/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211126.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 231

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: No Actual Wasabi in Wasabi Snacks, Says Ithier
AETNA LIFE: Averts Class Action Over Disability Benefit Offsets
ALEXANDER KATNELSON: Reynoso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMARIN CORP: Dorfman Sues Over Share Price Drop
AMAZON.COM: Rizvanovic Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

ANGELS ON EARTH: Salas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
APPLE MANAGEMENT: Mosqueda Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Payslips
AUDREY SIGNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ford Suit Alleges
BANANA REPUBLIC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Davis Suit Claims
BANK OF NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Reverses Decision in Class Action

BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Drops Appeal from Settlement Order
BID GROUP: Laborers Seek Overtime Pay, Hits Misclassification
BIOHARVEST INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BMW NORTH AMERICA: Calabasas Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
BUFFALO WILD: Wheeldon Files Suit in D. Arizona

CAMBER ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of December 28 Deadline
CARDINAL HEALTH: Bare Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
CHARLIE HUSTLE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHECKMATE RECOVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Everard Suit Claims
CHRISTMAS PLACE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CITY METAL: Tlapanco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
COMCAST CORP: Aweau Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Donaire Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Palermo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONTROL GROUP: Camacho Files Suit in S.D. California

CORTEVA INC: Rice Farmers Sue Over Ineffective Herbicide
DAIMLER AG: Claims in Deiselgate Class Suit Reach 12,000 Car Owners
DATTO INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in California
DSP GROUP: Jones Files Suit Over Sale to Synaptics
EARGO INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of December 6 Deadline

EARGO INC: IBEW Local 353 Slams Share Drop Over Bad Debt
EARLE D. VANDEKAR: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELAP SERVICES: South Broward Suit Moved to W.D. Texas
ELITE AUTO: Sistrat Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
FAR WEST RESTAURANT: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages

FS PALO ALTO: Faces Johnson Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
GAGLIANO'S LIQUOR: Delivery Personnel Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Cadillac SRX Owners Sue Over Defective Headlight
GES LOGISTICS: Molina et al. Sue Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
GOLDMAN SACHS: Li Seeks Damages Over Vishop Share Purchase

GOOGLE LLC: Akin Gump Attorneys Discusses UK Supreme Court Ruling
GT VENTURES: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GUELPH DENTAL: Settles Patients' Class Action Lawsuit
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Kent Sues Over Sale to Baxter International
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Energy Reached Settlement with Chieftain Suit

JF FLORES: Romero Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Seven Investors Seek Lead Plaintiff Appointment
KIWI SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Geeo Suit Alleges
KUCOIN: Faces Cryptocurrency Class Action Lawsuit in New York
LAUNDRESS LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Robbins Geller Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees

LLR INC: Loses Bid to Certify Question of Law to Alaska Sup. Ct.
LOOG GUITARS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOS ANGELES, CA: William Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LOWE'S HOME: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Provide Suitable Seating
MASSAGE ENVY: Hausfeld LLP Attorney Discusses Ninth Cir. Ruling

MEGA CENTER: Faces Class Action Suit in Quebec Over Illegal Fees
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Beach Files Suit in W.D. Washington
META PLATFORMS: Hagens Berman Reminds of December 27 Deadline
MISSIONARY OBLATES: Court Authorizes Sexual Assault Class Action
NAADAM CASHMERE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Taylor Suit removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ON24 INC: Douvia and Goemer Class Suits Underway
ORGANON & CO: Continues to Defend 15 Class Suits Outside the US
OWLET INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
PAUL GENERAL: Faces Chong Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages

PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PERRIGO COMPANY: Deal Reached in Suit Over Exchange Act Violations
PERRIGO COMPANY: Oral Argument on Securities Suit Set for Jan 2022
PERRIGO COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
PERRIGO COMPANY: Suit Over Exchange Act Violation Stayed

PFIZER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Woodhams Suit
PFIZER INC: Houghton Sues Over Carcinogen in Quit-Smoking Meds
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Butterline Files Bid for Class Certification
POWER SOLUTIONS: Court Stays Suit Over Privacy Act Violation
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Continues to Defend Allen Suit

PUSHPAY USA: Blankers Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Suit Over Nonpayment of OT Wages
RED RIVER: Faces Averette Suit Over Unlawful Fees and Charges
RHETT'S LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morris et al. Claim
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Seeks Dec. 2 Extension to File Reply

SAYER LAW: Court Tosses Thome Bid for Class Certification
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Gibbs Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
SELLAS LIFE: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Wins Judgment on Pleadings Bid in One40 Suit
SHUN LEE PALACE: Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action

SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
SOUTHWEST SOCCER: Hildebrand Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SUMMER FRIDAYS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TEAM INC: Probable Settlement on Two Class Suits Underway
TESLA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vela Suit Alleges

TIMIOS INC: Waters Sues Over Failure to Properly Safeguard PII
TRAVELERS HOME: Stechert Class Settlement Granted Prelim. Approval
UNITED STATES: Susana v. ICE Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Virginia
US BEST INGREDIENTS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VALLI PRODUCE: Dalton Hits Biometric Data Retention

VALLON PHARMACEUTICALS: Rendon Suit Underway
VERIZON CONNECT: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 21
VILLAGE OF STONE PARK: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
VILORE FOODS: Gross, et al., Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
WALGREEN CO: E.D. California Stays Caves Suit Pending Appeals

WICKED CANTINA: Parraga Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZILLOW GROUP: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 17, 2022 Deadline
ZILLOW GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 18 Deadline
[*] GT Attorneys Discuss 1st, 2nd, 3rd Cir. Class Action Rulings
[*] GT Attorneys Discuss 4th, 5th, 6th Cir. Class Action Rulings

[*] GT Attorneys Discuss 7th, 8th, 9th Cir. Class Action Rulings
[*] Judge Defends Common Fund Orders in Class Action Lawsuit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Increases A&E Reserves by $33M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 168 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.4MM in Est. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Accrues $1.8MM for Estimated ARO

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $38MM Reserves as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intl Paper Has $112MM in Asbestos-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 2,768 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Defends 4,145 Active Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Paid $53.4MM in Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Has 4,709 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 925 Cases as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still faces Exposure Claims



                            *********

7-ELEVEN INC: No Actual Wasabi in Wasabi Snacks, Says Ithier
------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Ithier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-09405 (S.D. N.Y., November 14, 2021), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability under various
states' consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act, and
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

7-Eleven, Inc. manufactures, packages, labels, markets, and sells
7-Select "Wasabi Delight Flavored Snack Mix - Peanuts, Cranberries,
Cashews, Crunchy Wasabi Peanuts, Green Peas & Almonds," promoted
with a pair of chopsticks holding a wasabi pea and green stripes on
the packaging which contain statements and images, along with the
green wasabi peas and peanuts seen through the cellophane window
panel, thus telling consumers they can expect at least some wasabi.
Ithier claims that their ingredient label contains no wasabi. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
      Great Neck NY 11021-3104
      Tel: (516) 268-7080
      Fax: (516) 234-7800
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


AETNA LIFE: Averts Class Action Over Disability Benefit Offsets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Aetna Life
Insurance Co. defeated a proposed class action claiming it wrongly
offsets disability plan participants' monthly payments to account
for disability benefits they receive from the Social Security
Administration, according to a ruling by a federal judge in
Kentucky.

The named plaintiff, Cloman Smith, began receiving Social Security
disability benefits after the date he became disabled under the
terms of his Aetna disability plan, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky said on
Nov. 16. [GN]

ALEXANDER KATNELSON: Reynoso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Reynoso, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Alexander Katsnelson, 1606 Avenue M LLC, and Alexander's Hardware &
Locksmith Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06389 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17,
2021), is brought against the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and violations of the New York State Labor Law
and their supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations, seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages,
spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification, either in
the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to
Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. The
Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a statement of wages, as
required by the NYLL. The Defendants did not give any notice to
Plaintiff, in English, of his rate of pay, employer's regular pay
day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his
hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a locksmith and general worker at the
Defendants' hardware store.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control a hardware store, known
as "Alexander's Hardware & Locksmith", located in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATED, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


AMARIN CORP: Dorfman Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Todd Dorfman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amarin Corporation PLC, John F. Thero and
Michael Kalb, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-19911, (D. N.J., November
10, 2021), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Amarin is a biotechnology company that created a drug called
Vascepa intended to treat cardiovascular disease claiming 25%
relative risk reduction for patients taking Vascepa. The price of
Amarin's common stock increased from $2.99 per share to $12.40 per
share the next trading day over this news. However, the full
results of the study showed that the placebo given to patients
caused cardiovascular problems in the patients taking it, thus
causing misleading results. As a result of this disclosure, the
price of Amarin's common stock dropped from $21.05 per share to
$15.38 per share in two trading days, a decrease of approximately
27%.

Dorfman purchased Amarin securities during the time when he claims
they were artificially-inflated. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Thomas H. Przybylowski, 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
             tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165-0006
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


AMAZON.COM: Rizvanovic Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Services
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Rizvanovic, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Amazon.com
Services LLC, Case No. BCV-21-102647 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Amazon.com, Inc. -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dean S. Ho, Esq.
          OPTIMUM EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          7545 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
          Irvine, CA 92618-2933
          Phone: 949-954-8181
          Fax: 949-335-6106
          Email: dean@employees-lawyer.com


ANGELS ON EARTH: Salas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Geormarie Salas and other similarly situated individuals v. Angels
On Earth PPEC, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01926 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 16,
2021), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and retaliation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but she was not paid for
overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in
and out, but Defendant could track the number of hours worked by
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. The Defendant's
management knew about Plaintiff's number of working hours for that
week. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
regular and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her
regular rate for every hour that they worked over 40, in violation
of the FLSA. As a result of the Plaintiff's complaint on September
15, 2021, the Defendant fired Plaintiff, alleging pretextual
reasons, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a nurse assistant and
caregiver for the disabled children.

Angels on Earth PPEC is a for-Profit organization dedicated to
providing prescribed pediatric extended care (PPEC) for special
needs children. The Defendant provides medical daycare,
transportation, and therapy for disabled children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE MANAGEMENT: Mosqueda Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Payslips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Mosqueda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Management, Inc., Zaman Property
Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV42050 (Cal. Super., November 15, 2021), seeks unpaid wages
and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the
California Business and Professions Code, and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants jointly employed Mosqueda as a non-exempt, hourly paid
maintenance technician. He claims to have not received final wages
at the time of his termination, worked without meal and rest
periods, nor compensation in lieu, thereof, worked in excess of
eight hours per workday or in excess of 40 hours per workweek
without receiving compensation at a rate of one and one half the
regular rate of pay, received inaccurately itemized and deficient
wage statements and was not paid in a timely manner pertaining to
the waiting time penalties. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Otkupman, Esq.
      OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
      5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
      Westlake Village, CA 91362
      Telephone: (818) 293-5623
      Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
      Email: Roman@OLFLA.com


AUDREY SIGNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ford Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN RYAN FORD; and EMILIO GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUDREY SIGNS INC.; BOB
BLACK; and HARRIET BLACK, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09262
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as field
installers.

AUDREY SIGNS INC. is a full service custom sign manufacture. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kayla S. Callahan, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400

BANANA REPUBLIC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Davis Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06160 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2021) brings this complaint as
a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee since approximately August 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of failing to timely pay her
wages. Despite regularly spending more than 25 percent of her shift
performing tasks for the Defendant, the Defendant compensated her
on a bi-weekly basis. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
unlawful pay practice, the Plaintiff was underpaid for every
corresponding period where the Defendant paid her on an untimely
basis.

Banana Republic, LLC is an American clothing and accessories
retailer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375

BANK OF NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Reverses Decision in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Jarvis, writing for Law360, reports that a panel of Second
Circuit judges on Nov. 17 withdrew an earlier opinion it issued and
found that, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a
proposed class action against the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co
NA for belatedly filing a satisfaction of mortgage should be nixed.
[GN]

BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Drops Appeal from Settlement Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 Timber Hill
LLC has dismissed its appeal from an order granting final approval
of a class action settlement.

On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to
settle, subject to final court approval, a consolidated securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658). On January 31, 2021,
the District Court issued an order granting final approval of this
settlement.  The Company agreed to resolve the U.S. Securities
Litigation for $1.21 billion.

On February 4, 2021, Timber Hill LLC filed a notice of appeal of
the Court's final approval order, which overruled its objections to
the allocation of settlement proceeds as between common stock and
options.

"On March 1, 2021, Cathy Lochridge filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's final approval order, which overruled her objections as to
the attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel," the Company said.

On October 14, 2021, Timber Hill dismissed its appeal of the final
approval order.

The settlement resolves and discharges all claims against the
Company in the class action. As part of the settlement, the Company
and the other settling defendants admitted no liability as to the
claims against it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. This
settlement resolves the most significant of the Company's remaining
legacy legal matters and eliminates a material uncertainty
regarding our Company.

"As of September 30, 2021, Restricted cash includes $1,210 million
of payments into an escrow fund under the terms of a settlement
agreement regarding the U.S. Securities Litigation," the Company
said.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a multinational specialty
pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Quebec, Canada.


BID GROUP: Laborers Seek Overtime Pay, Hits Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Holder and Randall Taylor, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Bid Group Construction US,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01086, (E.D. Ark., November 12,
2021) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of
failure to sufficiently pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendant's primary business is non-residential building
construction where Plaintiffs worked as general laborers. They have
been allegedly misclassified as exempt from overtime, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIOHARVEST INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bioharvest, Inc. The
case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Bioharvest, Inc. doing
business as: Vinia, Case No. 1:21-cv-09473 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16,
2021).

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

BioHarvest Sciences Inc. -- https://bioharvest.com/ -- manufactures
pharmaceutical products. The Company develops cannabis for medical
purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Calabasas Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CALABASAS LUXURY MOTORCARS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC; BMW
FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-08825 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in unfair business practice regarding BMW
dealership.

According to the complaint, due to the shortage of vehicles, and
due to the rise in used vehicle values, the Defendants have
willfully sought to place an unfair restraint on trade in violation
of California law. Specifically, the Defendants have engaged in a
pattern and practice of collusive conduct amounting to unfair
competition by refusing to allow non-BMW dealerships to accept
their leased vehicles as a trade-in and refusing to allow consumers
to sell their vehicles to non-BMW dealerships.

Allegedly, the Defendants will only allow the consumer to trade in
the vehicle with BMW brand vehicle dealerships. That is to say, if
a person is leasing a BMW, and wants to capture the equity in their
vehicle, they are essentially stuck with a BMW, and if they want to
capture the equity in their vehicle, or trade-in the vehicle during
the lease, they are relegated to dealing strictly with BMW. BMW
brand dealerships thus have attempting to exert a monopoly over the
marketplace and, in the process, are actively harming fair trade
within the marketplace of used vehicles.

By keeping their vehicles on the "BMW Merry-go-Round," BMW not only
prevents consumers from using the value in their leased vehicles as
a trade-in towards the purchase of a competitor-brand vehicle, but
they are also preventing dealerships, such as Plaintiff, from
exercising their right to purchase these leased vehicles as a
trade-in, the suit added.

BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC markets and sells motor vehicles. The
Company offers vehicle accessories and interior and exterior parts,
apparel and accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers
vehicle financing and leasing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
          23901 Calabasas Road, STE 2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
          Email: robert@starrlaw.com
                 adam@starrlaw.com
                 theodore@starrlaw.com


BUFFALO WILD: Wheeldon Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buffalo Wild Wings
Incorporated. The case is styled as Michelle Wheeldon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Buffalo Wild Wings
Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-01947-DLR (D. Ariz., Nov. 16,
2021).

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

Buffalo Wild Wings -- http://www.buffalowildwings.com/-- is an
American casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise in the
United States, Canada, India, Mexico, Oman, Panama, Philippines,
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam which specializes
in Buffalo wings and sauces.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 615-3948
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielpllc.com


CAMBER ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of December 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Nov. 17 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Camber Energy, Inc. on behalf investors who purchased the Company's
securities between February 18, 2021 and October 4, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Camber Energy, Inc.,
you may, no later than December 28, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Camber Energy, Inc.

Camber is an independent oil and natural gas company that acquires,
develops, and sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas
liquids.

In December 2020, Camber acquired a controlling interest in Viking
Energy Group, Inc. ("Viking"), a purported independent exploration
and production company. Then, in February 2021, Camber executed a
definitive merger agreement with Viking to effect the full
combination of the two entities (the "Merger").

Throughout 2021, Camber has failed to timely file required
financial statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). As a result, financial reporting services such
as Yahoo! Finance and Bloomberg were forced to rely on infrequent
and outdated updates in SEC filings to estimate the Company's
shares of common stock issued and outstanding. For example, before
a recent update by the Company on October 6, 2021, the
widely-reported estimate of the Company's shares of common stock
issued and outstanding amounted to 104.2 million, which itself was
based on a filing the Company made with the SEC on July 12, 2021.
When the Company provided an update on October 6, 2021, it reported
249.6 million shares of stock issued and outstanding, a
significantly higher figure.

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

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

Contact:

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

CARDINAL HEALTH: Bare Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Aaron Miles Bare, other similarly situated
individuals v. Cardinal Health, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00389 (E.D.
Tenn., Nov. 17, 2021).

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

Cardinal Health, Inc. -- https://www.cardinalhealth.com/en.html --
is an American multinational health care services company, and the
14th highest revenue generating company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell L. Egli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RUSSELL L. EGLI
          The Wisdom Building
          11109 Lake Ridge Drive
          Concord, TN 37934
          Phone: (865) 304-4125
          Fax: (866) 936-4971
          Email: russelleglilaw@gmail.com


CHARLIE HUSTLE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charlie Hustle, LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Charlie Hustle, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09475 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Charlie Hustle -- https://www.charliehustle.com/ -- is a creative
vintage t-shirt company founded on respect for the old school and
love for that perfect vintage tee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



CHECKMATE RECOVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Everard Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH EVERARD, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHECKMATE RECOVERY SERVICE
LLC; CHRISTOPHER SCRIVANO, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-02596 (M.D. Fla., November 5, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Roadside Service
Technician from November 2020 to June 15, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked 72 hours
per week. However, the Defendant denied him his lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Instead, he was only paid a weekly salary of $900 per
week regardless of how many hours he worked.

Checkmate Recovery Service LLC operates a roadside assistance
business in Pinellas County, Florida. Christopher Scrivano is the
owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          Daniel E. Kalter, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  dkalter@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com

CHRISTMAS PLACE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christmas Place, Inc.
The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Christmas Place, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06347 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16,
2021).

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

Christmas Place -- https://www.christmasplace.com/ -- premier place
for custom Christmas gifts and collectibles, personalized Christmas
ornaments, Department 56, Christmas trees, LED Christmas lights,
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CITY METAL: Tlapanco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Simeon Tlapanco, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CITY METAL TRADERS, INC., and
CITY METAL SUPPLY, INC., and CITY SCRAP METAL, INC., and CITY METAL
GROUP, INC., and ALAN ROTHMAN, individually, and MICHELE ROTHMAN,
individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-06341 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021), is
brought for Defendants' violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law; the
requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice
upon hire containing specific categories of accurate information
under the NYLL, as codified in the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act; the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage
statements on each payday containing specific categories of
accurate information under the NYLL, as codified in WTPA; the
anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA and the NYLL; the
anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions of the New York
City Human Rights Law; assault; battery; intentional infliction of
emotional distress; and any other cause(s) of action that can be
inferred.

The Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages in violation
of federal and state law. The Defendants regularly required
Plaintiff to work approximately between 43 hours and 48 hours per
week; however, the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff,
inter alia, for: all of his hours worked; and statutorily required
overtime pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.
Furthermore, the Defendants deliberately hid its unlawful
compensation practices by failing to furnish the Plaintiff with an
accurate and/or complete wage statements as required under the NYLL
and NYCCRR, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a yard
clerk/labourer at their facility located in Long Island City, New
York

The Defendants are a group of at least four distinct corporate
entities that together operate a single enterprise, as well as that
enterprise's owners, who together operate a scrap metal business
and facility that buys and sells a wide variety of metal
materials.[BN]

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022


COMCAST CORP: Aweau Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL AWEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
211100417 (Penn. Court of Common Pleas, November 4, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has been repeatedly
calling the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number since at least as
early as October 24, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
has utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice. Despite the
Plaintiff's effort to inform the Defendant of the erroneous nature
of its calls and requested the Defendant to stop its calls, the
Defendant has continued to place prerecorded calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited prerecorded
calls, the Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm, including but not
limited to lost time tending to and responding to the unsolicited
calls, invasion privacy, and nuisance. Thus, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff brings
this complaint seeking for an injunctive and other equitable
relief, as well as statutory damages, treble damages, and other
relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

Comcast Corporation is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1528 Walnut St., 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Tel: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
                  Eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com

COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Donaire Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Donaire, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Medical
Centers, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBC-2021-0010605 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 16, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Breach of Contract."

Community Medical Center, Inc. --
http://www.communitymedicalcenters.org/-- is a regional primary
health care system serving San Joaquin, Yolo and Solano
Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON APC
          2600 W Olive Ave., Ste. 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4572
          Phone: 310-474-9111
          Fax: 310-474-8585


COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Palermo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Darin Palermo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Medical
Center, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2021-0010626 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 16, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/Unfair
Business Practice."

Community Medical Center, Inc. --
http://www.communitymedicalcenters.org/-- is a regional primary
health care system serving San Joaquin, Yolo and Solano
Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Fax: (619) 234-4599
          Email: byrd@whafh.com


CONTROL GROUP: Camacho Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Control Group
Media Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jose Medina
Camacho, Rhonda Cotta, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The Control Group Media Company, LLC, Instant
Checkmate, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, Case No.
3:21-cv-01954-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

The Control Group (Now PeopleConnect) -- https://peopleconnect.us/
-- provides online social network services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lily E. Hough, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 212-9300
          Email: lhough@edelson.com


CORTEVA INC: Rice Farmers Sue Over Ineffective Herbicide
--------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Jones, Black Spice Farms, Inc., Britt Jones, Inc., Hogback
Farm, Inc., J-Co Farms, North 40 Farms, Inc., S&W Farms, Sib Farms,
T&W Farms, And Slough Farms, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. Corteva, Inc. and
Corteva Agriscience LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00237, (E.D.
Ark., November 15, 2021), seek damages for breach of warranty
obligations.

