This multiplier, which does not
benefit the counsel, is reasonable.

C. Litigation and Administrative Costs

The Class counsel seeks $6,334 in litigation costs, and $12,500 in
settlement administration costs. Judge Mueller finds the request
for reimbursement of litigation to be reasonable. The
administrative costs also are reasonable.

D. PAGA

At hearing the parties addressed the reasonableness of the PAGA
penalties. The Class counsel clarified the PAGA claim was
derivative of the other California law claims, none of which would
succeed if the case were to continue. Given the substantial risk
that no California wage law applies in the case, the class counsel
estimates the maximum PAGA penalties are zero for each underlying
violation. The settlement proposes a $5,800 PAGA penalty,
representing 1% of the overall MSA. Given the likelihood that no
PAGA penalties would be recoverable were the case to move forward,
Judge Mueller finds the sum provided for is reasonable. The class
counsel properly notified LWDA, and the agency has not opposed the
settlement. The PAGA settlement is approved.

Conclusion

Judge Mueller grants the motion for final approval of the class
settlement. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a)
implementation of the Settlement and any award or distribution of
the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, as needed;
(b) disposition of the Settlement Fund, as needed; and (c) all
parties thereto for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and
administrating the Settlement.

The parties will notify the court within seven days after the
settlement becomes fully funded. At that point, the Court will
enter its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The
Order resolves ECF No. 69.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yhf75z2f from Leagle.com.


ZILLOW GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Nov. 16 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle captioned
Barua v. Zillow Group, Inc., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-01551) on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Zillow Group, Inc. ("Zillow" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: Z, ZG)
securities between February 10, 2021 and November 2, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from November
16, 2021, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your Zillow investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

On October 18, 2021, the Company announced that Zillow Offers
suspended signing of new contracts through 2021 and would focus on
its current inventory, citing "a backlog in renovations and
operational capacity restraints." Zillow claimed that "[p]ausing
new contracts will enable us to focus on sellers already under
contract with us and our current home inventory."

On this news, Zillow's Class A share price fell $8.84, or 9.4%, to
close at $85.46 per share on October 18, 2021, and Zillow's Class C
share price fell $8.97, or 9.4%, to close at $86.00 per share on
October 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 2, 2021, Zillow announced that it was winding
down Zillow Offers because "the unpredictability in forecasting
home prices far exceeds what we anticipated and continuing to scale
Zillow Offers would result in too much earnings and balance-sheet
volatility." As a result, third quarter 2021 financial results
included a $304 million inventory writedown, and the Company
further expected "an additional $240 million to $265 million of
losses to be recognized in Q4."

On this news, Zillow's Class A share price fell $19.62, or 23%, to
close at $65.86 per share on November 3, 2021, thereby injuring
investors. Zillow's Class C share price fell $21.73, or 25%, to
close at $65.47 per share on November 3, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, despite operational improvements, the Company
experienced significant unpredictability in forecasting home prices
for its Zillow Offers business; (2) that such unpredictability, as
well as labor and supply shortages, led to a backlog of inventory;
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably
likely to wind-down its Zillow Offers business, which would have a
material adverse impact on its financial results; 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Zillow securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

ZUMIEZ INC: Status Conference in Herrera Suit Continued to Dec. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXIA HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZUMIEZ, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-01802-SB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Sebastian of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Sacramento, continues the
status conference currently set for Nov. 9, 2021, to Dec. 9, 2021,
at 10:00 a.m. by telephone.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Stipulation and Request for
Continuance of November 9, 2021, Status Conference. The stipulation
was considered without oral argument.

The parties state that they reached an agreement through mediation
and are still working on drafting and approving a long-form
settlement agreement. Thus, they once again request that the Court
continues the status conference scheduled for Nov. 9, 2021, to give
them more time to complete the settlement agreement and prepare a
proposed briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary/Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion
for Approval of Attorney Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards.

Judge Sebastian finds good cause to accept the stipulation.
Accordingly, the parties' Joint Stipulation and Request for
Continuance of November 9, 2021, Status Conference is accepted and
entered into the record. He continues the status conference
currently set for Nov. 9, 2021, to Dec. 9, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., by
telephone. The parties will call the Court's toll-free conference
line at (888) 636-3807 and enter access code 8839796. They will
follow the automated instructions to ensure that they are added to
the conference in a timely manner.

By Dec. 3, 2021, the parties will submit a joint status
certificate, proposing a new briefing schedule for approval of
class action settlement and attorneys' fees.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the Order and forward
copies to counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tjtnntw7 from Leagle.com.



                            *********

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 ***