Corteva manufactures and sells "Loyant," a rice herbicide intended
to control certain grass and weeds that interfere with the growth
of rice crops. Plaintiffs are rice farmers in Arkansas who claim
that Loyant is ineffective in controlling weeds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hank Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      519 W. 7th St.
      Little Rock, AR, 72201
      Tel. (501) 312-8500
      Fax. (501) 312-8505
      Email: hbates@cbplaw.com

             - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
      Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
      Gabriel A. Panek, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Fax: (212) 355-9592
      Email: jselbin@lchb.com
             lichtman@lchb.com
             dseltz@lchb.com
             gpanek@lchb.com


DAIMLER AG: Claims in Deiselgate Class Suit Reach 12,000 Car Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Osborne-Crowley, writing for Law360, reports that auto giants
Daimler and Mercedes are facing claims from another 12,000 car
owners in the English courts for allegedly misleading consumers
about excessive carbon emissions from their diesel cars. [GN]

DATTO INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Gary R. Carlin APC on Nov. 17 disclosed that a
class action filed in US District Court for the Central District of
California, on October 27, 2021 alleges that Datto purposefully,
willfully, and knowingly committed consumer fraud and violated
multiple consumer protection laws.

Datto purchased Open Mesh. Open Mesh induced customers and
distributors to buy networking hardware with a promise of a free
"Lifetime Cloud License" for the cloud-based network controller
platform "CloudTrax" which the hardware requires to operate. This
included maintenance, automatic firmware updates, and support.  

Datto allegedly defrauded consumers and distributors out of the
value of their purchases by disabling the free automatic firmware
updates, maintenance, and support for the hardware.

Removing this functionality of the hardware renders it useless for
the purposes it was advertised for and sold to distributors and
consumers to use it in their businesses, for example, hotels,
apartments, retail stores, restaurants, small and medium sized
business, and just about anywhere else.

Datto then offered consumers and distributors to move their Open
Mesh hardware to Datto's CloudTrax, to regain this functionality if
they pay a monthly fee. Datto's CloudTrax is essentially the same
as Open Mesh CloudTrax.

The lawsuit also alleges that Datto failed to provide duty of care
to the customers and distributors, violated the unfair business
practice act, violated the consumer legal remedies act, breached
their contracts, breached implied warranty of merchantability,
intentionally misrepresented themselves, and caused harm to their
customers and distributors when their ability to use the product
they purchased was forcefully taken away from them.

Plaintiffs and class members suffered a loss of economic gain and
subsequently also suffered other financial loss due to Datto's
alleged false advertising and deception.

The case is Dinnerman et al v. Datto, Inc et al,
8:21-cv-01771-JVS-DFM.

The plaintiffs, Joshua Dinnerman and Paul Feinberg, are represented
by the Law Offices of Gary R. Carlin APC, a Long Beach, CA based
law firm.

If you have suffered losses or damages by Datto's practices and
would like to join the Datto class action, or if you have any
questions, please contact the Law Offices of Gary R. Carlin APC by
email at info@dattoclassaction.com, or through their website at
dattoclassaction.com. [GN]

DSP GROUP: Jones Files Suit Over Sale to Synaptics
--------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jones, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DSP Group, Inc., Shira Fayans
Birenbaum, Ofer Elyakim, Thomas A. Lacey, Cynthia L. Paul, Yair
Seroussi, Norman P. Taffe and Kenneth H. Traub, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-08743 (N.D. Cal., November 10, 2021), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of DSP by
Synaptics Incorporated through Synaptics's subsidiary Osprey Merger
Sub, Inc.

The lawsuit seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 30, 2021, DSP and Synaptics issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated August 30, 2021 to sell DSP to Synaptics. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each DSP stockholder will receive
$22.00 in cash for each share of DSP common stock they own. The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $532 million.

Jones alleges that the proxy statement filed related to the
transaction omitted material information concerning DSP's financial
projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
its financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC.

DSP makes wireless chipsets for a wide range of smart-enabled
devices. Its common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market
under the ticker symbol "DSPG."

Synaptics is a developer and supplier of custom-designed
semiconductor solutions. Its current served markets include
Internet of Things personal computer and mobile. Synaptics
generally supplies its product solutions to OEM customers through
their contract manufacturers, which take delivery of products and
pay directly for such products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010


EARGO INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of December 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR) investors with losses
in excess of $500,000 to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Oct. 15, 2020 - Sept. 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 6, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/EAR
Contact An Attorney Now: EAR@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Eargo, Inc. (EAR) Securities Fraud Class Action:

Eargo, a hearing aid manufacturer, targets consumers with hearing
aid insurance, and provides insurance claims processing for these
customers. Consequently, a significant portion of Eargo's accounts
receivables is insurance reimbursement claims the Company has
submitted to government-sponsored healthcare and private
insurance.

The complaint alleges that Defendants misled investors between Oct.
15, 2021 - Sept. 22, 2021 concerning the extent of available
insurance coverage for Eargo's products and how that coverage
purportedly drove the company's earnings and growth.

More specifically, according to the complaint, Eargo and senior
management failed to disclose that (1) Eargo improperly sought
reimbursements from certain third-party payors, (2) the foregoing
was reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny, and (3) as a
result and because the reimbursements at issue involved the
company's largest third-party payor, Eargo's financial results
would be adversely impacted.

The complaint alleges investors began to learn the truth on Aug.
12, 2021, when in reporting its Q2 2021 financial results, Eargo
revealed that its largest third-party payor was conducting a claims
audit and had not paid Eargo since March 1, 2021.

Then, on Sept. 22, 2021, Eargo announced it is the target of a
criminal investigation by the DOJ related to insurance
reimbursement claims the company submitted on behalf of customers
covered by Federal employee health plans. The company also
announced its withdrawal of increased FY 2021 revenue guidance
given to investors during its Aug. 12, 2021 Q2 2021 earnings call.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Eargo lied about
its compliance with applicable laws and its revenue recognition
practices," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading
the investigation.

If you invested in Eargo, or have knowledge that may assist the
firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with
Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Eargo
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email EAR@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895
https://www.hbsslaw.com [GN]

EARGO INC: IBEW Local 353 Slams Share Drop Over Bad Debt
--------------------------------------------------------
IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eargo, Inc., Christian Gormsen,
Adam Laponis, Josh Makower, Juliet Bakker, Peter Tuxen Bisgaard,
Doug Hughes, Geoff Pardo, Nina Richardson, A. Brooke Seawell, David
Wu, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, and William Blair & Company, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-08747, (N.D. Cal., November 10, 2021), seeks damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Eargo is a medical device company into the manufacture of hearing
aids. On August 12, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed
that claims submitted to its largest third-party payor, which
accounted for 80% of Eargo's accounts receivable, had not been paid
since March 1, 2021. On this news, its share price fell $8.00, or
over 24%, to close at $24.70 per share on August 13, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Further, on September 22, 2021,
after the market closed, Eargo disclosed that it is the target of a
criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice related to
insurance reimbursement claims it has submitted on behalf of
customers covered by federal employee health plans. As a result of
the foregoing, Eargo withdrew its full year financial guidance. On
this news, its share price fell $14.81, or over 68%, to close at
$6.86 per share on September 23, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff alleges that Eargo had failed to disclose to its
investors that it had improperly sought reimbursements from certain
third-party payors that led to regulatory scrutiny, that, as a
result and because the reimbursements at issue involved its largest
third-party payor, Eargo's financial results would be adversely
impacted.

IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan is a multi-employer defined benefit
pension plan that manages nearly $2 billion in assets on behalf of
its active members, retirees and beneficiaries. It purchased Eargo
securities and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 819-3470
      Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com
             johnr@blbglaw.com


EARLE D. VANDEKAR: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Earle D. Vandekar Of
Knightsbridge, Incorporated. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell,
on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Earle D. Vandekar Of Knightsbridge, Incorporated, Case No.
1:21-cv-09490 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Earle D. Vandekar of Knightsbridge Antiques --
https://www.vandekar.com/ -- specializes in the decorative
arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELAP SERVICES: South Broward Suit Moved to W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as South Broward Hospital District doing business
as: Memorial Healthcare System, on its own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated healthcare facilities, Plaintiff; MBA
Benefit Administrators, Non-Party Petitioner; v. ELAP Services, a
Pennsylvania limited liability company; Group & Pension
Administrators, a Texas corporation; Case No. 20-cv-61007-AHS, was
moved from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Nov.
16, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-mc-00677-HCN to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Quash.

ELAP -- https://www.elapservices.com/ -- is a leading healthcare
solution provider with 10 years of experience reducing employer
health plan costs with its metric-based pricing solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq.
          Eric Samuel Kay, Esq.
          Frank Anthony Florio, Esq.
          Gail Ann McQuilkin, Esq.
          Michael Robert Lorigas, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTONLLP
          2525 PONCE DE LEON BLVD 9TH FL
          MIAMI, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 372-1800
          Fax: (305) 372-3508
          Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Danya Pincavage, Esq.
          Douglas Wolfe, Esq.
          Omar Mazien Ali-Shamaa, Esq.
          WOLFE PINCAVAGE, LLP
          2937 SW 27TH AVENUE, SUITE 203
          MIAMI, FL 33133
          Phone: (786) 409-0800

               - and -

          Bentley J. Tolk, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          101 S 200 E STE 700
          SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 532-7840
          Email: btolk@parrbrown.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gera R. Peoples, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          98 SOUTHEAST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 1100
          MIAMI, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 374-5600

               - and -

          Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT
          401 E. JACKSON STREET, SUITE 1700
          TAMPA, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-7333

               - and -

          Irene Oria, Esq.
          FISHERBROYALES, LLP
          199 E. FLAGLER ST. #550
          MIAMI, FL 33131
          Phone: (786) 536-2838

               - and -

          Kristopher R. Alderman, Esq.
          Patrick M. Emery, Esq.
          FISHERBROYLES, LLP
          945 EAST PACES FERRY ROAD, NE, SUITE 2000
          ATLANTA, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 596-8887
          Email: patrick.emery@fisherbroyles.com

               - and -

          Robert Thomas Wright, Jr., Esq.
          STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN
          200S BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
          SUITE 3100 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CTR
          MIAMI, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 789-9337


ELITE AUTO: Sistrat Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Sistrat, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Elite Auto Services of Orlando, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-01925 (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 16, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid regular and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked regularly and consistently a minimum of 70
hours weekly. The Plaintiff was paid entirely by commissions, and
she was not paid for overtime hours. Regardless of the Defendant's
payment plan arrangements, the Plaintiff was a non-exempted
employee working 70 hours per week. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was
entitled to be paid at least minimum wages for every hour worked
and overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half her regular
rate for every hour worked over 40 in a week, as required by the
FLSA. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but the Defendant was
able to monitor the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals. Therefore, the Defendant willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff for all her overtime hours at the rate
of time and one-half her regular rate for every hour that she
worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempted
employee to perform non-exempted work as a tow truck driver,
dispatcher, and roadside service technician..

Elite Auto Services is a towing and auto repair company operating
24/7 roadside assistance in Orlando, Orange County Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAR WEST RESTAURANT: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GUZMAN RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. FAR WEST RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV40634 (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
November 4, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendants to
recover civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly employee
from approximately August 2020 until his termination on or about
May 8, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of failing to pay wages to
hourly non-exempt employees for workdays that the Defendants failed
to provide legally required and compliant rest periods and meal
periods. In addition, the Defendants failed to timely pay him and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees their earned wages
during their employment with the Defendants. The Defendants also
failed to provide them with complete and accurate wage statements,
and failed to pay them all wages due at time of
termination/resignation, the Plaintiff added.

Far West Restaurant Group, LLC operates restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Kevin Joseph Farnan, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Tel: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  kfarnan@lelawfirm.com
                  whteam@lelawfirm.com

FS PALO ALTO: Faces Johnson Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN JOHNSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FS PALO ALTO EMPLOYMENT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21CV389927 (Cal Sup. Ct., November 4, 2021) challenges the
Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices that
violated the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from in or around May 17, 2017 to on or about March 1,
2021.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to compensate him and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees for the time they spent undergoing
check in/out procedures, including COVID temperature checks and
screenings;

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them off-duty 10-minute
rest breaks and 30-minute meal periods;

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them with accurate wage
statements; and

     -- The Defendants failed to pay them all of their earned wage
upon termination.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants for
himself and all other similarly situate aggrieved employees to
recover civil penalties, litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

FS Palo Alto Employment, Inc. operates as an employment agency.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554


GAGLIANO'S LIQUOR: Delivery Personnel Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tucker McCormack and Daniel Hollingsworth, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Gagliano's Liquor, Inc. and Michael L. Hudson, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-02719 (W.D. Tenn., November 15, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs and other
relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Tennessee
labor laws.

Defendants does business as "The Bottle Shoppe," a retail liquor
store where Plaintiffs worked as delivery personnel. They claim to
be denied overtime pay despite regularly working more than 40 hours
in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
             scott@bohrerbrady.com

             - and -

      Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
      2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
      Greensboro, NC 27406
      Phone: (336) 333-9899
      Fax: (336) 333-9894
      Email: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Cadillac SRX Owners Sue Over Defective Headlight
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Purcell, writing for cadillac society, reports that many
owners of the second-generation Cadillac SRX continue to struggle
with the performance of their vehicles' headlights. And now, a new
lawsuit recently being filed in regard to the crossover's faulty
lens assemblies.

The new class action lawsuit was filed against Cadillac in the U.S.
district court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to a
recent report from Car Complaints. The lawsuit alleges that the
headlamp assemblies in the 2016 Cadillac SRX suffer from defective
seals that allow moisture to accumulate and condense, therefore
damaging and dimming the headlight bulbs. The plaintiff in the suit
claims that the vents in the casing that allow air flow to maintain
pressure and prevent the lenses from cracking can increase the
tendency for water to accumulate and condense in the housing
units.

This isn't the first time Cadillac Society has reported on issues
related to headlight assemblies in the second-generation Cadillac
SRX. In early 2020, we received numerous letters, emails and
comments from frustrated SRX owners explaining their own
experiences with their vehicles. Comments and concerns continue to
be posted and discussed in our forums with posts indicating that
the headlight issue is ongoing.

There have been several Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) issued
by Cadillac that attempt to address the issue. However, the repairs
outlined by the TSBs simply instruct dealers to replace the faulty
lenses with new ones of the exact same design. Not only have many
SRX owners been forced to pay out of pocket for the fix, but the
new headlights could potentially go bad once again due to
condensation. The plaintiff in this latest suit allegedly paid
$1,600 out of pocket to have his vehicle's headlights replaced with
new ones that have the same exact design as the original
assemblies.

Cadillac has agreed to reimburse some SRX owners for their faulty
headlights at a cap of $1,600. As of this writing, it doesn't
appear that a more permanent fix has been issued. [GN]

GES LOGISTICS: Molina et al. Sue Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN MOLINA, BRITTANY SMITH, TRENTON CLAXTON, CHRISTOPHER KHOURI,
ALEJANDRO MONTES, CHARLES NEVELS, ERICA STIENZ, TERRENCE VAUGH,
DAVID PAYNE, RIYAH AMARI MOORE, DANIEL SZAFONI, PIYA NEWTON,
WIGBERTO CRUZ, MARIO COVINGTON JR., NAKYA GREEN, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GES
LOGISTICS, INC., JOSEPH SHAW and DOES 1-2, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05962 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2021) bring this complaint
against the Defendant for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as non-exempt
delivery workers.

The Plaintiffs claim that they were not compensated by the
Defendant for several weeks of work nor have they been paid earned
and accumulated vacation or PTO. The Plaintiffs have all repeatedly
demanded payment. Although the Defendant promised to pay them, the
Defendants stopped answering calls from most of them.

On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages for up to three years prior to the
filing of the suit. The Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court deems appropriate and just.

GES Logistics, Inc. is in the business of loading and unloading
delivery vehicles. Joseph Shaw is the owner of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          Baldermar Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602

GOLDMAN SACHS: Li Seeks Damages Over Vishop Share Purchase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Igor Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan
Stanley, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09420, (S.D. N.Y., November 15,
2019), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws.

This action is brought on behalf of all those investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Vipshop, an online
discount retailer for brands in China. Li alleges that Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley collectively avoided billions in losses by
selling shares of Vipshop Holdings Ltd. to investors after
confidentially learning that Archegos Capital Management, a family
office with $10 billion under management, failed to meet a margin
call, requiring it to fully liquidate its position in Vipshop,
selling a large amount of Vipshop shares during the week of March
22, 2021, while in possession of material, non-public information
and unloaded large block trades consisting of shares of Archegos'
bets, including billions worth of Vipshop securities, late
Thursday, March 25, 2021, before the Archegos incident was made
public.

Li purchased or otherwise acquired Vipshop shares from March 22,
2021 through and including March 29, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Thomas H. Przybylowski, 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
             tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165-0006
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


GOOGLE LLC: Akin Gump Attorneys Discusses UK Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Arlington, Esq., Seamus Duffy, Esq., Richard Hornshaw, Esq.,
and Natasha Kohne, Esq. of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that on November 10, 2021, the
Supreme Court dismissed the United Kingdom's first ever "opt-out"
class action brought outside of the competition law sector, in
Lloyd v Google LLC. The claim, seeking an award of damages of
around GBP3 billion, was brought by consumer rights activist, Mr.
Lloyd on behalf of some 4.4 million iPhone users for alleged
breaches of data protection legislation. While the judgment means
the end of the road for this particular class of claimants, it
clarifies a number of important points about data privacy class
actions, and the representative action procedure in general,
leaving the door ajar for future actions.

Background
Mr. Lloyd alleged that between late 2011 and early 2012 Google
collected information from iPhone users without their consent,
which it then offered to advertisers for the purposes of targeted
marketing. Mr. Lloyd claimed that Google was in breach of its
statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA 1998") and
that the affected class of claimants were entitled to compensation
for the loss of control of their own data which they had suffered
by virtue of the breach. Quantification of damages had not been
specifically addressed at this early stage of the proceedings, but
Mr. Lloyd had previously proposed a uniform sum of GBP750 per
person, which would yield an aggregate damages claim of some GBP3
billion.

Mr. Lloyd brought his claim as a representative action under Rule
19.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which essentially allows a
representative to bring a claim on behalf of a class of individuals
who have the same interest in a claim. The members of the
represented class do not need to take any positive step, or even to
be aware of the existence of the action, in order to be bound by
the result. Accordingly, it is effectively an "opt-out" procedure.

As Google was based outside the jurisdiction, Mr. Lloyd required
the Court's permission to serve the claim. Google argued that
permission should be refused, on the grounds that the claim had no
real prospect of success, because (a) damages could not be awarded
under the DPA 1998 for a breach of duty without proof that the
breach had caused financial damage or mental distress, and (b) the
claim was in any event not suitable to proceed as a representative
action. The High Court refused to grant permission, but this
decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. Google's appeal
against the Court of Appeal's judgment was heard by the Supreme
Court in April 2021.

Judgment
The Supreme Court gave unanimous judgment in favour of Google,
stating that the claim had no real prospect of success and hence
refusing to grant permission to serve Google out of the
jurisdiction.

In the judgment of the Court, which was given by Lord Leggatt, who
had been a dissenting judge in the recent seminal Merricks v
Mastercard decision (please see our alert), it was confirmed that
the representative procedure adopted by Mr. Lloyd was a flexible
one, which played an important role in ensuring access to justice.
Consistent with the approach taken in several other common law
jurisdictions (including Australia, Canada and New Zealand), Lord
Leggatt confirmed that the absence of a detailed English
legislative framework for an opt-out action outside the field of
competition law was not itself a reason restrictively to interpret
the representative rule.

Mr. Lloyd's claim, however, failed at the damages hurdle.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it could award a
uniform per capita sum to each class member. Instead, the Court
held that, in order to award damages, whether for financial loss or
mental distress, it would require evidence of such loss or distress
for each member of the class. The Supreme Court did not agree that
the damage suffered by all class members was the loss of control of
their data; instead, it found that Mr. Lloyd was wrongly conflating
two different concepts: contravention of the DPA 1998 and the harm
suffered as a result (if any). The argument that an individual is
entitled to compensation wherever a data controller has committed a
nontrivial breach of its duties under the DPA 1998 was, in the
Court's view, flawed.

Key Takeaways
In practice, the Supreme Court's judgment means that, for any
individual in the class Mr. Lloyd sought to represent in the
action, there is no longer any realistic possibility of recovering
any compensation for the alleged misconduct, not least because the
limitation period for any individual actions has now expired.

The Court's insistence on individualised damages assessments was
effectively fatal to the claim because of the practical
difficulties which that would entail in this case. This is an
important point of distinction with opt-out class actions in the UK
antitrust space, in respect of which the Supreme Court recently
confirmed that there is no such requirement.

The door arguably remains somewhat open for other cases under the
representative action procedure as the Supreme Court suggested a
fairly significant degree of flexibility in the procedure, and the
Court's discretion to allow claims in light of the overriding
objective. It also gave some helpful guidance on certain aspects
relating to class definition and the necessary common interest
which will be of assistance to practitioners and claimants going
forward.

Whilst Mr. Lloyd faced particular challenges because of the
statutory data protection framework under which his claim was
brought, and the individualised nature of the damages enquiry,
those challenges may prove to be less problematic in other
contexts—for example, one can envision a class action in the
product liability context in which it could be argued credibly that
all the class members acquired the same product with the same
defect which reduced its value by the same amount. And, of course,
even in the data privacy space, it is not impossible to imagine
there may be other cases where claimants are willing and able to
provide the necessary evidence to allow for individual damages
assessments.

Further, the Supreme Court specifically noted that, even where, as
was the case for Mr. Lloyd, individual damages assessment is
required, it could be theoretically possible to use the
representative action procedure to obtain a declaration of
liability. It may be that this is a suitable approach in some other
cases, albeit there may well be, as there were in Mr. Lloyd's case,
significant practical and economic challenges in such an approach.

There is no doubt that some of the claims which were waiting in the
wings pending this decision will need to be discontinued; and no
doubt other intended representatives will go back to the drawing
board in terms of the way their cases are framed.

However, there may well be scope for class action claims to proceed
using the procedure adopted by Mr. Lloyd, in particular outside the
data privacy context. It may also be that, within the data privacy
context, the legislature will consider statutory amendments if it
considers that there should be a route to compensation for
claimants in these types of circumstances. [GN]

GT VENTURES: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GT Ventures, LLC. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. GT
Ventures, LLC doing business as: Chill Sacks, Case No.
1:21-cv-06345-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

GT Ventures, LLC doing business as Chill Sack --
https://www.chillsacks.com/ -- is one of the more popular bean bag
chair makers on Amazon and larger Internet retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


GUELPH DENTAL: Settles Patients' Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
GuelphToday reports that a Guelph dental clinic must provide
financial compensation to eligible customers as a result of 2017
public health infractions, a court has ruled.

In a written decision issued Nov. 10, Justice J. Perell approved a
class action lawsuit settlement agreement between Kimberley Lowe,
on behalf of her two daughters, and Dr. Meikle Dentistry
Professional Corporation, operated as Guelph Dental Associates.

The lawsuit was launched in response to a 2017 incident where
Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health advised patients between
Jan. 21 and June 21 of that year to get tested for HIV and
hepatitis.

The court decision explains a child contracted a bacterial
infection after being treated by a dental hygienist and, after WDG
Public Health inspections found "numerous significant concerns"
about infection prevention and control practices, the clinic was
closed for several weeks.

When the clinic reopened they said they had taken several steps to
address the issue.

Public Health sent out 3,600 letters to families that had patients
at the clinic over a 27-month period, telling them to get tested
for HIV and hepatitis, even though there was a "very low" risk of
infection.

As a result, the plaintiff's representatives, Will Davidson LLP,
were contacted by 268 individuals who were patients or who were the
parents of patients of the clinic, notes the decision, adding,
"many of the patients were children including special needs
children suffering from anxiety disorders, autism and cerebral
palsy."

Under the settlement agreement, eligible patients who were tested
and had negative results will receive $500 each. Eligible patients
who tested positive will receive $75,000 each.

"There is no evidence of any class member contracting an infection
of Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C or HIV at Guelph Dental," states the
court decision.

The lawsuit, which was started in July, 2017, was approved for
class action status this past summer. A settlement hearing was held
Oct. 12, the court decision notes. [GN]

HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Kent Sues Over Sale to Baxter International
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., William G.
Dempsey, John P. Groetelarrs, Gary L. Ellis, Stacy Enxing Seng,
Mary Garrett, James R. Giertz, William H. Kucheman, Gregory J.
Moore, Felicia F. Norwood and Nancy M. Schlichting, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-09430 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2021), seeks to
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the sale of Hill-Rom
Holdings to Baxter International Inc. through its subsidiary Bel
Air Subsidiary, Inc.  The Plaintiff seeks rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for his attorneys'
and experts' fees, and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Each Hill-Rom shareholder will receive $156.00 in cash for each
share of Hill-Rom common stock they own.

Kent alleges that the proxy statement filed related to the
transaction omits Hillrom's projections and the financial analyses
that support the fairness opinions provided by its financial
advisors, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and BofA Securities, Inc.

Hillrom is a global medical technology company that enhances
outcomes for patients and their caregivers by Advancing Connected
Care. Its products and services help enable earlier diagnosis and
treatment, optimize surgical efficiency and accelerate patient
recovery while simplifying clinical communication and shifting care
closer to home. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 860-9158
      Fax: (212) 214-0506
      Email: raymond@bespc.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Energy Reached Settlement with Chieftain Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust 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 XTO Energy advised
the Trustee that it reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in the
Chieftain class action royalty case.

On July 27, 2018 the final plan of allocation was approved by the
court.

Based on the final plan of allocation, XTO Energy advised the
Trustee that it believes approximately $24.3 million in additional
production costs should be allocated to the Trust.

On May 2, 2018, the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not
a production cost and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging
the settlement as a production cost under the conveyance or
otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in the future as a
result of the Chieftain litigation.

The Trust and XTO Energy conducted the interim hearing on the
claims related to the Chieftain settlement on October 12-13, 2020.


In the arbitration, the Trustee contended that the approximately
$24.3 million allocation related to the Chieftain settlement was
not a production cost and, therefore, there should not be a related
adjustment to the Trust's share of net proceeds.

However, XTO Energy contended that the approximately $24.3 million
was a production cost and should reduce the Trust's share of net
proceeds.

On January 20, 2021, the arbitration panel issued its Corrected
Interim Final Award (i) "reject[ing] the Trust's contention that
XTO has no right under the Conveyance to charge the Trust with
amounts XTO paid under section 1.18(a)(i) as royalty obligations to
settle the Chieftain litigation" and (ii) stating "[t]he next phase
will determine how much of the Chieftain settlement can be so
charged, if any of it can be, in the exercise of the right found by
the Panel."

Following briefing by both parties, on May 18, 2021, the Panel
issued its second interim final award over the amount of XTO
Energy's settlement in the Chieftain class action lawsuit that can
be charged to the Trust as a production cost.

The Panel in its decision has ruled that out of the $80 million
settlement, the "Trust is obligated to pay its share under the
Conveyance of the $48 million that was received by the plaintiffs
in the Chieftain lawsuit by virtue of the settlement of that
litigation.

The Trust is not obligated by the Conveyance to pay any share of
the $32 million received by the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the
Chieftain lawsuit by virtue of the settlement."

XTO Energy and the Trustee are in the process of determining the
portion of the $48 million that is allocable to Trust properties to
be charged as an excess cost to the Trust, but estimate it to be
approximately $14.6 million.

The Oklahoma conveyance is already currently subject to excess
costs that will need to be recovered prior to any distribution to
unitholders.

Therefore, the reduction in the Trust's share of net proceeds from
the portion of the settlement amount the Panel has ruled may be
charged against the Oklahoma conveyance would result in additional
excess costs under the Oklahoma conveyance that would likely result
in no distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for several
additional years while these additional excess costs are recovered.


This award completes the portion of the arbitration related to the
Chieftain settlement.

Other Trustee claims related to disputed amounts on the computation
of the Trust's net proceeds for 2014 through 2016 were bifurcated
from the initial arbitration and will be heard at a later date,
which is still to be determined should the arbitration proceed.

Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement entered into between
the Trustee and XTO Energy, the parties have agreed to stay the
arbitration from the date of execution of the purchase and sale
agreement to the earlier of the termination of the purchase and
sale agreement or closing date of the sale of assets.

"The Panel has stayed proceedings," the Company said.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee. Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.

JF FLORES: Romero Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JF FLORES CONSTRUCTION CORP. and JOSE F.
RAMOS FLORES, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09174
(E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2021) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendants to recover damages of their alleged
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a patio creator,
construction worker, helper and performing other miscellaneous
duties from in or around March 2020 until in or around August
2021.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff worked
approximately 84 hours or more per week during his employment with
the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him overtime at the rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage ad overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the NYLL and FLSA. The Defendants
also failed to keep accurate payroll records, says the suit.

JF Flores Construction Corp. provides construction services. Jose
F. Ramos Flores is the owner of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: (718) 263-9591

KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Seven Investors Seek Lead Plaintiff Appointment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katapult 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 seven investors
filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff of the Putative Class
in the case captioned McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., et al.

On August 27, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Katapult Holdings, Inc., two officers of FinServ
Acquisition Corp., one of whom is a current Company director, and
two officers of Legacy Katapult, both of whom are current Company
officers.

The lawsuit is captioned McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., et
al.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Katapult securities between December 18, 2020
and August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Putative Class").

The complaint alleges that defendants misled the Putative Class by
failing to disclose that the Company was experiencing declining
e-commerce retail sales and consumer spending, lacked visibility
into its consumers' future buying behavior, and had no reasonable
basis for positive statements about its business, operations, and
prospects.

"On October 26, 2021, seven investors filed motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff of the Putative Class," the Company said.

The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the claims in this action.

The Company has not recorded any loss or gain contingencies
associated with this matter as it is not probable or reasonably
estimable on September 30, 2021.

Katapult Holdings, Inc. is an e-commerce focused financial
technology company, provides e-commerce point-of-sale
lease-purchase options for nonprime consumers in the United States.
The company’s technology platform provides nonprime consumers
with a lease purchase option to enable them to obtain durable goods
from its network of e-commerce merchants. The company was formerly
known as Cognical Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Katapult
Holdings, Inc. in February 2020. The company is headquartered in
Plano, Texas.

KIWI SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Geeo Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GEEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIWI SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-02778-E (N.D. Tex., Nov. 9, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Geeo was employed by the Defendant as sales technician.

KIWI SERVICES, INC. is engaged in the business of cleaning rugs,
carpets, furniture, upholstery, air ducts, tile and grout, and
hardwood floors in its customers’ homes and businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
          KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC
          Kilgore Law Center
          3109 Carlisle Street
          Dallas, TX 75204-1194
          Telephone: (214) 969-9099
          Facsimile: (214) 379-0843
          Email: djs@kilgorelaw.com

               -and-

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          Email: marbuckle@eeoc.net

KUCOIN: Faces Cryptocurrency Class Action Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Freedman LLP and Selendy & Gay PLLC, law firms that represent
clients in some of the most significant disputes in the crypto
space, are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against KuCoin, a
crypto-exchange, in federal court in New York.

The lawsuit alleges that KuCoin illegally made securities available
for trading on its unregistered exchange. The lawsuit further
alleges that KuCoin's customers who purchased in domestic U.S.
transactions are entitled to rescind transactions in certain
unregistered digital securities on KuCoin from April 1, 2019, to
the present. The court may permit investors to recover their losses
for transactions on KuCoin in EOS and TRX during that time.

If you traded in EOS or TRX on KuCoin from the United States at any
time after April 1, 2019, we encourage you to contact Kyle Roche
(kyle@rochefreedman.com) or Edward Normand
(enormand@rochefreedman.com) at Roche Freedman LLP, or Jordan
Goldstein (jgoldstein@selendygay.com) at Selendy & Gay PLLC. [GN]

LAUNDRESS LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Laundress, LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. The Laundress, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09494 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

The Laundress -- https://www.thelaundress.com/ -- provides
plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products that preserve
clothing and deep clean every room.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Nov. 17 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Lightspeed Commerce Inc. ("Lightspeed") (NYSE: LSPD)
between September 11, 2020 and September 28, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges
violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

If you purchased or acquired Lightspeed securities, and/or would
like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Lightspeed Commerce Inc.Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

On or about September 11, 2020, Lightspeed conducted its IPO,
offering 10,896,196 Subordinate Voting Shares to the public at a
price of $30.50 per share for anticipated proceeds of approximately
$332,300,000.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and 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.

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
revealed 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 evidence of
declining organic growth and business deterioration through
Lightspeeds IPO, despite management's claim that Average Revenue
Per User (ARPU) was increasing; and that the Company's recent
acquisition spree had come at escalating costs and with no clear
path to profitability, while management pursued aggressive revenue
reporting practices.

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 18, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Lightspeed securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/lightspeedcommerceinc-lspd-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-456/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information:

Joe Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]

LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 17 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against of Lightspeed Commerce Inc. (f/k/a
Lightspeed POS Inc.) ("Lightspeed" or the "Company") (NYSE: LSPD)
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of those who purchased Lightspeed common stock
between September 11, 2020 and September 28, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had
misrepresented the strength of its business by, among other things,
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; (2)
the Company had overstated the benefits and value of the Company's
various acquisitions; (3) accordingly, the Company had overstated
its financial position and prospects; and (4) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Lightspeed
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
January 18, 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]

LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Robbins Geller Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 17 disclosed that
purchasers of Lightspeed Commerce Inc. (NYSE: LSPD) securities
between September 11, 2020 and September 28, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period") have until January 18, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in Nath v. Lightspeed Commerce Inc., No. 21-cv-06365
(E.D.N.Y.). Commenced on November 16, 2021, the Lightspeed Commerce
class action lawsuit charges Lightspeed Commerce 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 Lightspeed Commerce
class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking
here. You can also contact attorney Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller
by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Lightspeed Commerce class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than January 18, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Lightspeed Commerce provides commerce enabling
software as a service platform for small and midsize businesses,
retailers, restaurants, and golf course operators in Canada, the
United States, Germany, Australia, and internationally.

The Lightspeed Commerce class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Lightspeed Commerce had
misrepresented the strength of its business by, among other things,
overstating its customer count, gross transaction volume, and
increase in Average Revenue Per User, while concealing Lightning
Commerce's declining organic growth and business deterioration;
(ii) Lightspeed Commerce had overstated the benefits and value of
Lightspeed Commerce's various acquisitions; (iii) accordingly,
Lightspeed Commerce had overstated its financial position and
prospects; and (iv) as a result, Lightspeed Commerce's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 29, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management published a
report regarding Lightspeed Commerce and also issued a press
release summarizing its findings. The release 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
Lightspeed Commerce'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 Commerce's stock price fell by more than 12%,
damaging investors.

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

LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Lightspeed Commerce Inc. f/k/a
Lightspeed POS Inc. (NYSE: LSPD) between September 11, 2020 and
September 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 18, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lightspeed class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2166.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 18, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lightspeed had misrepresented
the strength of its business by, among other things, 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; (2) Lightspeed
had overstated the benefits and value of the Company's various
acquisitions; (3) accordingly, the Company had overstated its
financial position and prospects; and (4) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Lightspeed class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2166.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

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

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action accusing LinkedIn Corp. of mismanaging its $817
million 401(k) plan can move forward if the plan participants file
an amended complaint with more details about their specific
investments, a California federal judge ruled.

The complaint filed by Douglas Bailey, Jason Hayes, and Marianne
Robinson doesn't specify which funds the plaintiffs held in their
LinkedIn plan accounts or how the fees they claim are excessive
were spread across the plan's participants, Judge Edward J. Davila
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
held on Nov. 16. [GN]




LLR INC: Loses Bid to Certify Question of Law to Alaska Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, and
LULAROE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-0197-HRH (D. Alaska),
Judge H. Russel Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Alaska denied the Defendants' motion to certify a question of
law to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Background

LuLaRoe is a multilevel-marketing company that sells clothing
through fashion retailers located in all fifty states to consumers
across the United States." The Plaintiff alleges that she "resides
in Anchorage, Alaska, which has no sales or use tax." She alleges
that she "made purchases from LuLaRoe retailers in other states and
had those purchases shipped to her home in Anchorage, Alaska." The
Plaintiff alleges that she "was charged a 'tax' on purchases that
she made from LuLaRoe's remote consultants, but such charge was not
a 'tax' and LuLaRoe knew it was not a 'tax'."

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Sept. 5, 2018. On Aug. 24,
2020, the Plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint,
in which she asserted claims for common law conversion and
violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act ("UTPCPA") on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated.

On Nov. 25, 2020, the Defendants answered the Plaintiff's second
amended class action complaint. The Defendants asserted the
Voluntary Payment Doctrine ("VPD") as their Twentieth Affirmative
Defense. "The voluntary payment doctrine is an affirmative defense
that provides that one who makes a payment voluntarily cannot
recover it on the ground that he was under no legal obligation to
make the payment." The Defendants alleged that the "Plaintiff's and
the putative class' claims are barred, in whole or in part, under
the voluntary payment doctrine because they voluntarily paid the
sales taxes with full knowledge, or means of knowledge of the
facts, of the sales taxes they paid."

On Jan. 4, 2021, the Plaintiff moved to strike the Defendants'
Twentieth Affirmative Defense. On March 3, 2021, the Court granted
the Plaintiff's motion to strike in part and denied it in part. In
deciding the Plaintiff's motion to strike, the Court had to predict
what the Alaska Supreme Court would do because "the Alaska Supreme
Court has never recognized the VPD as a defense to a conversion
claim or a statutory consumer protection claim."

Based on all the "available data," which included the statute
itself, analogous Alaska case law, and relevant out-of-state case
law, the Court predicted that the Alaska Supreme Court would hold
that the VPD applies to the Plaintiff's common law conversion
claim. It also "predicted that the Alaska Supreme Court would hold
that the VPD, which is a common law defense that, if applied, would
essentially amount to a waiver of the protections of the UTPCPA,
would be against public policy and thus would not be a viable
defense to the Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim."

On April 23, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class as to her UTPCPA claim only. On Sept. 16, 2021, the Court
granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. It certified a
class consisting of "all persons who paid 'tax' on a purchase of
LuLaRoe products and whose purchase was delivered into a location
in Alaska that does not assess a sales or use tax on the clothing
that LuLaRoe sells."

On Sept. 30, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion in which
they seek to certify the following question to the Alaska Supreme
Court: Is the Voluntary Payment Doctrine (VPD) an affirmative
defense to a violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act (UTPCPA)?

Discussion

Judge Holland notes that Alaska Rule of Appellate Procedure 407
provides that the Alaska Supreme Court may answer questions of law
certified to it by a United States district court, when requested
by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceeding
before it questions of law of this state which may be determinative
of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which
it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling
precedent in the decisions of the supreme court of this state.

Both of the foregoing requirements are met in the case, Judge
Holland declares. He says, the issue of whether the VPD is a viable
defense to the Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim could be determinative
because if the VPD is a viable defense, the Plaintiff's UTPCPA
claim could be barred. And, there is no controlling precedent on
this issue. That does not mean, however, that the Defendants'
motion to certify should be granted. Rather, it only means that
state law would permit certification of the VPD question.

The Defendants did not seek certification in response to the
Plaintiff's motion to strike their VPD affirmative defense. They
did seek not certification via a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion to strike the
Defendants' VPD affirmative defense as to her UTPCPA claim. And,
the Defendants did not seek certification in response to the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Rather, they have waited to
seek certification until after the Court granted the Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class and more than six months after it granted
the Plaintiff's motion to strike the VPD defense as to her UTPCPA
claim.

Judge Holland is not persuaded by the Defendants' contention that
they could not have sought certification earlier. The Defendants
could have moved to certify the VPD question they now seek to
certify in response to the Plaintiff's motion to strike. The VPD
question may present a novel issue of some importance that the
state court has yet to resolve. But, there was no reason for the
Defendants to wait until after the parties and the Court had
devoted substantial time and resources to this issue. While a court
may grant a motion to certify even if the moving party has delayed
in bringing the motion, Judge Holland, will not, in his discretion,
do so in the case. The Defendants' motion to certify is nothing
more than an attempt to obtain "a second chance at victory through
certification."

Although the untimeliness of the instant motion provides a
sufficient basis for the court to deny the motion, there is another
reason Judge Holland finds certification to the Alaska Supreme
Court inappropriate. "Questions should not be certified if the
answer is reasonably clear." Phe answer to the question of whether
the VPD is a viable defense to a UTPCPA claim was reasonably clear
based on the statutory language providing that "a waiver by a
consumer of the provisions" of the UTPCPA "is contrary to public
policy and is unenforceable and void," and the other available data
on which the court relied. In the case, there was "more than
sufficient guidance with regard to the state-law" question at
issue.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Holland denied the Defendants' motion
to certify a question of law to the Alaska Supreme Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4sskrcx6 from Leagle.com.


LOOG GUITARS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loog Guitars LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Loog Guitars LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09489 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Loog -- https://loogguitars.com/ -- is a line of guitars designed
to make it fun and easy to play music.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: William Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan William a.k.a. Brian
Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, INDIVIDUALLY AS A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AS A
PUBLIC; MAJEED MALIK DBA PRWT SERVICES INC. A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION #C1626271 INDIVIDUALLY; PRWT SERVICES INC. DBA PRWT
SERVICES INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION #C1626721 INDIVIDUALLY DBA
CITY OF LOS ANGELES PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU INDIVIDUALLY; PRWT
SERVICES INC. DBA PRWT SERVICES INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
C#1626721 INDIVIDUALLY DBA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PARKING
ENFORCEMENT DETAIL INDIVIDUALLY; Case No. 21STCV42011 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 16, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Civil Rights/Discrimination (General
Jurisdiction)."

Los Angeles -- https://www.lacity.org/ -- is a sprawling Southern
California city and the center of the nation's film and television
industry.[BN]



LOWE'S HOME: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Provide Suitable Seating
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alvarez, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 21STCV41023 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 5, 2021),
is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of the
California Labor Code, arising from Defendants' failure to provide
suitable seating; failure to pay earned wages within specified time
limits; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and failure to
maintain a place of employment that is safe and healthful.

As a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants routinely
required Plaintiff, and the other Aggrieved Employees to stand for
substantial periods of time, and would only be able to sit when
meal and/or rest breaks were permitted. In addition, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees earned wages within
specified time limits. For example, on several of Plaintiff's wage
statements, the number of overtime hours was recalculated. However,
these payments were then issued more than 7 days after the pay
period. Defendants also failed to issue Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees compliant wage statements. This is because Defendants
failed to state the rate of pay for wage statements that contained
a recalculation of overtime, and failed to include total number of
hours worked on each pay statement. Further, as a matter of policy
and practice, Defendants failed to provide a place of employment
that is safe and healthful. Approximately one month after the
COVID-19 pandemic began, Defendants stopped checking employees'
temperatures and stopped requiring employees to fill out health
questionnaires. This endangered the health of Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees, and increased the risk of contracting
COVID-19., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid garden department and stocker employee from 2006
through March 22, 2021.

Defendants are a retail company specializing in home improvement
and are the second-largest hardware chain in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                 lking@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          Email: sahagii@aol.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Hausfeld LLP Attorney Discusses Ninth Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irving Scher, Esq., of Hausfeld LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that in Mckinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack,[1] (hereinafter
"McKinney"), the Ninth Circuit instructed a district court that
vouchers awarded to Massage Envy Franchising, LLC ("MEF") members
in a pre-class certification settlement were "coupons" under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and that the lower court had
failed to subject such a settlement to heightened scrutiny,
including in particular the class counsel fees that were awarded.

The class action settlement at issue

The complaint in McKinney alleged that MEF began to periodically
increase monthly membership fees in violation of its membership
agreement. After extensive discovery, but prior to a class
certification decision, the case settled. Under the settlement,
class members were entitled to submit claims for "vouchers" that
could be redeemed for a number of specified MEF products and
services. The value of a voucher, which would expire in 18 months,
would correspond to the fee increase a class member claimed to have
paid. If total class member voucher claims were less than $10
million, the value of each claimant's voucher would be increased
pro rata until the total value reached $10 million. Significantly,
MEF agreed not to contest a fee request by class counsel of up to
$3.3 million, and if the court awarded a lower fee, the surplus
would revert back to MEF rather than to the class. Ultimately, the
value of claimed vouchers was lower than $3 million, so voucher
values were increased to a range from $36.28 to $180.68.

CAFA provides: "If a proposed settlement in a class action provides
for a recovery of coupons to a class member, the portion of any
attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the
award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members
of the coupons that are redeemed."[2] According to a 2018 Ninth
Circuit decision, this is to ensure that class counsel benefit only
from coupons that provide actual relief to the class, lessening the
incentive to obtain an award of coupons that class members may have
little interest in using.[3] However, the term "coupons" is not
defined in the statute.

The district court's acceptance of the settlement

The district court in McKinney determined that the vouchers to be
provided to MEF members were not "coupons" subject to CAFA, so
class counsel's fees could be based on the $10 million value of the
total settlement fund rather than the less than $3 million value of
the vouchers that ultimately had been redeemed. Nevertheless, the
district court approved the settlement as "fair, reasonable, and
adequate" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and awarded the $3.3 million
attorneys' fee that had been requested by class counsel. An
objector appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit after
unsuccessfully claiming in the district court that the vouchers
provided under the settlement in fact were "coupons" subject to
CAFA, adding that in any event the district court had abused its
discretion by disregarding warning signs of class counsel's self
interest that warranted additional judicial scrutiny of the
pre-certification settlement.

The Ninth Circuit's rejection of the settlement

The Ninth Circuit panel initially considered whether the vouchers
awarded to the class in fact were "coupons" under CAFA, applying a
three-factor test adopted by the court in a 2015 decision.[4] The
first factor: whether class members had to hand over money in order
to obtain the benefits of the settlement, suggested to the panel
that the vouchers were "coupons" under CAFA because smaller class
member voucher amounts were not enough to purchase most of the
services covered by the settlement The second factor: whether the
vouchers only could be used for "select products or services," also
supported the argument that the vouchers were "coupons." The third
factor: the flexibility of the vouchers, favored the vouchers not
being considered "coupons" because they did not expire for 18
months. Weighing all three factors, the panel concluded that the
vouchers in fact were "coupons" subject to CAFA's requirements for
coupon settlements.[5] Accordingly, the panel vacated the district
court's approval of the attorneys' fee award, and remanded the case
in order for the district court to use the value of the vouchers
that were actually redeemed by class members in awarding counsel
fees, as required by CAFA.[6]

The Ninth Circuit panel next addressed the Objector's contention
that, independent of CAFA's applicability to the class counsel's
fee award, the settlement was not "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
under Rule 23(e) because it unfairly benefited class counsel over
class members. The panel essentially agreed, holding that the
district court abused its discretion by failing to apply heightened
scrutiny to a pre-class certification settlement.

Specifically, the panel relied on three factors that had been
identified in a 2011 Ninth Circuit decision as determinative of a
settlement that unfairly benefits class counsel over class members:
(i) awarding a disproportionate portion of the settlement award to
class counsel; (ii) a so-called "clear sailing" provision under
which a defendant agrees not to challenge a fee award to class
counsel at or below a specified amount--; and (iii) providing that
unawarded attorneys' fees revert to the defendant rather than to
the class -- referred to as a "reverter."[7] As to the first
factor, the panel declared that the proportionality of class
counsel's fee could not be determined until it was recalculated by
the district court on remand. Considering the second and third
factors together, the panel concluded: "when a clear-sailing
provision is paired with a reverter, the terms together increase
the risk that class counsel will unreasonably raise the amount of
requested fees, and the class members will have less incentive to
push back because the recovery of any unawarded fees will inure to
the defendants, not the class members."[8] Concluding that the
district court had not adequately investigated and analyzed
settlement terms that the Ninth Circuit panel considered to be
evidence of potential collusion, the panel ruled that the lower
court had not conducted the required heightened scrutiny of a
pre-certification settlement, thereby abusing its discretion in
granting approval of the settlement.

Takeaways

The McKinney decision provides three clear messages to class action
litigants as to when settlements will be subject to heightened
scrutiny -- at least in the Ninth Circuit:

-- when the class action is settled pre-class certification;
-- when the reward to the class involves coupons subject to CAFA;
and
-- when a "clear-sailing" provision is accompanied by a
"reverter."

Footnotes

[2] 28 U.S.C. Section 1712(a)

[3] See In re EasySaver Rewards Litig., 906 F.3d 747, 755 (9th Cir.
2018).

[4] In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th
Cir. 2015).

[5] McKinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack, 2021 WL 4890277 at *8-*9.

[7] In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935
(9th Cir. 2011).

[8] McKinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack, 2021 WL 4890277 at *13.

*Irving Scher is Senior Counsel in the firm's New York office.

In Mckinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack,[1] (hereinafter "McKinney"), the
Ninth Circuit instructed a district court that vouchers awarded to
Massage Envy Franchising, LLC ("MEF") members in a pre-class
certification settlement were "coupons" under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and that the lower court had failed to
subject such a settlement to heightened scrutiny, including in
particular the class counsel fees that were awarded.

The class action settlement at issue

The complaint in McKinney alleged that MEF began to periodically
increase monthly membership fees in violation of its membership
agreement. After extensive discovery, but prior to a class
certification decision, the case settled. Under the settlement,
class members were entitled to submit claims for "vouchers" that
could be redeemed for a number of specified MEF products and
services. The value of a voucher, which would expire in 18 months,
would correspond to the fee increase a class member claimed to have
paid. If total class member voucher claims were less than $10
million, the value of each claimant's voucher would be increased
pro rata until the total value reached $10 million. Significantly,
MEF agreed not to contest a fee request by class counsel of up to
$3.3 million, and if the court awarded a lower fee, the surplus
would revert back to MEF rather than to the class. Ultimately, the
value of claimed vouchers was lower than $3 million, so voucher
values were increased to a range from $36.28 to $180.68.

CAFA provides: "If a proposed settlement in a class action provides
for a recovery of coupons to a class member, the portion of any
attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the
award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members
of the coupons that are redeemed."[2] According to a 2018 Ninth
Circuit decision, this is to ensure that class counsel benefit only
from coupons that provide actual relief to the class, lessening the
incentive to obtain an award of coupons that class members may have
little interest in using.[3] However, the term "coupons" is not
defined in the statute.

The district court's acceptance of the settlement

The district court in McKinney determined that the vouchers to be
provided to MEF members were not "coupons" subject to CAFA, so
class counsel's fees could be based on the $10 million value of the
total settlement fund rather than the less than $3 million value of
the vouchers that ultimately had been redeemed. Nevertheless, the
district court approved the settlement as "fair, reasonable, and
adequate" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and awarded the $3.3 million
attorneys' fee that had been requested by class counsel. An
objector appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit after
unsuccessfully claiming in the district court that the vouchers
provided under the settlement in fact were "coupons" subject to
CAFA, adding that in any event the district court had abused its
discretion by disregarding warning signs of class counsel's self
interest that warranted additional judicial scrutiny of the
pre-certification settlement.

The Ninth Circuit's rejection of the settlement

The Ninth Circuit panel initially considered whether the vouchers
awarded to the class in fact were "coupons" under CAFA, applying a
three-factor test adopted by the court in a 2015 decision.[4] The
first factor: whether class members had to hand over money in order
to obtain the benefits of the settlement, suggested to the panel
that the vouchers were "coupons" under CAFA because smaller class
member voucher amounts were not enough to purchase most of the
services covered by the settlement The second factor: whether the
vouchers only could be used for "select products or services," also
supported the argument that the vouchers were "coupons." The third
factor: the flexibility of the vouchers, favored the vouchers not
being considered "coupons" because they did not expire for 18
months. Weighing all three factors, the panel concluded that the
vouchers in fact were "coupons" subject to CAFA's requirements for
coupon settlements.[5] Accordingly, the panel vacated the district
court's approval of the attorneys' fee award, and remanded the case
in order for the district court to use the value of the vouchers
that were actually redeemed by class members in awarding counsel
fees, as required by CAFA.[6]

The Ninth Circuit panel next addressed the Objector's contention
that, independent of CAFA's applicability to the class counsel's
fee award, the settlement was not "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
under Rule 23(e) because it unfairly benefited class counsel over
class members. The panel essentially agreed, holding that the
district court abused its discretion by failing to apply heightened
scrutiny to a pre-class certification settlement.

Specifically, the panel relied on three factors that had been
identified in a 2011 Ninth Circuit decision as determinative of a
settlement that unfairly benefits class counsel over class members:
(i) awarding a disproportionate portion of the settlement award to
class counsel; (ii) a so-called "clear sailing" provision under
which a defendant agrees not to challenge a fee award to class
counsel at or below a specified amount--; and (iii) providing that
unawarded attorneys' fees revert to the defendant rather than to
the class -- referred to as a "reverter."[7] As to the first
factor, the panel declared that the proportionality of class
counsel's fee could not be determined until it was recalculated by
the district court on remand. Considering the second and third
factors together, the panel concluded: "when a clear-sailing
provision is paired with a reverter, the terms together increase
the risk that class counsel will unreasonably raise the amount of
requested fees, and the class members will have less incentive to
push back because the recovery of any unawarded fees will inure to
the defendants, not the class members."[8] Concluding that the
district court had not adequately investigated and analyzed
settlement terms that the Ninth Circuit panel considered to be
evidence of potential collusion, the panel ruled that the lower
court had not conducted the required heightened scrutiny of a
pre-certification settlement, thereby abusing its discretion in
granting approval of the settlement.

Takeaways

The McKinney decision provides three clear messages to class action
litigants as to when settlements will be subject to heightened
scrutiny -- at least in the Ninth Circuit:

when the class action is settled pre-class certification;
when the reward to the class involves coupons subject to CAFA; and
when a "clear-sailing" provision is accompanied by a "reverter."
[GN]

MEGA CENTER: Faces Class Action Suit in Quebec Over Illegal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lambert Avocate Inc. disclosed that on October 22, 2021, the firm
filed an application to be authorized to bring a class action
against 103 car dealerships in Quebec.

On November 15th, the firm filed a second application to be
authorized to bring a class action against 54 car dealerships in
Quebec.

Through these class actions, the firm seeks to obtain the
reimbursement of any additional fees charged by the defendants in
violation of the law, as well as punitive damages, for each class
member.

Illegal fees
The Consumer Protection Act imposes strict obligations onto
merchants to make sure that consumers have all the required
information before buying any goods or services.

Under article 224 c) of this act, merchants cannot charge, for
goods or services, a higher price than that advertised. Therefore,
the advertised price for any goods or services must include the
total amount the consumer must pay, except for applicable taxes.
Furthermore, merchants cannot add any fees to that advertised price
at the time of payment, including inspection fees or administrative
fees.

In short, this article forces merchants to announce the correct
asking price from the start and aims to put an end to the practice
of adding charges at the time of payment.

Clients' story
Ms. Gervais sought to purchase a used vehicle listed on the Mega
Center Park Avenue website for $ 23,995.

She went to the dealership to inspect the vehicle and take it for a
test drive. The price of the vehicle was, at the time, the same as
that advertised online.

However, at the time of payment, two additional fees were charged
to Ms. Gervais, a first fee of $ 395 for the preparation of the
vehicle, as well as a second fee of $ 500, given that Ms. Gervais
did not wish to finance the purchase of her car. These fees were
mandatory.

Mr. Bernier sought to purchase a used vehicle listed on Hyundai
St-Constant's website for $ 32,750.

He went to the dealership to inspect the vehicle and take it for a
test drive. The price of the vehicle was, at the time, the same as
that advertised online.

However, at the time of payment, an administration fee of $ 495 for
the preparation of the vehicle was added to the price of the
vehicle. These fees were mandatory.

List of illegal fees claimed
Here are a few examples of illegal fees that were claimed by car
dealerships covered by these class actions:

   -- Administration fees;
   -- Bank/financing fees;
   -- Dealership fees;
   -- Document fees;
   -- Application fees;
   -- Inspection fees;
   -- Preparation fees;
   -- Cash payment fees;
   -- Reconditioning fees;
   -- Anti-theft security system fees;
   -- Transportation fees;
   -- Starter kit fees;
   -- Proposed classes

For the first class action: Every consumer who, since May 5, 2018,
were charged a price greater than that advertised by the defendants
when purchasing a new or used vehicle.

For the second class action: Every consumer who, since May 29th,
2018, were charged a price greater than that advertised by the
defendants when purchasing or leasing a new or used vehicle.

The list of car dealerships covered by the two class actions is
available at
https://lambertavocatinc.com/list-defendants/

Please do not hesitate to report other dealerships with same
practice.

Applications filed to the Court
First class action: Application to be authorized to bring a class
action (French)

Second class action: Application to be authorized to bring a class
action (French)

Current state of the cases
Awaiting authorization from a Superior court judge.

How do I join the class action?
If you're part of the proposed classes, you are automatically a
part of the class actions.

Send any pertinent documents (ads, sales contract, etc.) by email
at fraiscaches@gmail.com. [GN]

MEREDITH CORPORATION: Beach Files Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meredith Corporation.
The case is styled as Julie Beach, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-01497-MJP (W.D. Wash., Nov. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- is an American
media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa that owns magazines,
television stations, websites, and radio stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cecily Jordan, Esq.
          Kim D Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
          1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 682-5600
          Fax: (206) 682-2992
          Email: cjordan@tousley.com
                 kstephens@tousley.com



META PLATFORMS: Hagens Berman Reminds of December 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc.
(NASDAQ:FB) investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
and who have significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Nov. 3, 2016 - Oct. 21, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 27, 2021

Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/FB

Contact An Attorney Now:FB@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

Facebook, Inc. (FB) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that Facebook: (1) misrepresented its user
growth, (2) failed to disclose that duplicate accounts represented
a greater percentage of growth than stated, (3) concealed that it
failed to provide a platform for fair speech and regularly
protected high profile users, (4) did not meaningfully respond to
drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent organizations despite
knowing about their use of the company's platforms, and (5) has
prioritized commercial interests over safety by working to attract
preteens to its platform and services.

A series of financial reporting shed light on Facebook's concealed
business practices.

For example, on Sept. 13, 2021 the WSJ reported that the company
built a system known as "cross check" or "XCheck," that has
exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules."

Then, on Sept. 28, 2021, WSJ reported Facebook built a team to
target preteens and commissioned strategy papers about the
long-term business opportunities presented by these users.

Later, on Oct. 3, 2021, CBS reported a whistleblower (Francis
Haugen) revealed that Facebook knew that its algorithm, which
optimizes for content that generates engagement, has led publishers
to produce increasingly angry and divisive content to get more
views. Nevertheless, for profit reasons, Facebook has refused to
make safety changes to the algorithm.

On Oct. 4, 2021 CBS reported that Ms. Haugen filed eight
whistleblower complaints with the SEC alleging Facebook (1) knew
its platforms perpetuated misinformation, (2) did little to combat
human traffickers on its platforms, (3) gave preferential treatment
to high profile users, (4) misled investors about the extent its
platform was used to foment ethnic violence and global division,
and (5) inflated its advertising reach and user base in key
demographics including in developed markets.

On Oct. 21, the WSJ published an article citing internal documents
showing the use of duplicate accounts is "very prevalent" and which
could render the company's ratio of daily users as inherently "less
trustable." The next day The Washington Post reported an additional
whistleblower came forward and filed a complaint with the SEC
alleging misconduct similar to that alleged by Ms. Haugen.

These reports drove the price of Facebook shares sharply lower
between Sept. 13 and Oct. 21, 2021.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Facebook lied about
its user growth and commitment to public safety," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Facebook and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Facebook should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email FB@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

MISSIONARY OBLATES: Court Authorizes Sexual Assault Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alessia Simona Maratta, writing for Global News, reports that the
Superior Court of Quebec has authorized a class-action lawsuit
against a Catholic Church missionary congregation for sexual abuse
committed on more than 200 victims, many of whom were children,
from 1940 onwards.

The lawsuit request was first filed in 2018 regarding sexual
assaults allegedly committed in Basse-Cote-Nord (Lower North
Shore), Que., by Father Alexis Joveneau -- who died over 25 years
ago -- and other religious members of the congregation.

On Nov. 16, the Superior Court authorized the suit following a
hearing that took place on Nov. 1, which saw many of the victims
from different communities attend by videoconference.

The case states that the Catholic group, the Missionary Oblates of
Mary Immaculate -- founded by a French Catholic priest in the south
of France in 1816 -- was "very present" in many Innu, Atikamekw,
Anishinaabe, Cree, Inuit and non-native communities of Quebec.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Noella Mark, who is now in her
early 60s and lives in Unamen Shipu, a small Innu First Nations
community in the province.

More than 200 alleged victims, both men and women, have since
contacted the law firm representing the plaintiff to sign on to the
lawsuit.

The suit states that the religious congregation is directly
responsible for the sexual assaults committed by its members,
adding that the congregation must have known that Father Alexis
Joveneau and other priests sexually abused vulnerable people under
their control.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said that more than 30
missionaries have been identified as suspected perpetrators.

The Superior Court's judgement authorizing the class-action
highlights five main priests in the case: Fathers Alexis Joveneau,
Omer Provencher, Edmond Brouillard, Raynald Couture and Edouard
Meilleur.

Lawyer Alain Arsenault said in 2018 that the abuse involved
children aged eight to 10 years old, and that it went on for
years.

Anyone who believes they are a victim of abuse by the Missionary
Oblates of Mary Immaculate congregation is asked to contact lawyers
at Arsenault-Dufresne-Wee, the firm handling the case.

- with files from The Canadian Press [GN]

NAADAM CASHMERE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naadam Cashmere LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Naadam Cashmere LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09491 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Naadam Cashmere LLC -- https://naadam.co/ -- provides e-commerce
services. The Company offers tops, tees, sweaters, loungewear, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Taylor Suit removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cheyanne Taylor, Individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly Situated Persons v. Nationwide Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 211000832, was removed from
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 17, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05056 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Nationwide -- https://www.nationwide.com/ -- offers insurance,
retirement and investing products that protect your many
sides.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
          1835 Market Street, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6633
          Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Cummins, Esq.
          BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLC
          Centre Square West Tower
          1500 Market Street 32nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 561-4300
          Fax: (215) 561-6661
          Email: cummins@bbs-law.com


ON24 INC: Douvia and Goemer Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------
ON24, 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 Douvia v. ON24, Inc., et
al.and Goemer v. ON24, Inc., et al. are currently pending in the
United States District Court.

The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial
Officer, the members of its Board of Directors and the underwriters
that participated in the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
are named as defendants in two putative class actions, captioned
Douvia v. ON24, Inc., et al., 3:21-cv-08578 (filed November 3,
2021) and Goemer v. ON24, Inc., et al., 3:21-cv-08744 (filed
November 10, 2021), that are currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's
common stock issued in connection with the Company's IPO.

The complaints allege that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted material facts about ON24's growth and customer base.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

ON24 believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or
range of possible loss, if any, arising from this matter at this
early stage.

Accordingly, no accrued litigation expense has been recorded in the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

ON24, Inc. is a San Francisco-based company that markets products
and services based upon webcasting and virtual event and
environment technology.

ORGANON & CO: Continues to Defend 15 Class Suits Outside the US
---------------------------------------------------------------
Organon & 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 the Company is
defending 15 product liability cases outside the United States, two
of which are class actions and two of which are putative class
actions.

"At September 30, 2021, only three cases remain pending in the
United States, including a case currently pending in the
multidistrict litigation ("MDL"), a matter involving Propecia in
state court in Los Angeles, California and a matter involving
Proscar in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California," the Company said.

The Company is also defending 15 product liability cases outside
the United States, two of which are class actions and two of which
are putative class actions.

Organon & Co. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
develops and produces medicines and other products across a range
of areas including reproductive health, heart disease, dermatology,
allergies, and asthma. Organon & Co serves customers worldwide.

OWLET INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California captioned Butala v. Owlet, Inc., et
al., (Case No. 21-cv-09016) on behalf of persons and entities (a)
that purchased or otherwise acquired Owlet, Inc. ("Owlet" or the
"Company") (NYSE: OWLT) securities between March 31, 2021 and
October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) held
Sandbridge common stock held as of June 1, 2021 and were eligible
to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting on July 14, 2021. Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from November
17, 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 Owlet 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/owlet-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 July 15, 2021, Sandbridge combined with Owlet Baby Care Inc., a
company that designs and sells products and services for parents to
proactively monitor the health and wellness of their children, and
the combined company was renamed Owlet (the "Business
Combination").

On October 4, 2021, Owlet revealed that it had received a warning
letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), which
stated that "the Company's marketing of its Owlet Smart Sock
product . . . renders [it] a medical device requiring premarket
clearance or approval from FDA." Owlet has not obtained such
clearance or approval. Moreover, the FDA "requests the Company
cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock for uses in
measuring blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate where such metrics
are intended to identify or diagnose desaturation and bradycardia
using an alarm functionality to notify users that measurements are
outside of preset values."

On this news, Owlet's stock price fell $1.29, or 23%, to close at
$4.19 per share on October 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. As a result, Sandbridge investors who could have voted
against the Business Combination and redeemed their shares at
$10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.81 per share.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Owlet was reasonably likely to be required to
obtain marketing authorization for the Smart Sock because the FDA
concluded it was a medical device; (2) that, as a result, Owlet was
reasonably likely to cease commercial distribution of the Smart
Sock in the U.S. until it obtained the requisite approval; and (3)
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 Owlet securities during the
Class Period and/or were eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special
meeting, 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]

PAUL GENERAL: Faces Chong Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO CHONG, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. PAUL GENERAL SERVICE CORP., and JORGE PAUL RODRIGUEZ CAMACHO,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-23899-JLK (S.D. Fla., November 5, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendant to recover money
damages for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as an electrician,
asserts that while he was employed by the Defendant, the Defendant
failed to pay him any wages for one entire pay period. The
Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the amount shown to be due for
unpaid wages with interest; an equal amount in double damages/
liquidated damages; reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs; and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just
and/or available pursuant to Federal law.

Paul General Service Corp. is a company that provides electrical
services owned and operated by Jorge Paul Rodriguez Camacho. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
          JARA LAW FIRM
          13876 SW 56 Street, Suite 262
          Miami, FL 33175
          Tel: (305) 372-0290
          E-mail: Franklin@JaraLaw.com
                  Joanna@JaraLaw.com


PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pendulum
Therapeutics, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Pendulum Therapeutics, Inc. doing business as: Pendulum, Case
No. 1:21-cv-06350 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Pendulum Therapeutics -- https://pendulumlife.com/ -- is a
biotechnology company improving health through products targeting
the microbiome.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Deal Reached in Suit Over Exchange Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that a settlement was
reached in the class suit alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act. Final hearing for the approval of settlement is set
for Feb. 26. 2022.

On January 3, 2019, a shareholder filed a complaint against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Murray
Kessler, and the Company's former Chief Finance Officer ("CFO")
Ronald Winowiecki in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Masih v. Perrigo Company, et al.). Plaintiff
purported to represent a class of shareholders for the period
November 8, 2018 through December 20, 2018, inclusive.

The complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act section
10(b) (and Rule 10b 5) against all defendants and section 20(a)
control person liability against the individual defendants.

In general the allegations contended that the Company, in its Form
10-Q filed November 8, 2018, disclosed information about an October
31, 2018 audit finding letter received from Irish tax authorities
but failed to disclose enough material information about that
letter until December 20, 2018, when the Company filed a current
report on Form 8 K about Irish tax matters.

The plaintiff did not provide an estimate of class damages.

The court selected lead plaintiffs and changed the name of the case
to In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig.

The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 12, 2019,
which named the same defendants, asserted the same class period,
and invoked the same Exchange Act sections.

The amended complaint generally repeated the allegations of the
original complaint with a few additional details and adds that the
defendants also failed to timely disclose the Irish tax
authorities' Notice of Amended Assessment received on November 29,
2018.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 3, 2019.

On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which asserted a longer class period (March 1, 2018 through
December 20, 2018) and added one additional individual defendant,
former CEO Uwe Roehrhoff.

In general, the second amended complaint contends that Perrigo's
disclosures about the Irish tax audit were inadequate beginning
with Perrigo's 10-K filed on March 1, 2018 through December 20,
2018 and repeats many of the allegations of the April 2019 amended
complaint.

The second amended complaint alleges violations of Securities
Exchange Act section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) against all defendants
and section 20(a) control person liability against the three
individual defendants.

All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss, and the motion was
fully briefed.

On January 23, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part, dismissing Mr. Roehrhoff as a defendant
and dismissing allegations of inadequate disclosures related to the
audit by Irish Revenue during the period March 2018 through October
30, 2018.

The court permitted the plaintiffs to pursue their claims against
the Company, Mr. Kessler, and Mr. Winowiecki related to disclosures
after Perrigo received the October 30, 2018 audit findings letter
and later events through December 20, 2018.

The defendants filed answers on February 13, 2020 denying
liability, and the court issued a scheduling order on March 3, 2020
that has been subsequently modified.

Discovery on the remaining issues ended in early March 2021.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted in September 2020.

In January 2021, class plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint in an effort to revive their claim that
the disclosure of the audit during the period from March 1, 2018 to
October 30, 2018 was also inadequate.

The court denied the motion in February 2021.

Defendants filed motions for summary judgement and other post
discovery motions on March 31, 2021 and plaintiffs filed
cross-motions of the same type on the same day. All motions were
fully briefed by late May 2021.

During the week of July 11, 2021, the Court issued various opinions
and orders denying some of the motions by both parties, and
granting in part certain motions by plaintiffs.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration for some of the
rulings in late July, which the court granted in part in August.

The court also indicated that the parties should prepare for trial
in mid-October 2021 (subject to COVID-19 developments), without
setting an exact trial date.

The court simultaneously ordered mediation, which led to a
settlement that the parties first publicly announced in a court
filing on September 8, 2021.

Trial was cancelled when a settlement was reached.

Motion papers seeking approval of the class action settlement were
filed on October 4, 2021.

The court issued a preliminary approval order on October 29, 2021,
which will lead to the issuance of notices to class members.

The final approval hearing is set for February 16, 2022.

"The settlement will be funded by insurance," the Company said.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO COMPANY: Oral Argument on Securities Suit Set for Jan 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that the court will hold
oral argument on Jan. 2022 in the class action lawsuit that alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
Company and the Company's former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),
Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive.

The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange
Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b5) and 14(e) against both
defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015.

The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate
disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the
Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11,
2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against the Company and the Company's former CEO, Joseph
Papa, also in the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.).


The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold
put options on the Company's shares between April 21, 2015 and May
11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims were the same
as those made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers'
Pension Fund case.

On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated the Roofers' Pension
Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case
number.

In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the
consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In
March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent
three classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased
shares during the period from April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on
the U.S. exchanges; (ii) shareholders who purchased shares during
the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and (iii) shareholders
who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through
at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan
tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their
shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants the Company and 11
current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy
Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs.
Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald
Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The amended complaint
alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10b 5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control
person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
Company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure
throughout the entire class period related to purported integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect
reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges
price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri
royalty stream.

The amended complaint does not include an estimate of damages.
During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part.

The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas,
Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa,
Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke.

The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri® accounting issue and claims alleging incorrect disclosure
of organic growth.

The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe
Papa, and Judy Brown.

The claim that were not dismissed relate to the integration issues
regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense against the Mylan
tender offer, and the alleged price fixing activities with respect
to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The defendants who
remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have
filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of
litigation began in late 2018.

Discovery in the class action ended on January 31, 2021.

In early April 2021, the defendants filed various post-discovery
motions, including summary judgment motions; the briefing of which
was completed in early July 2021.

The motions are now before the court.

"The court will hold oral argument in January 2022," the Company
said.

The Company intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that a settlement was
reached in the case In re Perrigo Company plc Securities
Litigation. A final approval of the settlement hearing is set for
Feb. 16, 2022.

Motion papers seeking approval of the class action settlement were
filed on October 4, 2021.

The Court issued a preliminary approval order on October 29, 2021,
which will lead to notices being sent to class members.

A final approval hearing before the Court is set for February 16,
2022. The settlement will be funded by insurance.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO COMPANY: Suit Over Exchange Act Violation Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that the case alleging
violation of U.S. Securities Exchange Act is currently stayed until
Dec. 15, 2021.

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Murray
Kessler, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"
Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo
Company plc, et. al.).

The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.

This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages.

In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United
States.

Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February 2020, and
the court granted the stay indefinitely.

The plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay then later agreed
that the case should remain stayed through February 2021.

In late February 2021, Perrigo filed a motion to extend the stay to
mid-May 2021, and plaintiff later agreed to the request.

"The case is currently stayed until December 15, 2021," the Company
said.

The Company intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PFIZER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Woodhams Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY A. WOODHAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-03990-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Pfizer's motion to dismiss the Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6):

   -- The unjust enrichment claims of Plaintiffs Covello, de
      Clue, Hinz, Paul, and Woodhams are dismissed.

   -- the motion is denied with respect to the remaining claims.

   -- Pfizer's motion to strike the nationwide class
      allegations is denied.

  --  Pfizer shall file an answer to the remaining claims within
      21 days after the date of this opinion and order.

Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in
Manhattan, New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FvaJdM at no extra charge.[CC]

PFIZER INC: Houghton Sues Over Carcinogen in Quit-Smoking Meds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Houghton on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pfizer, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-23987, (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2021) seeks economic damages
and other relief for breach of express and implied warranties,
fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state consumer protection
laws.

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

Houghton purchased Chantix medication from a Walgreens location in
Florida. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 330-5512
      Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
      E-Mail: swestcot@bursor.com

              - and -

      Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      Email: aobergfell@bursor.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Butterline Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK BUTTERLINE, in his
own right and as personal representative of the estate of Lisa
Butterline, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01429-JS (E.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his
motion for class certification.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall (where
the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed) and
other American Revolutionary sites.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cIFNuB
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

POWER SOLUTIONS: Court Stays Suit Over Privacy Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, 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
amended complaint asserting violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act has been stayed.

In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019.

The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief. An aggrieved party under BIPA may
recover (i) $1,000 per violation if the Company is found to have
negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 per violation if the
Company is found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA
plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint.

In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.


In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the
court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal question that would be
potentially dispositive in this matter.

In February 2020, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay.

In April 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to stay and
stayed the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare.

In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the court granted the
parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case for 60
days.

The court also ordered the parties to schedule a settlement
conference with the Magistrate Judge in May 2021 which went forward
without a settlement being reached.

The stay remains in place pending further guidance from the Court.


As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Company had
recorded an estimated liability of $0.3 million related to the
potential settlement of this matter.

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Continues to Defend Allen Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company 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 continues to defend itself in the case captioned Beverly
Allen v. Protective Life Insurance Company for violation of
California statutes.

The Company is currently defending three cases, including one
putative class action (Beverly Allen v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT) where the plaintiffs
generally allege that the defendants failed to comply with certain
California statutes which address contractual grace periods and
lapse notice requirements for certain life insurance policies.

Plaintiffs claim that these statutes apply to life insurance
policies that existed before the statutes' effective date.

The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.

No class has been certified in Beverly Allen v. Protective Life
Insurance Company.

"In August 2021, the California Supreme Court determined in McHugh
v. Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. D072863, that the
statutory requirements apply to life insurance policies issued
before the statutes' effective date," the Company said.

In continuing to defend these matters, the Company maintains
various defenses to the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and to
class certification.

However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that might result from
this litigation.

Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.

PUSHPAY USA: Blankers Seek Initial Approval of Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUDRA BLANKERS and W.B.T.
ARNOLD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PUSHPAY USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01549-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
      Agreement;

   2. certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      collective;

   3. conditionally certify a Rule 23 Washington state law class  
      for settlement purposes;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel;

   5. appointing Analytics LLC as the Settlement;

   6. approving the proposed Court-Authorized Notice of
      Settlement; and

   7. setting a date for the Final Approval Hearing.

The Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class that they seek to represent
are exempt-classified Sales Development Representatives (SDRs).
Between March 1, 2018 and June 1, 2020, Pushpay classified SDRs as
exempt from the overtime requirements of federal and state law and
did not compensate them for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs allege that this classification as exempt was
unlawful and that SDRs performed primarily non-exempt job duties,
including making phone calls to potential clients who expressed
interest in working with Pushpay or who fit into Pushpay's general
market focus.

The Plaintiffs allege that this misclassification deprived them of
substantial overtime pay in light of the demanding schedule
required to fulfill their job duties.

Pushpay is headquartered overseas in New Zealand. As a result,
Pushpay SDRs allege they regularly took calls outside of business
hours, including calls during morning and evening commutes, over
the weekend, and during statutorily required meal breaks.

Pushpay denies these allegations and denies liability for
Plaintiffs' claims. In pre-litigation discussions, Pushpay
maintained that SDRs were properly classified as exempt from the
overtime requirements, argued Plaintiffs overstated the extent of
their overtime hours worked, and argued Plaintiffs would face
challenges certifying their claims for class treatment.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cqcRr5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Crotty, Esq.
          CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          905 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 404
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 850-7011
          E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq.
          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington St, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  mtresnowski@flsalaw.com
                  sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Suit Over Nonpayment of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RCM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2021, that the Company has
reserved $1.6 million for the settlement of a class-action suit in
California that alleges the Company did not properly pay its travel
nurses overtime wages.

While the Company believes it did not violate any overtime wage
laws, it nevertheless decided to settle the class action lawsuit in
December 2020.  

The Company is exposed to various asserted claims as of October 2,
2021, where the Company believes it has a probability of loss.

Additionally, the Company is exposed to other asserted claims
whereby an amount of loss has not been declared, and the Company
cannot determine the potential loss.

"Any of these various claims could result in an unfavorable outcome
or settlement that exceeds the accrued amounts," the Company said.


However, the Company believes that such matters will not, either
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on
its business, consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.

As of October 2, 2021, the Company has accrued $2.1 million for
asserted claims of $1.9 million.  

Included in the October 2, 2021 accrual of $2.1 million, the
Company has reserved $1.6 million for the settlement of a
class-action suit in California that alleges the Company did not
properly pay its travel nurses overtime wages.

The Company anticipates it will pay the $1.6 million settlement in
the first quarter of fiscal 2022.

RCM provides information technology services.

RED RIVER: Faces Averette Suit Over Unlawful Fees and Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Bancshares, 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
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares, filed on August 28, 2020,
in the 19th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana.

The lawsuit alleges the Bank wrongfully imposed multiple
non-sufficient funds fees on what the plaintiff describes as a
single item presented for payment, allegedly resulting in the Bank
breaching its customer account agreement, abusing its rights, and
being unjustly enriched.

The plaintiff claims to represent a class consisting of all account
holders in Louisiana who incurred similar charges by the Bank
within the applicable prescriptive period.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees, attorney's
fees, and general and equitable relief for herself and the
purported class.

The Company and Bank deny the allegations and are vigorously
defending this matter.

The Bank filed an exception of no cause of action in District Court
as to the three grounds alleged by the plaintiff.

On May 10, 2021, the 19th Judicial District Court ruled in the
Bank's favor, but allowed the plaintiff time to amend her petition
to state a cause of action.

The plaintiff filed a second amended petition on June 15, 2021.

The parties agreed that the plaintiff would file a third amended
petition to attach certain exhibits, and that the Bank would have
30 days from service of the third amended petition to file an
exception of no cause of action.

The third amended petition was served on the Bank on October 8,
2021.

The third amended petition does not allege new causes of action
against the Bank.

On October 29, 2021, the Bank filed another exception of no cause
of action as to the grounds again alleged by the plaintiff.

Any opposition to the exception must be filed within 30 days from
October 29, 2021.

"At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company cannot determine the
probability of a materially adverse result or reasonably estimate
the potential exposure, if any," the Company said.

Red River Bancshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for Red
River Bank, a Louisiana state-chartered bank established in 1999
that provides a fully integrated suite of banking products and
services tailored to the needs of its commercial and retail
customers. Red River Bank operates from a network of 25 banking
centers throughout Louisiana and one combined loan and deposit
production office in Lafayette, Louisiana.

RHETT'S LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morris et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MORRIS and CHRISTIAN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RHETT'S, LLC d/b/a
RHETT'S BAR AND GRILL; AND CHRISTOPHER RHETT CRADDOCK, Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00041-NKM (W.D. Va., November 6, 2021) is a class
and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Virginia Overtime Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as line cooks.

The Plaintiffs claim that they frequently worked 50-55 per week.
However, the Defendants did not pay them overtime premium for any
hours worked in excess of 40 in any given workweek. Their pay stubs
would frequently show that the Defendant paid them straight-time
payment of approximately their first 40 hours of work per week at
their normal hourly rates.

Rhett's, LLC d/b/a Rhett' Bar and Grill operates a restaurant.
Christopher Rhett Craddock is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Seeks Dec. 2 Extension to File Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Branning, On
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Romeo's Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting him an additional time to
file a Reply Motion in support of his Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification.

The current deadline is November 18, 2021. At present, the parties
are engaging in additional settlement discussions that may resolve
the matter. This extension will not affect any case deadlines and
the extension is not interposed to delay this case, the Plaintiff
contends.

The requested extension is not sought for purposes of undue delay
or prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests an
extension until December 2, 2021. The Defendants do not oppose
Plaintiff's request for an extension.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30GSR0Z at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Krzeski, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

SAYER LAW: Court Tosses Thome Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY THOME on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE SAYER LAW GROUP,
P.C., Case No. 20-CV-3058-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J.
Williams entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "The plaintiff's proposed class is fatally
overbroad because it necessarily includes individuals, such as
ex-plaintiff Usher, who did not suffer the concrete injury required
for Article III standing. Thus, even if the Court could properly
certify plaintiff's class, which it has already found it cannot, it
would not have the jurisdiction to hear the
case."

The Plaintiff is a consumer who, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), sued defendant, a debt collector.

The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, a "declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, as well as
statutory damages against" defendant for its practice of sending
debt collection letters to various consumers which allegedly
violate Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(5), 1692e(10),
1692f, 1692f(1), 1692g, 1692g(a)(3), and 1692g(b).

The Plaintiff defaulted on a mortgage with Wells Fargo, who
retained defendant’s services and sent plaintiff a letter
("Letter") demanding that she pay an accelerated balance within
fourteen days or Wells Fargo would initiate foreclosure
proceedings.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qXfol3 at no extra charge.[CC]

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Gibbs Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE GIBBS on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Case
No. 6:21-cv-00202-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. approving conditional certification of:

      "All individuals who worked for Sedgwick in the position
      of Return to Work Specialist in the Workforce Absence
      business division nationwide during the period from three
      years prior to the date of the issuance of notice in this
      action who were classified as exempt from overtime, and
      who did not receive overtime compensation;"

   2. appointing her as class representative; and

   3. approving court-authorized notice under Section 216(b) of
      the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and for a
      stay of the proceedings until the completion of
      alternative dispute resolution following the opt-in
      period, and for an extension of pretrial dates.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on January 29, 2021 and requested
that the case proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) on behalf of all current and former employees of
Sedgwick who held the position "Return to Work Specialist."

On March 26, 2021, this Court issued an FLSA Scheduling Order. On
April 16, 2021, Sedgwick filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint.

On August 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
after this Court Order's granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On August 17, 2021, Defendant answered Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint.

Sedgwick Claims provides claims and productivity management
services.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Nov. 17, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oKgf5R at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
          533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622-6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
          E-mail: dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
                  mlytle@lblaw.attorney

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robin A. Wofford, Esq.
          Lois M. Kosch, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP,
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
          E-mail: rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com

               - and -

          Chad K. Lang, Esq.
          SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ, QUESADA,
          LAGE, GOMEZ & MACHADO LLP,
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 377-1000
          Facsimile: (855) 327-0391
          E-mail: clang@smgqlaw.com

SELLAS LIFE: Settlement in Securities Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, 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
has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in a putative
shareholder securities class action which has received preliminary
court approval. The Settlement Fairness Hearing scheduled is for
Feb. 22, 2022.

On February 13, 2017, certain putative shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that Galena Biopharma, Inc. and certain of Galena's former
officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional
practices for Abstral (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly
improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal
liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's
statements about its business misleading.

The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
U.S.

District Court for the District of New Jersey and a consolidated
complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint.

On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice to file an amended complaint.

On December 20, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 29, 2020, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On January 5, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to
file an amended complaint. On February 18, 2021, the lead
plaintiffs filed a third Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in this
action which has received preliminary court approval, with the
Settlement Fairness Hearing scheduled for February 22, 2022, and
which will be fully covered by the Company's directors and officers
insurance policy applicable to this case.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS is
headquartered in New York.

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Wins Judgment on Pleadings Bid in One40 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ONE40 BEAUTY LOUNGE LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINEL INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-00643 (KAD) (D. Conn.),
Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

Background

Plaintiff One40 filed the putative class action against Defendant
Sentinel, seeking coverage for losses it sustained as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic, and the shutdown of its business occasioned
thereby, pursuant to the terms of a Policy issued to it by the
Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Therein, the Defendant asserts that the Policy does not
provide coverage for the Plaintiff's losses because the Policy
contains an applicable "Virus Exclusion." The Plaintiff argues that
the Virus Exclusion is ambiguous, but that even if it unambiguously
excludes coverage, the Policy still provides coverage for 30 days
of losses.

Oral argument was held on Aug. 5, 2021.

Discussion

Judge Dooley notes that the efforts to diminish or curtail the
lethal and widespread impact of COVID-19 on people across the
country caused many businesses to close their doors resulting in
significant and sometimes devastating lost revenues. And across the
country, those businesses turned to their insurers for coverage for
the losses caused by the forced closures. Where coverage has been
denied, litigation has ensued.

In the case, the Plaintiff is one of the many businesses forced to
close its doors due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff insured
against certain losses to its business with a Policy issued by
Defendant. Whether that Policy provides coverage as claimed is
decided.

The Policy at issue includes a Virus Exclusion that provides that
Defendant "will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or
indirectly by the presence, growth, proliferation, spread or any
activity of 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus." The
Defendant argues that this exclusion is unambiguous and precludes
coverage for losses occasioned by the COVID-19 virus. The Plaintiff
asserts that this provision is ambiguous for a number of reasons
and that judgment on the pleadings is not warranted. Judge Dooley
holds that the Virus Exclusion in the Plaintiff's Policy is
unambiguous and, by its plain meaning, applies to claims made for
losses caused by the COVID-19 virus.

Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff argues that the Policy provision
located at Subsection B.1.f of a section for "Limited Coverage for
'Fungi', Wet Rot, Dry Rot, Bacteria and Virus" (limited coverage
provisions) provides limited coverage for 30 days of losses, even
if the Virus Exclusion applies. The Defendant argues that Section
B.1.f must be read together with the other subsections of Section
B.1 and that it does not provide separate standalone coverage for
30 days of losses caused by a virus.

Again, Judge Dooley holds that the courts that have been asked to
consider this very issue, consistently find that the Defendant is
correct. The Plaintiff makes no argument or claim that the COVID-19
virus was caused by a "specified cause of loss" or by equipment
breakdown. Accordingly, Section B.1.f does not provide coverage for
30 days of losses occasioned by the COVID-19 virus.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Dooley concludes that the Policy
does not provide limited Time Element Coverage notwithstanding the
applicability of the Virus Exclusion to the Plaintiff's claimed
losses. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for
the Defendant and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2fccwer3 from Leagle.com.


SHUN LEE PALACE: Wang Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUOYI WANG, et al., on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf others similarly situated, v.
SHUN LEE PALACE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Shun Lee Palace T & W
RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Shun Lee West MICHAEL TONG, Case No.
1:17-cv-00840-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs GUOYI WANG, TONG WEI WU, ZHI QIANG
      LU, HAIPING WU, GUOLIANG XU, STEVEN CHEUNG, QUEK YEOW YAP,
      SHUDE ZHANG, KEEYEW FOO, TSUNMING FONG, MINGSUNG CHAN,
      LEUNGTACK CHOI, FONG YUE, BILLY QIN, MONALIZA WONG, and
      WEIJUN ZHEN as class representatives;

   3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy,
      Aaron B. Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy as class counsel;

   4. permitting Plaintiffs to circulate a notice of class
      action in Chinese by direct mail to class members and by
      publication; and

   5. granting such other and further relief as the Court shall
      deem just and proper.

The Plaintiffs include TONG WEI WU, ZHI QIANG LU, HAIPING WU,
GUOLIANG XU, STEVEN CHEUNG, QUEK YEOW YAP, SHUDE ZHANG, KEEYEW FOO,
TSUNMING FONG, MINGSUNG CHAN, LEUNGTACK CHOI, FONG YUE, BILLY QIN,
MONALIZA WONG, WEIJUN ZHEN, CHENG XIA WANG, JUN QING ZHAO, and ZE
JUN ZHANG a/k/a Zejun Zhang on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
others similarly, situated, and YA QIANG ZHANG, JUN LING ZHAO, HUI
MIN ZHAO HUI LIANG ZHAO, and LI WENG, on behalf of themselves, and
others similarly situated.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CMBuJj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClasssAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims SmileDirectClub, LLC has sent unsolicited
telemarketing texts to consumers' cell phones without consent to do
so and ignored recipients' requests to opt out of its messaging
campaign.

The 11-page lawsuit claims the orthodontic device provider has
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) -- a federal
law that prohibits the use of automated dialing technology to send
non-emergency telemarketing messages without consent -- and
"harm[ed] thousands of consumers in the process."

The plaintiff is a McCurtain County, Oklahoma resident who claims
to have received the following text message from SmileDirectClub in
mid-September 2021:

According to the case, the plaintiff attempted to opt out of
receiving future text messages by replying with "STOP!",
SmileDirectClub's preferred opt-out language. Nevertheless, the
defendant allegedly continued to send the plaintiff telemarketing
texts advertising its teeth alignment products.

The lawsuit alleges that although the plaintiff responded to each
of the texts with "STOP" in repeated attempts to opt out of the
communications, SmileDirectClub "continuously ignored" the woman's
demands.

While the plaintiff claims to have never provided the defendant
with her express written consent to be contacted, any such consent
that may have been implied was revoked when she replied with
"STOP," the suit says. The case alleges SmileDirectClub lacks a
written policy for maintaining an internal do-not-call list, and
does not inform and train personnel engaged in telemarketing of the
existence and use of such a list.

The case claims SmileDirectClub's allegedly unsolicited texts
caused "the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals."

The plaintiff seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who, within the
past four years, was sent a text message from SmileDirectClub, or
anyone on its behalf, to their cell phone after making a request to
not receive further text messages. [GN]

SOUTHWEST SOCCER: Hildebrand Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Hildebrand, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southwest Soccer Club Tournaments,
Southwest Soccer Club, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01871, (C.D.
Cal., November 12, 2021), seeks statutory damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Defendants are companies that own and operate a soccer tournament
in Southern California. Hildebrand claims to have no business with
Southwest and has never provided Southwest with prior express
written consent to call her cellular telephone number registered on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


SUMMER FRIDAYS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summer Fridays, LLC.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Summer
Fridays, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06346 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).

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

Summer Fridays -- https://summerfridays.com/ -- offers skincare
products including face masks, treatments and serums.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TEAM INC: Probable Settlement on Two Class Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Team, 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 has established a
liability on Sept. 30, 2021 for a probable settlement of two
putative class action complaints filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, California.

On June 24, 2019 and August 26, 2020, two putative class action
complaints were filed against Team Industrial Services, Inc. in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California.

The plaintiff in the first filed action is Michael Thai (the "Thai
action").

The plaintiff in the second filed action is Alex Esqueda (the
"Esqueda action").

All of the claims pleaded in the Esqueda action were also pleaded
in the Thai action.

Each of the plaintiffs assert claims for alleged wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code (for alleged unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and derivative
related claims).

The Thai action also asserts a putative class claim for violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Both cases were stayed shortly after filing to allow the parties to
mediate the claims.

On February 23, 2021, the Los Angeles Superior Court designated the
Thai and Esqueda actions as related cases.

While the parties mediated on March 18, 2021, the cases did not
settle.

On April 16, 2021, Team Industrial Services, Inc. moved both the
Thai and Esqueda actions to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

Plaintiff's motion for remand was denied, and these matters remain
in federal court.

The Company have established a liability at September 30, 2021 for
a probable settlement on this matter.

No assurances can be provided as to the timing, ultimate liability,
outcome, or the impact these matters may have on the Company
consolidated financial statements.

Alvin, Tex.-based Team Inc. provides specialty maintenance and
construction services required in maintaining high temperature and
high pressure piping systems and vessels that are utilized
extensively in the refining, petrochemical, power, pipeline, and
other heavy industries.

TESLA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vela Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
EBERT VELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV41351 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 9, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Vela was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIMIOS INC: Waters Sues Over Failure to Properly Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Waters, Jeff Harrington, and David Thompson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIMIOS, INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-08709-VAP-JC (C.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") including
name, social security number, driver's license or state issues
identification number, passport number, tax identification number,
military identification number, financial account number, payment
card number and date of birth.

According to the complaint, as part of its services, Timios
requires that its customers provide Timios with PII. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those
persons, and knew or should have known that it was responsible for
protecting Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII from disclosure or
criminal hacking activity. Defendant had numerous statutory,
regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations,
including those based on its affirmative representations to
Plaintiffs and Class Members, to keep their PII confidential, safe,
secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members have taken reasonable steps to
maintain the confidentiality of their PII. The Plaintiffs and Class
Members reasonably expected and relied upon Defendant to keep their
PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this information
for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures
of this information.

The Defendant, however, breached its numerous duties and
obligations by failing to implement and maintain reasonable
safeguards; failing to comply with industry-standard data security
practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data
security; failing to properly train its employees on data security
measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect
unauthorized third parties accessing its system and that
substantial amounts of data had been compromised; and failing to
timely notify the impacted Class Members. Timios has confirmed that
between July 19-25, 2021 criminals were able to access certain
devices in Timios's network (the "Data Breach"). These criminals
maintained unfettered access to Defendant's network and Plaintiffs
and Class Members PII for at least seven days.

The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms, and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to inadequate data
security, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are natural person who have been damaged by the Data
Breach.

Timios, Inc. is a Title and Escrow Service company that provides
real estate transaction services to buyers, sellers, and
professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel M. Hodes, Esq.
          HODES MILMAN IKUTA, LLP
          9210 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 640-8222
          Fax: (949) 336-8114
          Email: dhodes@hodesmilman.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM, LLC
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 721-1178
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Scott Scheper, Esq.
          STRATEGE LAW LLP
          5060 N. Harbor Dr., Suite 275
          San Diego, California 92106
          Phone: (619) 677-5800
          Email: scheper@strategelaw.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com


TRAVELERS HOME: Stechert Class Settlement Granted Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Spencer Marston of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

Judge Marston preliminarily approves the Settlement set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement and Settlement Agreement, which
appears to be the product of serious, informed, and extensive
arm's-length negotiations between the Parties and appears to be
fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class so as to
fall within the range of possible final approval.

Judge Marston approves the proposed form and content of the Notice
to the Settlement Class and orders the Parties to proceed with
dissemination of the Notice as provided in the Settlement and
Release Agreement. She finds that the proposed process for
providing notice to the Class as set forth in the Settlement and
Release Agreement fulfills the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(A) and due process, provides the best
notice practicable under the circumstances, and will provide
adequate notice to all Class members.

Plaintiffs Kyle Stechert and Marie Stechert are appointed to act as
the representatives of the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; and the following attorneys are appointed
as the Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: Richard M. Ochroch Brett N. Benton Andrew R.
Ochroch Richard M. Ochroch & Associates, P.C. 318 S. 16th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Mark P. Weingarten James A. Barry Locks Law
Firm 601 Walnut Street, Suite 720 East Philadelphia, PA 19106

Epiq Class Action & Mass Tort Solutions is appointed to serve as
the Claims Administrator and will be responsible for administering
the settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

All claim forms, opt-out requests, and objections will be due
within 60 days of the date that the Class Notice mailing is
commenced.

Thirty days prior to the deadline for submitting claim forms,
opt-out requests, and objections, the Class Counsel will file with
the Court any motion for attorneys' fees and costs and any motion
for an enhancement award for the class representatives.

The Claims Administrator will file proof with the Court that notice
was provided in accordance with the Agreement and the Order by
April 5, 2022.

Upon passage of the deadline for claims forms, opt-out requests,
and objections, the Class Counsel will promptly file a motion for
final settlement approval.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for April 19, 2022, at 10:00
a.m., in Courtroom TBD of the James A. Byrne United States
Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.

The parties will unredact Exhibit E to the Plaintiffs' Memorandum
of Law in Support of Their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/xer7ervp from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Susana v. ICE Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE D. SUSANA, et al., Plaintiffs v. IMMIGRATION &
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ("ICE"), et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-9127 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York transfers the
action 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, "Retaliatory Conspiracy to
Violate the Convention Against Torture by Attempts to Deprive of
Civil Right to Petition Alien Tort Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1350."  The caption of the complaint lists the Plaintiffs
as: "M.A.G.A. (MAKE AFRICA GREAT AGAIN) HUMAN RIGHTS ANGELS
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRY INC. et al., By their Next Friend Jose D.
Susana, Vice Chairman, of the M.A.G.A. (MAKE AFRICA GREAT AGAIN)
HUMAN RIGHTS ANGELS INTERNATIONAL REGISTRY INC." (Id.) The amended
complaint describes M.A.G.A. as "an unincorporated ecclesiastical
social justice association." The body of the complaint lists as
Plaintiffs another 54 individuals, whom it describes as "a class of
refugees as defined by the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees ('UNHCR')," and who "either were or are detained at the
Caroline Detention Facility in the custody of ICE."

The complaint alleges that Susana has "organization, jailhouse
lawyer, as well as, next friend standing" to bring claims on behalf
of the other Plaintiffs. Susana brings the action "in order 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 complaint describes Susana as a
"New York Native," but he is currently detained in the CDF.
Moreover, the Court has determined from the United States
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 54
individual Plaintiffs.

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; CDF Law Librarian Mrs. Beazley;
Guidotti (DO); P. Ramirez (DO); Michael Coles (DO); and Derrick
Anderson. The complaint lists the CDF's address in Bowling Green,
Virginia, for all defendants.

The individually named Plaintiffs "are refugees from all over the
world" who "either were or are detained at the Caroline Detention
Facility in the custody of ICE." On Oct. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs
filed a grievance with the Office of the Inspector General, which
led to "a class action entitled Agedah v. ICE, No. 2:21-CV-07975."
The complaint alleges that Defendants Guidotti, Ramirez, Coles,
Anderson, White, Perry, Medes, and Thomas -- all officials at CDF
-- obstructed the Plaintiffs' ability to use CDF's law library, to
notarize and send legal mail, and to contact the media, all in
retaliation for Plaintiffs' having filed grievances and legal
actions against ICE and CDF, and because of the Plaintiffs' race.

The complaint seeks declaratory relief; "a preliminary and
permanent injunction ordering Defendant U.S. ex rel. to comply with
the court's Fraihat v. ICE Court order," as well as their
obligations under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the
United States; and compensatory and punitive damages.

In addition to the complaint, the Plaintiffs also filed: (1) an
"Emergency Writ of Prohibition" in which they seek an order
prohibiting the Defendants "from any further refusals to email,
notarize or print plaintiffs' civil rights petitions (both
individually and as a body corporate) while these serious CAT &
Torture Victim Protection Act claims are being adjudicated by the
Courts"; (2) an unsigned "summons"; (3) an application to proceed
in forma pauperis, which appears to be submitted on behalf of all
the Plaintiffs; (4) a "motion to join indispensable high parties to
plaintiffs' action" which seeks to join the following as parties:
the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, the Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Liberia,
Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Sierra Leon, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa,
North and South Sudan, and Venezuela; (5) a "motion for requesting
for the appointment of counsel to institute action for incompetent
plaintiffs"; (6) a "motion for sub-class certification" (ECF 4);
and (7) a motion to amend or correct the complaint.

Discussion

In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the
following factors: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the
convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4)
the availability of process to compel the attendance of the
unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of relevant documents and the
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means
of the parties; (7) the forum's familiarity with the governing law;
(8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum; (9)
trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the
totality of circumstances. A plaintiff's choice of forum is
accorded less deference where plaintiff does not reside in the
chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there.

Under section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in the
case, Judge Swain finds. She says, the underlying events occurred
in the CDF, which is located in Bowling Green, Caroline County,
Virginia. Plaintiff Susana is detained in the CDF, and all other
individual Plaintiffs either are or were detained in the CDF.
Moreover, Judge Swain finds that the complaint provides Bowling
Green, Virginia addresses for all the Defendants. Caroline County
falls within the Eastern District of Virginia. Venue is therefore
proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. S

Based on the totality of the circumstances, Judge Swain concludes
that it is in the interest of justice to transfer the action to the
U.S. 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 the 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 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/dh67rwhc from Leagle.com.


US BEST INGREDIENTS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Best Ingredients
Inc. The case is styled as Jorge Garcia, individually and on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated v. US Best Ingredients
Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 21TRCV00813 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 3, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

US Best Ingredients Inc. -- http://usbestingredients.com/--
continues to develop raw materials that help human health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALLI PRODUCE: Dalton Hits Biometric Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------
Katina Dalton, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Valli Produce of Glendale Heights, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2021L001190 (Ill. Cir., November 12, 2021),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics.  The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages together
with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant is a grocery facility located in Glendale Heights,
Illinois where Dalton worked. It required Dalton to provide her
personalized biometric indicators and biometric information.
Specifically, Defendant collected and stored her fingerprints and
required her to clock-in and clock-out by scanning her fingerprints
into a fingerprint-scanning machine. Dalton says that she has not
been notified where her fingerprints are being stored, for how long
will they be stored and what might happen to this information.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Fish, Esq.
      Mara Baltabols, Esq.
      FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (312) 861-1800
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: docketing@fishlawfirm.com


VALLON PHARMACEUTICALS: Rendon Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
Vallon Pharmaceuticals, 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 Nov. 1,
2021, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Los Angeles, styled Rendon v. Vallon, Inc., et al.

The complaint brings one claim for violation of California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act, alleging that the Company's website is not
compatible with software used by vision-impaired individuals.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek: (a) a declaration that the
Company violated the Unruh Act; (b) an injunction ordering the
Company to ensure its website is in compliance with the Unruh Act;
and (c) statutory damages of $4, plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

"The complaint expressly limits the total amount of recovery
sought, including statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
cost of injunctive relief, to not exceed $75," the Company said.

The Company believes the claim to be without merit.

Vallon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical
company. The Company focuses on the development and
commercialization of abuse-deterrent medications for disorders.
Vallon Pharmaceuticals serves patients in the United States.

VERIZON CONNECT: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Santillan v. Verizon
Connect Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01257 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Karen S. Crawford entered an order granting in part the
parties' joint motion to continue class certification deadlines:

   -- The deadlines for completing class discovery and for
      filing discovery motions related to class discovery are
      extended to Jan. 31, 2022.

   -- The deadline for filing class certification motions is
      extended to Feb. 21, 2022.

   -- The parties should not expect the Court to be amenable to
      any further extensions of time to complete class discovery
      and file class certification motions.

The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.[CC]


VILLAGE OF STONE PARK: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Knowles and Ann Pistone, writing for WLS, report that a class
action lawsuit was filed against the Village of Stone Park over a
red light camera.

The lawsuit alleges illegal red light camera tickets were issued at
Lake Street and Mannheim Road.

Drivers have claimed they were wrongly ticketed at the west
suburban intersection after making right hand turns.

The suit cites an Illinois law which says drivers cannot be
ticketed by a camera, for stopping beyond the white line if
pedestrians or bicyclists are not present.

Stone Park has dismissed these tickets when challenged, but the
suit says the majority of motorists don't contest and pay the $100
fine.

"This becomes a money making proposition for villages. Safety is
not involved, it's all about the money," said Robert Fioretti,
attorney at Roth Fioretti, LLC. "And they are doing it through red
light cameras."

The Village of Stone Park has not yet responded to the I-Team about
the lawsuit. [GN]

VILORE FOODS: Gross, et al., Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN GROSS, DEBORAH
LEVIN, SHELBY COOPER, and EDWARD BUCHANNAN on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. VILORE FOODS COMPANY, INC.,
ARIZONA CANNING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00894-DMS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a nationwide Class defined as follows:

      "All persons who purchased one or more of the following
      products in the United States anytime between May 13, 2016
      and July 22, 2019 for personal and household use and not
      for resale:

      -- Kern's Guava Nectar

      -- Kern's Apricot Nectar

      -- Kern's Mango Nectar

      -- Kern's Peach Nectar

   2. certifying a California Subclass defined as follows:

      "All persons who purchased one or more of the following
      products in California anytime between May 13, 2016 and
      July 22, 2019 for personal and household use and not for
      resale:

      -- Kern's Guava Nectar;

      -- Kern's Apricot Nectar;

      -- Kern's Mango Nectar; and

      -- Kern's Peach Nectar

      Excluded from the Class and subclass are Defendants and
      Defendants' officers, directors, employees, agents, and
      affiliates, and the Court and its staff;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs Warren Gross, Deborah Levin, Shelby
      Cooper, and Edward Buchannan as the class representatives
      and the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and the Elliot Law
      Office PC as Class Counsel; and

   4. approving notice to the Class in accordance with Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r2us0q
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          David Elliot, Esq.
          ELLIOT LAW OFFICE PC
          2028 3rd Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 468-4865

WALGREEN CO: E.D. California Stays Caves Suit Pending Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLORIA CAVES and TAMIM KABIR, On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. WALGREEN CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, signed the
parties' Joint Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Appeals.

On Nov. 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint before the
Court. On June 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Preliminary Approval outlining the terms of a proposed settlement
with the Defendant. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, a
fund of $6 million would be created and be paid out to "over 900
class members."

On Aug. 13, 2020, the Court issued its Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement Agreement.

On Oct. 26, 2020, Objector Barbarito Ruan Vasquez, through his
counsel Gallo LLP and Wynne Law Firm, filed his Objections to
Proposed Settlement. At that time, Gallo/Wynne represented
plaintiff Alfred Morales in a substantially similar putative class
action against Defendant that was filed on Oct. 16, 2018 in San
Francisco Superior Court (Case No. CGC-18-570597). Morales was
stayed by the Morales court in favor of the instant action.

Gallo/Wynne also represented 144 class members in a mass action
against Defendant that was filed on Dec. 4, 2019 in Marin County
Superior Court and subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Aguilar, et
al. v. Walgreens, N.D. Case No. 20-cv-00124-MMC).

The 102 class members represented by Gallo/Wynne opted out of the
settlement and 42 chose to remain as settlement class members.

On Nov. 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for
Corrective Notice to the Class and Additional Opt-Out Period,
requesting that Gallo/Wynne bear the cost of a corrective letter to
be disseminated to the class members who received an unauthorized,
misleading and inaccurate communication sent by Gallo/Wynne to some
of the class members they represent (or represented), and that
those who returned the postcard opt-out enclosed with the
unauthorized communication be given the opportunity to reconsider
their opt-out.

On Jan. 20, 2021, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Ex Parte Application for Corrective Notice to the Class and
Additional Opt-Out Period.

On July 13, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Modify Scope of
Corrective Notice or, in the Alternative, to Reconsider or Clarify
Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Corrective Notice to Class
and Additional Opt-Out Period, requesting that a corrective notice
be sent to all the class members represented by Gallo/Wynne who
opted out of the settlement. The Defendant's Corrective Notice
Motion was based on Gallo/Wynne's conflict of interest during the
opt-out period due to their concurrent representation of the
Objector as well as class members who wish to participate in the
settlement.

On Sept. 7, 2021, the Court entered its Order Granting Motion of
Defendant Walgreen Co. for Order Expanding Scope of Corrective
Notice. The Expanded Corrective Notice Order declares as
ineffective all of the opt-out forms returned by clients of
Gallo/Wynne, and further provides that a corrective notice will be
sent to all clients of Gallo/Wynne in the case and that they will
be given the opportunity to reconsider whether to opt out of the
settlement.

On Sept. 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Lodgment of a
Revised Corrective Notice, which reflected the Expanded Corrective
Notice Order.

On Sept. 17, 2021, Gallo/Wynne filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Expanded Corrective Notice Order.

On Sept. 27, 2021, the Court entered an Order Regarding the Revised
Corrective Notice, ordering that the revised corrective notice
lodged by the Plaintiffs to effectuate the Expanded Corrective
Notice Order be disseminated to all persons represented by
Gallo/Wynne who opted out of the settlement of the matter. On Sept.
29, 2021, Gallo/Wynne filed a Notice of Appeal of the Dissemination
Order.

Gallo/Wynne has requested that the parties agree to a stay of the
instant case pending the resolution of the appeals of the Expanded
Corrective Notice Order and the Dissemination Order (collectively,
the "Appeals"). The parties believe that, in the interests of
judicial economy, the case should be stayed pending the resolution
of the Appeals, which are being heard by the Ninth Circuit on an
expedited briefing schedule. They request that the Court orders the
case stayed pending the resolution of the Appeals.

The Parties stipulate and agree, subject to the Court's approval,
that the case is stayed pending the resolution of Gallo/Wynne's
Appeals of the Expanded Corrective Notice Order and the
Dissemination Order.

Judge England so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39dnbn56 from Leagle.com.

James C. Shah -- jcshah@millershah.com -- MILLER SHAH, LLP, San
Diego, CA, John F. Edgar (pro hac vice forthcoming), EDGAR LAW FIRM
LLC, in Kansas City, Missouri, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gloria
Caves and Tamim Kabir.

Allison C. Eckstrom -- allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com -- Christopher
J. Archibald -- christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com -- Karina Lo --
karina.lo@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP, Irvine,
California, Daria Dub Carlson, BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP, in
Santa Monica, California, Attorneys for Defendant Walgreen Co.


WICKED CANTINA: Parraga Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Victor M. Parraga, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Wicked Cantina 1 Inc., The Wicked Taco, Inc., d/b/a Wicked Cantina
and Michael E. Dolan, individually, Case No. 8:21-cv-02694 (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 16, 2021), is brought to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, but he was not paid
for overtime hours. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and
Defendants could track the number of hours worked by Plaintiff in
its two locations. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to
pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half
his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a tipped employee, and he performed two
positions, as a waiter and as a bartender.

Wicked Cantina 1 INC., The Wicked Taco, INC., d/b/a Wicked Cantina
are retail businesses operating a chain of Mexican restaurants
under the common name of "Wicked Cantina."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZILLOW GROUP: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 17, 2022 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 17 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against of Zillow Group, Inc. ("Zillow" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: Z) in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington on behalf of those who purchased
Zillow common stock between February 10, 2021, and November 2,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) despite operational
improvements, the Company experienced significant unpredictability
in forecasting home prices for its Zillow Offers business; (2) such
unpredictability, as well as labor and supply shortages, led to a
backlog of inventory; (3) 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) 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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Zillow
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
January 17, 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]


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

Z Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zillow-group-inc-information-request-form?prid=21319&wire=1
LSPD Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lightspeed-commerce-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21319&wire=1
SNAP Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/snap-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21319&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:Z)

Z Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 10, 2021 -
November 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 18, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zillow-group-inc-information-request-form?prid=21319&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Zillow
Group, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) despite operational
improvements, the Company experienced significant unpredictability
in forecasting home prices for its Zillow Offers business; (2) such
unpredictability, as well as labor and supply shortages, led to a
backlog of inventory; (3) 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) 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.

Lightspeed Commerce Inc. (NYSE:LSPD)

LSPD Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 11,
2020 - September 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 18, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lightspeed-commerce-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21319&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Lightspeed Commerce Inc. made materially 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, and
increase in Average Revenue Per User, 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.

Snap Inc. (NYSE:SNAP)

SNAP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 22, 2020 -
October 21, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 10, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/snap-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21319&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Snap
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Apple's privacy changes would have,
and were having, a material impact on the Company's advertising
business; (2) Snap overstated its ability to transition its
advertising with Apple's privacy changes; (3) Snap knew of, but
downplayed, the risks of the impact that Apple's privacy changes
had on the Company's advertising business; (4) Snap overstated its
commitment to privacy; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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

[*] GT Attorneys Discuss 1st, 2nd, 3rd Cir. Class Action Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
GT published its Class Action Litigation Newsletter for Fall 2021.

This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from
across the United States.

Highlights from this issue include:

First Circuit affirms ruling that individualized issues of consent
prevent certification of TCPA "junk fax" class.

Southern District of New York denies certification of FDCA class,
finding improper "fail-safe" class.

Third Circuit addresses standard for certification of issue classes
under Rule 23(c)(4).

Fourth Circuit vacates certification of class of 35 purchasers and
remands for numerosity analysis.

Fifth Circuit reverses remand to state court holding corporate
defendant was a "primary defendant."

Sixth Circuit addresses retroactivity of Supreme Court TCPA
decision, reversing dismissal of claim.

Seventh Circuit applies comity abstention doctrine to remand claims
removed under CAFA.

Eighth Circuit reverses class certification finding common issues
do not predominate over individual questions of causation.

Ninth Circuit affirms order compelling arbitration, holding Uber
drivers are not exempt from mandatory arbitration under Section 1
of the FAA because they are not a "class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce."

Ninth Circuit directs more probing inquiry for approval of class
action settlement where attorneys' fees dwarf anticipated monetary
payout to the class.

D.C. Circuit holds that objectors' appeal challenging settlement
approval was premature.

First Circuit
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. ACT, Inc., No. 20-1537, 2021 U.S.
App. LEXIS 26135 (1st Cir. Aug. 30, 2021)

Individualized issues of consent prevent certification of TCPA
"junk fax" class.
A small private high school brought a claim against Act, Inc. under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section
227, based on three facsimiles. Act, Inc. develops and administers
the ACT college admission test. The school had provided Act, Inc.
its facsimile number in a "High School Code Request Form." Students
use the High School Code number to have their ACT test scores
reported to their high schools. On the form, the school checked a
box indicating that it wanted to (i) administer certain
standardized tests, (ii) receive its students' test scores, and
(iii) receive SAT or ACT publications. Other putative class members
also may have provided their consent to receive such facsimiles,
which, among other things, caused the district court to deny class
certification on predominance grounds.

On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision, as the school did not meet its burden to show how a court
could cull from the proposed class those putative class members who
may have provided the appropriate consent to receive the subject
facsimiles. Instead, as found by the district court, Act, Inc. had
presented sufficient evidence that the proposed class likely
included members who invited Act, Inc. to send materials by
facsimile. The district court further found that "to identify those
members the court would have to 'parse through each unique
relationship' between every class member" and ACT, Inc. Also,
although the First Circuit did not need to address it, the district
court concluded that a proposed class definition based on those
class members who received an "unsolicited" facsimile was an
impermissible fail-safe class.

Am. Inst. for Foreign Study, Inc. v. Fernandez-Jimenez, Nos.
20-1641, 20-1692, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20420 (1st Cir. July 9,
2021)

Arbitration clause that did not expressly authorize class
arbitration stalls class action arbitration.
Plaintiff -- an institute placing au pairs with host families in
the United States -- sought injunctive relief against an au pair
from Spain who had filed a class arbitration demand against the
institute. When agreeing to be placed, the au pair signed an
agreement with the institute that contained an arbitration clause,
which provided: "I agree that any dispute with or claim against
[the Institute] . . . will be exclusively resolved by binding
arbitration[.]" Also, the agreement provided that the defendant
waived the right to assert any "claims, in either an individual
capacity or as a member of any class action, by any means and in
any form other than arbitration[.]" The parties ultimately agreed
that the agreement required the au pair to submit any individual
claims to arbitration. The First Circuit concluded that the
agreement "does not provide an affirmative basis to conclude that
the parties agreed to class arbitration." According to the First
Circuit, the "arbitration clause is silent about class arbitration.
And the waiver clause only mentions class actions in precluding the
parties from litigating as a class." Furthermore, the First Circuit
rejected the au pair's assertion that the "the waiver clause waives
'only' the right to litigate a class claim in court," as well as
her argument that "by negative inference [] it was intended to
preserve a right excluded from that waiver -- the right to
arbitrate a class action." According to the First Circuit, "that
reasoning entirely begs the question: Did she have a right to
arbitrate as a class, which right might then be preserved by
exclusion from the waiver clause? And as to that question, [the au
pair] is back to square one: She can point to no 'affirmative
contractual basis for concluding' that the parties agreed to
arbitrate class claims." As such, the First Circuit concluded that
the district court did not err in granting injunctive relief to
preclude class arbitration.

Second Circuit
DiDonato v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176555
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2021)

Southern District of New York denies class certification, finding
an improper "fail-safe" class that cannot meet the requirements of
Rule 23(a) or (b).
Plaintiff alleged that defendants attempted to collect private
student loans discharged in bankruptcy, misrepresenting the
character and legal status of those loans in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case turned on whether
plaintiff's loans and those of the putative class members were
discharged in bankruptcy or were "qualified educational loans" and
thus non-dischargeable.

On a motion for class certification, plaintiff sought to certify a
class of borrowers in various states who (1) filed for bankruptcy
in any of the U.S. district courts, (2) were issued discharge
orders since April 20, 2005, and who also (3) "(a) obtained
Consumer Education Loans that were discharged in bankruptcy by
virtue of any of the [following] three characteristics: (1) were
made to students attending non-Title IV schools; (2) were made in
excess of the 'ost of attendance'; (3) were made to ineligible
students under the Higher Education Act" and who "(b) have
nonetheless been subjected to Defendants' attempts to induce
payment or discharge debts." The court denied plaintiff's motion on
four separate grounds.

In assessing whether plaintiff could meet the requirements of Rule
23(a), the court found there were "serious questions as to whether
Plaintiff is a member of the proposed class he purports to
represent." Although plaintiff attended a Title IV university at
the time he received his loans and asserted that the loans exceeded
the cost of attendance, "the certifications that Plaintiff made in
connection with his loan applications and promissory notes . . .
may preclude him from denying that the[se loans] . . . are
qualified education loans." Both these facts and "conflicting
statements" made by plaintiff, which "rais[ed] questions about his
credibility," resulted in a finding that the typicality requirement
was not satisfied.

The proposed class also could not be certified under Rule
23(b)(1)(A) or Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff sought individualized
monetary damages. But because potential class members would not
have the opportunity to opt out and litigate their entitlement to,
and amount of, individualized damages, the court denied
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A). And despite finding some
common issues, the court noted that individual issues surrounding
the dischargeability of each potential class member's student loans
predominated.

Finally, the court found that the proposed class was a "fail-safe"
-- that is, the proposed class definition "shields the putative
class members from receiving an adverse judgment." Further, the
"class may be unmanageable because a determination on the merits
would be required to identify class members who would receive
notice and an opportunity to opt out." The court noted that,
although "at first blush these issues are not as problematic
because the FDCPA is a strict liability statute and the criteria
for class membership are seemingly objective, . . . contested
issues nevertheless may arise and require resolution," like those
involving the lead plaintiff. These necessarily "giv[e] rise to the
fairness and manageability objections to fail-safe classes."

Third Circuit
Russell v. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates,
2021 WL 4343657 (3d Cir. 2021)

Third Circuit addresses standard for certification of issue
classes.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Educational
Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (the "Commission")
alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress due to the
Commission's alleged improper certification of a foreign medical
doctor who treated plaintiffs. The district court certified an
issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) as to whether the Commission owed
and breached a duty to plaintiffs, hospitals, or state medical
boards.

The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The
panel reiterated prior rulings that a plaintiff seeking to certify
an issue class must satisfy the prerequisites for certification
under Rule 23(a) and under Rule 23(b)(1), (2) or (3), but prior
decisions lacked "clear guidance" as to when an issue class was
"appropriate" or what types of "issues" may or may not be suitable
for class treatment. The court's 2011 decision in Gatesv. Rohm &
Haas Co., 655 F.3d 255 (3d Cir. 2011) included a non-exhaustive
list of nine factors for courts to consider, but Gates did not
decide whether the issues to be certified could include claim
elements and defenses or if those issues "must be limited to
questions that would resolve a defendant's liability." The panel
decided that district courts may certify "particular issues" for
class treatment "even if those issues, once resolved, do not
resolve a defendant's liability, provided that such certification
substantially facilitates the resolution of the civil dispute,
preserves the parties' procedural and substantive rights and
responsibilities, and respects the constitutional and statutory
rights of all class member and defendants."

The Third Circuit found that the district court erred because it
did not determine whether the issues satisfied Rule 23(b)(3) and it
failed to "rigorously consider" the Gates factors and the
efficiencies that would be gained by resolution of the certified
issues.

David G. Thomas, Ashley A. LeBlanc, Gregory A. Nylen, Aaron Van
Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin,
and Brian D. Straw also contributed to this content. [GN]

[*] GT Attorneys Discuss 4th, 5th, 6th Cir. Class Action Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
GT published it Class Action Litigation Newsletter for Fall 2021
(Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Circuits).

This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from
across the United States.

Highlights from this issue include:

First Circuit affirms ruling that individualized issues of consent
prevent certification of TCPA "junk fax" class.

Southern District of New York denies certification of FDCA class,
finding improper "fail-safe" class.

Third Circuit addresses standard for certification of issue classes
under Rule 23(c)(4).

Fourth Circuit vacates certification of class of 35 purchasers and
remands for numerosity analysis.

Fifth Circuit reverses remand to state court holding corporate
defendant was a "primary defendant."

Sixth Circuit addresses retroactivity of Supreme Court TCPA
decision, reversing dismissal of claim.

Seventh Circuit applies comity abstention doctrine to remand claims
removed under CAFA.

Eighth Circuit reverses class certification finding common issues
do not predominate over individual questions of causation.

Ninth Circuit affirms order compelling arbitration, holding Uber
drivers are not exempt from mandatory arbitration under Section 1
of the FAA because they are not a "class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce."

Ninth Circuit directs more probing inquiry for approval of class
action settlement where attorneys' fees dwarf anticipated monetary
payout to the class.

D.C. Circuit holds that objectors' appeal challenging settlement
approval was premature.

Fourth Circuit
In re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation, 7 F.4th 227 (4th
Cir. 2021)
Fourth Circuit provides additional guidance on numerosity element.
Plaintiffs are a group of pharmaceutical buyers who brought a class
action against two drug manufacturers for an alleged
anticompetitive settlement of a patent dispute. The district court
certified a class of 35 purchasers, but the Fourth Circuit
reversed, finding that the numerosity analysis was based on "faulty
logic."

The panel first considered the district court's reasoning that
"multiple individual trials" would result if the case proceeded
without class status. The panel found that reasoning "ran afoul" of
Rule 23(a)(1)'s dictate that the class be "'so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable,' not whether the class is
so numerous that failing to certify presents the risk of many
separate lawsuits." On remand, the panel directed the district
court to "consider whether judicial economy favors either a class
action or joinder." Without considering the efficiencies gained by
joinder, the panel observed, "the judicial-economy factor would
always favor class certification, which is simpler to manage than
individual lawsuits. In fact, even compared to joinder, class
certification will often be preferable from a judicial economy
perspective."

Further, the district court improperly considered the economics of
individual suits in analyzing numerosity. The district court
ignored whether it would be uneconomical for smaller claimants to
be joined as parties in a traditional lawsuit, as opposed to
pursuing individual suits. The panel ruled that on remand,
"[p]laintiffs must bring to bear some evidence to this effect --
and the district court may not consider the economics of individual
suits in analyzing this factor."

Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2021 WL 3400552 (Md. 2021)
Maryland Court of Appeals addresses when a prior class action tolls
the statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs filed two putative class actions challenging debt
collection practices of defendant. Both lawsuits were dismissed on
statute of limitations grounds. Among other things, the trial court
found that the statute of limitations was not tolled based upon
plaintiffs' status as putative class members in a prior federal
court and Maryland state court cases.

The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, except as to the individual
claims of one of the plaintiffs. The court noted that Maryland had
accepted American Pipe tolling but had only applied it to an
individual action filed after class certification had been denied
in Maryland state court. Here, the court was called upon to decide
whether American Pipe tolling would apply to a successive putative
class action filed after class certification was denied in another
jurisdiction.

As to the first issue, the court found that tolling did not apply
to a successive putative class action, reasoning that a contrary
result was antithetical to the policies behind the statute of
limitations - to encourage prompt resolution of claims - and "could
result in a ‘rolling tolling' approach to class action suits,
whereby a putative class member could toll his or her statute of
limitations after the denial of one class action certification in
one circuit court by filing a successive class action in one of the
other 23 state circuit courts."

As to the second issue - "cross-jurisdictional tolling" - the court
noted that other states are split on the issue, but it nevertheless
recognized tolling for individual actions filed by "absent members
of putative class actions filed in other state and federal courts."
To benefit from the principle, the plaintiff must prove that (1)
the prior class action notified the defendant of the substantive
claims and the "number and generic identities of the potential
plaintiffs," and (2) the individual suit concerns "the same
evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter of the
original class suit." Such "tolling ends when there is a clear
dismissal of a putative class action, including a dismissal for
forum non conveniens, or a denial of class action for any reason."

Fifth Circuit
Madison v. ADT, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 25457 (5th Cir. Aug. 24,
2021)
Fifth Circuit clarifies what constitutes a "primary defendant"
under CAFA and holds that remand was improper under CAFA's "home
state" exception.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against a former
employee of ADT, LLC who had used his access credentials to spy on
customers through their home-security surveillance systems. ADT
intervened as a defendant and removed under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand,
arguing that although the employee was a "primary defendant" under
CAFA, ADT was not. Thus, the plaintiffs argued, the case belonged
in state court under CAFA's "home state" exception, which requires
a federal court to abstain if two-thirds of the plaintiffs and the
"primary defendants" are citizens of the state where the action was
filed. The district court agreed and granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand.

ADT sought permission to appeal from the Fifth Circuit, which
granted the request and reversed. Recognizing that "there is scant
discussion across our sister circuits," the Fifth Circuit looked to
reasoning from Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Props., Inc., 733 F.3d
497 (3rd Cir. 2013), a 2013 Third Circuit decision that evaluated
when a corporate "defendant is the ‘real target' of the
plaintiffs' accusations." This included whether (1) the plaintiffs
are seeking to hold the defendant liable for its own actions and
(2) given the claims asserted, the defendant "has potential
exposure to a significant portion of the class and would sustain a
substantial loss as compared to other defendants if found liable."
The Fifth Circuit also looked to its own decision in Hollinger v.
Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011). There, the
court considered the lawsuit's "primary thrust," which would
indicate the "primary defendant." Taking these together -- the
Third Circuit's "real target" test and the Fifth Circuit's "primary
thrust" standard -- the Fifth Circuit concluded that ADT was a
primary defendant. Although the plaintiffs had yet to assert a
claim against ADT, the court explained that "the thrust of this
suit is to gain access to ADT's deep pockets, and ADT, having
properly intervened, must be considered a primary defendant under
CAFA."

This decision may give defendant corporations whose employees are
sued in state court an avenue to remove under CAFA, even if the
plaintiffs have crafted their suit to avoid federal jurisdiction.

Ortiz v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 21336 (5th Cir.
July 19, 2021)
Fifth Circuit concludes that putative class lacked standing to
pursue an ERISA suit for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

Two former American Airlines (AA) employees filed a putative class
action suit against AA, its Pension Asset Administration Committee,
and its federal credit union (FCU) on behalf of former AA employees
and beneficiaries who had invested in AA's ERISA plan. Asserting
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs complained that the
ERISA plan offered its FCU as an ERISA-qualifying "safe" investment
option, but that better, comparable funds -- like stable value
funds -- were available and would have offered a greater return. AA
did not offer the stable value funds until late 2015 -- a few
months before plaintiffs sued. The plaintiffs also alleged that the
FCU fund should have received higher interest rates on the
airline's 401k plan assets.

The defendants prevailed on summary judgment in the district court,
but for different reasons. The district court ruled that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue AA and the committee because
"their alleged injuries are at best speculative, not concrete,"
since the plaintiffs chose whether to invest, how much, and which
options to choose. Since the plaintiffs could not show that they
would have chosen the stable value funds had they been available,
they had no justiciable injury. The court, however, determined that
plaintiffs had standing to sue the FCU, although their claim failed
for lack of fiduciary liability.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit determined that the plaintiffs lacked
standing, explaining that although "lost investment income is a
concrete and redressable injury for the purposes of standing," the
plaintiffs had failed to place their money into the stable value
fund when they had the opportunity. Thus, causation was lacking,
and so was Article III standing. As for the claims against the FCU,
the court explained that plaintiffs failed to prove that they could
have received higher interest rates from the 401k plan's assets.
The Fifth Circuit thus remanded the case with instructions for the
district court to dismiss plaintiff's claim against FCU for lack of
jurisdiction.

City of New Boston, Texas v. Netflix, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-00135-RWS,
(E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2021)
Federal district court dismisses municipality's class action
seeking franchise fees from Netflix and Hulu under Texas state
law.
The city of New Boston, Texas filed a class action on behalf of
Texas municipalities against Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC for
failing to pay statutory franchise fees typically required of cable
companies. New Boston alleged that state law established a regime
for municipalities to collect franchise fees from cable and video
services, and thus municipalities are authorized to charge Netflix
and Hulu 5% of their gross revenue to use the public's broadband
wireline facilities. Netflix and Hulu moved to dismiss, arguing the
statute only applies to holders of state-issued certificates of
franchise authority, which they were not.

The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss,
concluding that "[t]he Texas Legislature's language is clear: to
incur a franchise fee, the provider must be ‘the holder of a
state-issued certificate of franchise authority.'" The court
reasoned that the statute does not grant courts authority to decide
which entities must obtain certificates of franchise authority;
that power lies solely with the Public Utility Commission. The
statute "did not reserve to municipalities any authority to declare
a provider a holder of a state-issued certificate of franchise
authority." Nor does the statute allow the court to "bypass the
state's authority to declare who holds a state-issued certificate
of franchise authority for municipalities." In other words, the
court explained that the municipalities' grievance should be raised
with the Public Utilities Commission, not the court. The court,
however, did not foreclose New Boston's right to refile the case if
or when Netflix and Hulu become holders of state-issued
certificates of franchise authority.

Sixth Circuit
Lindenbaum v. Realgy, LLC, No. 20-4252, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27159
(6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2021)
Sixth Circuit interprets Supreme Court severance of
unconstitutional government-debt exception in TCPA as applying
retroactively, leaving businesses potentially liable for
robocalls.
In 2019, Roberta Lindenbaum sued Realgy, LLC in a putative class
action after she received two pre-recorded robocalls to her cell
phone and landline, alleging that the calls violated the TCPA's
robocall restriction. After the case was filed, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued a plurality opinion in Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol.
Consultants, Inc. (AAPC), 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), which held that a
2015 amendment to the TCPA that permitted robocalls made "solely to
collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States"
unconstitutionally discriminated based on content. The court's
plurality then severed the government-debt exception from the
statute.

After the Supreme Court's decision in AAPC, Realgy moved to
dismiss, arguing that the calls were not actionable under the TCPA
because they occurred during the five-year period before the
public-debt exception was deemed unconstitutional under AAPC. Thus,
Realgy argued, the statute was facially invalid and could not be
enforced. The Northern District of Ohio granted the motion,
reasoning that severability is only a prospective remedy, so the
offending TCPA exception was "void" while it was "on the books." As
such, the district court concluded that there was no
federal-question jurisdiction over the claim. Lindenbaum appealed
the ruling, and the United States intervened.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal. On the issue of
severability, the court decided that the Supreme Court's decision
did, in fact, apply retroactively. Considering the "fundamental
rule of ‘retrospective operation,'" the Sixth Circuit concluded
that the severance in AAPC was not a remedy because "the Court
severed the exception in a way that gave AAPC none of the relief it
sought." So, "[b]ecause severance is not a remedy," the Sixth
Circuit reasoned, "it would have to be a legislative act in order
to operate prospectively only." Since the Supreme Court merely
interpreted the TCPA, the High Court's "legal determination applies
retroactively." As a result, the TCPA's robocall ban was
enforceable during the 2015 to 2020 timeframe.

Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgs. v. United States FDA, 2021 U.S.
App. LEXIS 27157 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2021)
Sixth Circuit affirms dismissal of association's claims for lack of
Article III standing because the association failed to adequately
plead that any member had suffered an injury in fact.
An association of physicians sued the Food and Drug Administration
for broader access to the drug hydroxychloroquine. Although the FDA
approved hydroxychloroquine for distribution in 1955 for treating
malaria, lupus, and arthritis, the FDA has not approved it for
treating COVID-19. And while the FDA had authorized
hydroxychloroquine for emergency use in the early stages of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government allowed only limited
access to its stockpile.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons asserted three
claims: violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment,
violation of the right to association under the First Amendment,
and violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. In support of
its claims, the association claimed three injuries: to itself,
because it was considering cancelling a conference; associational
standing on behalf of its members who could not prescribe
hydroxychloroquine; and third-party standing on behalf of patients
who could not get the drug for COVID-19 treatment.

The district court dismissed the association's complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that there was no
Article III standing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The Sixth Circuit began by recognizing that a challenge to the
actions of a governmental agency is insufficient to convey
standing. Under Supreme Court precedent, the association had to
allege an actual injury. On appeal, the association abandoned its
claim of direct injury, leaving only its claims of associational
injury. After wrestling with what it perceived as "tension" between
the Supreme Court's decisions on associational injury, the Sixth
Circuit recognized that "an organization must do more than identify
a likelihood that the defendant's conduct will harm an unknown
member in light of the organization's extensive size or membership
base" and "must instead identify a member who has suffered (or is
about to suffer) a concrete and particularized injury from the
defendant's conduct." Moreover, "the organization must show that
its requested relief will redress this injury." Further, the court
determined that "Twombly's plausibility test" applies to a motion
to dismiss on standing grounds. Thus, because the association had
not plausibly alleged an actual, redressable injury by any of its
members, it lacked standing to sue on their behalf. Finally,
because the association failed to plead that any of its members had
suffered an injury, it could not rely on third-party standing.

Johnson v. FCA US LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154132 (E.D. Mich.
Aug. 17, 2021)
District court rules that whether a plaintiff can assert claims on
behalf of a putative nationwide class is a question of
predominance, not an issue of Article III standing.
Automotive consumers from seven states brought a putative class
action against FCA US LLC for defective interior trim panels in
certain Dodge and Chrysler cars. Seeking to represent a nationwide
class, as well as state classes, plaintiffs sued under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq., as well as
various state consumer protection statutes and common law causes of
action. FCA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on several bases,
including whether the named plaintiffs had Article III standing to
assert claims arising under the laws of different states.

The district court began by considering the landscape of federal
decisions on this point. While the Sixth Circuit had not expressly
answered the question, district courts are split as to whether this
is "an Article III problem that must be resolved at the pleading
stage," or whether it is "a matter going to the propriety of class
certification under [Rule 23] that is properly resolved in
connection with class certification proceedings." Looking to
decisions from the Second and Seventh Circuits, as well as
analogous reasoning from the Sixth Circuit, the district court took
the latter approach. In prior decisions dealing with choice-of-law
issues, the Sixth Circuit had recognized that substantial
differences in the laws of different states affected manageability
and were considered under Rule 23, not as an Article III standing
issue.

David G. Thomas, Ashley A. LeBlanc, Gregory A. Nylen, Aaron Van
Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin,
and Brian D. Straw also contributed to this content. [GN]

[*] GT Attorneys Discuss 7th, 8th, 9th Cir. Class Action Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
GT published its Class Action Litigation Newsletter for Fall 2021
(Seventh, Eighth, Ninth Circuits).

This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from
across the United States.

Highlights from this issue include:

First Circuit affirms ruling that individualized issues of consent
prevent certification of TCPA "junk fax" class.

Southern District of New York denies certification of FDCA class,
finding improper "fail-safe" class.

Third Circuit addresses standard for certification of issue classes
under Rule 23(c)(4).

Fourth Circuit vacates certification of class of 35 purchasers and
remands for numerosity analysis.

Fifth Circuit reverses remand to state court holding corporate
defendant was a "primary defendant."


Sixth Circuit addresses retroactivity of Supreme Court TCPA
decision, reversing dismissal of claim.

Seventh Circuit applies comity abstention doctrine to remand claims
removed under CAFA.

Eighth Circuit reverses class certification finding common issues
do not predominate over individual questions of causation.

Ninth Circuit affirms order compelling arbitration, holding Uber
drivers are not exempt from mandatory arbitration under Section 1
of the FAA because they are not a "class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce."

Ninth Circuit directs more probing inquiry for approval of class
action settlement where attorneys' fees dwarf anticipated monetary
payout to the class.

D.C. Circuit holds that objectors' appeal challenging settlement
approval was premature.

Seventh Circuit
City of Fishers v. DIRECTV, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 21549 (7th Cir.
Jul. 21, 2021)
Seventh Circuit holds that the comity abstention doctrine applies
to claims brought under CAFA.
Several Indiana cities filed suit in Indiana state court against
various streaming platforms, claiming the platforms owed the cities
past and future franchise fees under the Indiana Video Service
Franchises Act of 2006 (IVSFA). The defendant-platforms removed to
federal court, asserting that the court could exercise jurisdiction
under CAFA. The plaintiffs moved to remand on the grounds that the
district court should not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over
IVSFA claims. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and
remanded. The defendant-platforms appealed.

Holding that precedential jurisdictional limits applied to CAFA,
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the remand to state court. Generally,
federal courts decline to exercise federal jurisdiction over cases
involving local revenue collection and taxation, applying what is
referred to as the comity abstention doctrine. The defendants
argued that because CAFA contains two express jurisdictional
limitations without consideration of the comity abstention
doctrine, Congress did not intend for the doctrine to apply to
CAFA. The Seventh Circuit disagreed: "To be sure, CAFA's express
exceptions reflect Congress's judgment that it would be unwise to
reroute a class action with deep roots in a single state to federal
court. But those exceptions complement -- and do not displace --
preexisting comity concerns." Because abstention reflects
"foundational features of our constitutional system," such as state
sovereignty and autonomy over state taxation, the Seventh Circuit
determined that the doctrine was applicable to CAFA, warranting
remand back to state court. Regardless, the defendants had failed
to properly preserve this jurisdictional issue in the district
court, thus waiving it on appeal.

Ware v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22486 (7th Cir.
Jul. 29, 2021)
Seventh Circuit holds that conclusory invocation of CAFA is
insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in the face
of the specific jurisdictional limits for a Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act claim.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in federal court under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), which provides consumer
protection rights and establishes minimum criteria for different
types of warranties and warranty-like products. Relying on
arguments aimed at the merits, defendant filed a motion to dismiss,
which the district court granted. Although the dismissal was not
based on subject-matter jurisdiction, the Seventh Circuit was
obligated to conduct an independent assessment of jurisdiction when
the case was brought up on appeal. The Seventh Circuit determined
that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the
MMWA claims.

The MMWA has specific jurisdictional limitations that strip federal
courts of subject-matter jurisdiction if: (1) the amount in
controversy of any individual claim is less than $25; (2) the
amount in controversy is less than $50,000 for all claims to be
determined in the suit; or (3) the action is brought as a class
action and the number of named plaintiffs is less than 100. Because
these limitations were not satisfied, plaintiffs turned to CAFA.
The Seventh Circuit rejected plaintiffs' argument, noting that
plaintiffs had failed to meet the pleading burden required to rely
on CAFA for federal jurisdiction. First, plaintiffs' complaint
lacked any allegations supporting the $5 million amount in
controversy requirement. Second, although the complaint alleged
that damages were sufficient to overcome the MMWA $50,000
jurisdictional limitation, inferring that damages would meet the $5
million CAFA threshold was "entirely speculative."

Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (Sept.
17, 2021)

Separate limitations periods apply to different violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 15 of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) nearly two years after his
claims had arisen, alleging the defendant-employer (i) collected
and disclosed his fingerprint data for timekeeping purposes without
obtaining consent under Section 15(b), (ii) failed to have a
retention and destruction policy in violation of Section 15(a), and
(iii) disclosed his data in violation of Section 15(d). Defendant
moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's claims were foreclosed
by a one-year statute of limitations that applies to
privacy-related actions. The plaintiff disagreed, asserting that a
five-year limitations period applied. The circuit court agreed with
plaintiff.

On appeal, the First District Illinois Appellate Court determined
that not all BIPA violations are created equally and thus should be
subject to separate limitations periods. The court noted that,
based on the plain language of the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/13-201, the defendants' privacy-based
limitations theory could only apply to those actions in which
private information was actually published. Applying this to the
BIPA, only certain violations implicated any form of publication:
Section 15(c) to sell, lease, trade, or profit from a person's
biometric data; and Section 15(d) to disclose or disseminate
biometric data. Consequently, the one-year limitations period would
apply to these alleged violations. Alternatively, the remaining
violations - Section 15(a) for failing to develop a publicly
available retention and destruction policy for biometric data;
15(b) for collecting or obtaining biometric data without written
notice and release; and 15(e) for failing to take reasonable steps
to store, transmit, or protect biometric data - made no reference
to publication. Because publication was not a necessary element,
the five-year limitations period under 735 ILCS 5/13-205 applied.
The court then remanded for application of the distinct statute of
limitations periods.

Eighth Circuit
Hudock v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., 12 F.4th 773 (8th Cir. 2021)

Eighth Circuit reverses trial court's grant of class certification,
finding common issues would not predominate over individual
questions of causation.

This appeal arose from the trial court's grant of class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The
district court certified classes related to claims of unjust
enrichment and under the consumer protection statutes of Minnesota
and New Jersey.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that both Minnesota and New
Jersey law require evidence of causation. Defendants presented
evidence that "some consumers did not see, or did not rely on, the
allegedly false representations -- here, assertions about refresh
rates for their televisions." The companies presented evidence
making clear that some of the products at issue were not advertised
as the plaintiffs asserted. The companies also presented testimony
making clear that consumers frequently made their decisions based
on other features and some referred to enhanced refresh rates as a
"[w]aste of money." Based on this evidence, the Eighth Circuit
concluded that "[b]ecause determination of the companies' liability
would require individual determinations on causation and reliance,
‘common issues will not predominate' in the case."

Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 9 F.4th 981 (8th Cir. 2021)

In an undisclosed-defects case, the Eighth Circuit affirms a
decision denying class certification, holding that individual
issues of reliance and causation predominated.

Plaintiff all-terrain vehicle (ATV) buyers brought a class action
against defendant Polaris Industries, Inc., claiming it failed to
disclose heat defects, which artificially inflated the price of
their ATVs. Plaintiffs in six states sought to certify a nationwide
class under Minnesota consumer protection laws for four different
models. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification.

Under Minnesota law, Polaris was allowed to present evidence
rebutting plaintiffs' allegations that they relied on certain
representations and omissions. Here, Polaris had evidence that some
of the named plaintiffs had owned prior Polaris vehicles and had
prior knowledge of the alleged defect (and even had sold used ATVs
with knowledge of the alleged defect without mentioning it). Given
these facts, individual questions regarding reliance and causation
predominated.

The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court did not abuse
its discretion by denying class certification based on superiority.
First, the proposed subclasses "w[ould] require application of the
laws of four different states to forty-three different vehicle
configurations, including at least four different engines, with
changing exhaust standards through the years, and various attempts
by Polaris to remedy the problems." Second, because many Polaris
owners either resold their ATVs or purchased them used, these sales
would require "vehicle-specific litigation."

Finally, plaintiffs' class definition was too broad, as it included
everyone who had a risk of a product defect manifesting. The Eighth
Circuit found that not all ATVs had the alleged product defect and
that a risk of a product defect manifesting is insufficient to
support standing. The Eighth Circuit rejected plaintiffs' argument
that a price premium was sufficient to establish standing in a
product defect case.

Ninth Circuit

Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 7 F.4th 854 (9th Cir. 2021)
Ninth Circuit holds that Uber drivers are not exempt from mandatory
arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA because they are not a
"class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."

Plaintiffs Uber drivers brought a class action suit, alleging Uber
misclassified them as independent contractors rather than as
employees under Massachusetts law. Before becoming Uber drivers,
all potential drivers must sign Uber's 2015 Technology Services
Agreement (the "Agreement"), which contains a mandatory arbitration
provision. Uber brought a motion to compel arbitration, which the
district court granted. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing they were
exempt from mandatory arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
because they were a "class of workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce." The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that
Uber drivers as a class of workers do not fall within the
"interstate commerce" exemption of the FAA. The court held that
Uber drivers "are not engaged in interstate commerce" because their
work "predominantly entails intrastate trips," even though some
Uber drivers undoubtedly cross state lines in the course of their
work and rideshare companies do contract with airports "to allow
Uber drivers . . . to pick up arriving passengers." In reaching
this decision, the Court cited United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332
U.S. 218, 228-29 (1947), which held that "when local taxicabs
merely convey interstate train passengers between their homes and
the railroad station in the normal course of their independent
local service, that service is not an integral part of interstate
transportation." The court added that "interstate trips, even when
combined with trips to the airport, represent a very small
percentage of Uber rides, and only occasionally implicate
interstate commerce."

Hodges v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns., LLC, No. 19-16483, 2021 U.S.
App. LEXIS 27268 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2021)

Ninth Circuit holds that public injunctive relief under McGill is
limited to forward-looking injunctions that aim to restrain future
violations of law for the general public's benefit as a whole,
rather than a discrete subset of similarly situated persons.

Plaintiff brought a putative class action challenging Comcast's
alleged privacy and data-collection practices, seeking a variety of
monetary and equitable remedies. The district court held that
because plaintiff's complaint sought "public injunctive relief" as
one of its requested remedies, it implicated California's McGill
rule, under which an arbitration provision that waives the right to
seek "public injunctive relief" in all forums is unenforceable.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. Taking into account Blair v.
Rent-A-Center, Inc., which held that the Federal Arbitration Act
did not preempt McGill, the panel held that, under California law,
non-waivable public injunctive relief is limited to forward-looking
injunctions that seek to prevent future violations of law for the
benefit of the general public as a whole. The panel concluded that,
under this standard, plaintiff's complaint did not seek public
injunctive relief because it sought only to benefit Comcast cable
subscribers with respect to their personal information, not the
public as a whole. The panel also found that administering the
injunctive relief plaintiff sought would entail the consideration
of the individualized claims of numerous cable subscribers.
Accordingly, the panel held that the arbitration agreement at issue
should have been enforced.

Kim v. Allison, No. 2:18-cv-3093-JFW-AS, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24495
(9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2021)

More probing inquiry required for approval of class action
settlement where the attorneys' fees dwarf anticipated monetary
payout to the class.

Plaintiff brought a putative class action under California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on the
allegation that Tinder offered reduced pricing to subscribers under
30 years old. After the case was compelled to arbitration, the
parties reached a settlement that applied to the putative class.
Several class members objected, arguing the settlement terms
offered too little in cash payouts, credits that premium Tinder
subscribers did not need, and subscriptions that former subscribers
did not want. Objectors also pointed to recent victories in related
cases where the court determined the plaintiff had stated a claim
for age discrimination under the Unruh Act. The district court
rejected the objections and certified a settlement class, awarding
plaintiff a $5,000 incentive payment and $1.2 million in attorneys'
fees to plaintiff's counsel.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that although the district
court applied the correct fairness factors under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2), it understated the strength of plaintiff's claims and
substantially overstated the settlement's worth given that (a)
Tinder's agreement to eliminate age-based pricing going forward
only applied to new California-based subscribers (which did not
include the class members), (b) the claims rate at the time of
final approval was 0.745% (which meant Tinder stood to pay less
than $45,000 to the class members, not the $6 million claimed by
plaintiffs), and (c) most importantly, the district court failed to
consider evidence of collusion in the form of a request for
attorneys' fees that dwarfed the anticipated payout to the class.

Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., No. 19-56224, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 23661
(9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021)

Defendant did not waive objection under Bristol-Myers to nationwide
certification by failing to move to dismiss claims of non-resident
class members.

The court considered whether defendant waived an objection under
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to the
district court's certification of nationwide classes because
defendant had not moved to dismiss the non-resident putative class
members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. In
Bristol-Myers, the United States Supreme Court held that the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibited a California
state court from exercising specific personal jurisdiction over
nonresident plaintiffs' claims in a mass action against a
non-resident company. The Supreme Court did not reach whether
Bristol-Myers would apply to a class action in federal court.

In Moser, the plaintiff, a California resident, sued defendant in
federal court, alleging nationwide class claims for TCPA
violations. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, with its
principal place of business in Florida. Defendant moved to dismiss
on various grounds, but not for lack of personal jurisdiction over
the non-California class members. Plaintiff later moved for
certification of two nationwide classes, and defendant then argued
lack of personal jurisdiction under Bristol-Myers. The district
court found that defendant had waived the argument by not moving to
dismiss.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court observed that, under Rule
12(h)(1)(A), a party "waives any defense" under Rule 12(b)(2) by
"omitting it from a motion in the circumstances described in Rule
12(g)(2)." Rule 12(g)(2) provides that "a party that makes a motion
under this rule must not make another motion under this rule
raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but
omitted from its earlier motion." In rejecting the district court's
waiver conclusion, the court reasoned that the personal
jurisdiction argument as to non-California class members was not
"available" within the meaning of Rule 12(g)(2) for purposes of a
motion to dismiss. Rather, with respect to personal jurisdiction,
only the named plaintiff's own claims were at issue, and unnamed
class members were not yet parties to the case.

Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746
(2021)

Addressing an issue of first impression, California Court of Appeal
holds that trial courts have inherent authority to ensure claims
under the Private Attorneys General Act will be manageable at
trial.

Plaintiff asserted various claims, including a representative claim
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), for himself
and 345 other current and former general managers of Staples stores
in California. Plaintiff alleged that Staples misclassified general
managers as exempt executives (who are not entitled to overtime pay
and off-duty meal and rest periods), when they should have been
classified as nonexempt, hourly employees.

Throughout the course of the proceedings, Staples argued that,
given the number of employees covered and the nature of plaintiff's
allegations, the action would be unmanageable and would violate its
due process rights. Specifically, Staples contended its affirmative
defense -- i.e., that it properly classified general managers as
exempt and, thus, committed no Labor Code violations -- would
require individualized proof as to each general manager, and the
claim could not be fairly and efficiently litigated. In response,
plaintiff argued, among other things, that the trial court lacked
authority to make a manageability determination on a PAGA claim.
The trial court ultimately found the claim unmanageable and struck
it.

On appeal, the court concluded that: "(1) [trial] courts have
inherent authority to ensure PAGA claims can be fairly and
efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike claims that cannot
be rendered manageable; [and] (2) as a matter of due process,
defendants are entitled to a fair opportunity to litigate available
affirmative defenses, and a court's manageability assessment should
account for them."

David G. Thomas, Ashley A. LeBlanc, Gregory A. Nylen, Aaron Van
Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin,
and Brian D. Straw also contributed to this content. [GN]

[*] Judge Defends Common Fund Orders in Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Financial Review reports that a Federal Court judge
has provided a staunch defence of common fund orders (CFOs) in
class actions as the government pushes ahead with reforms that
would stop litigation funders taking a commission from anyone who
was eligible to join a claim.

Justice Jonathan Beach said a class action involving alleged
overcharging of electricity consumers in Queensland was an argument
against "book-building", the process by which funders sign up
claimants one by one.

The Coalition government wants to abolish CFOs, which have allowed
funders to frame a claim based on all potential members of a class
to stop people having a "free ride" to a payout once it is
settled.

It believes mandating book-building will "ensure that actions
involving litigation funders are commenced with the genuine support
of plaintiffs".

However, the CFO provision has become the principal stumbling block
to the legislation -- the Corporations Amendment (Improving
Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 --
proceeding through the senate, with some crossbenchers picking up
on concerns that it could make some claims unviable.

The government also wants to ensure class action members receive at
least 70 per cent of any payout.

The High Court has declared CFOs cannot be granted at the start of
the case, but doubt remains over whether a CFO can be part of a
final settlement.

'Closed class'
Justice Beach suggested the class action against Stanwell
Corporation and CS Energy, which is being funded by LCM with
Stillwater Pastoral Company as lead plaintiff, should not proceed
as a "closed class" involving about 50,000 parties, which would
prevent others later joining the claim.

The judge made the comments on Nov. 17 as he rejected a bid by
Stanwell to have the claim struck out on the basis that it was an
unregistered managed investment and in contravention of laws passed
in 2020. He found the claim was on foot before the changes.

"Let me say now that it should not be assumed that I will allow the
proceeding to proceed to trial as a closed class," Justice Beach
said.

"It is not a plain-vanilla commercial class action where investors
seek to recover the value of their investments. Rather, it is one
where the breadth of the alleged gaming strategies of these
electricity generators has adversely affected all Queensland
electricity consumers.

"The proceeding is a paradigm case of one that should be open. "

Justice Beach said he doubted that "all consumers were notified of
or given the opportunity to sign up" and that the case "dispels the
myth of the so-called advantages of book building in a case of this
type".

'Unnecessary, costly and inefficient'
"The book-building here has resulted in an unnecessary, costly and
inefficient delay of seven months in order that over 50,000 retail
customers be separately signed up to individual funding
agreements.

"There is little justification for such a barrier to entry, so to
speak, or justice.

"Fourth, to allow the proceeding to remain closed will incentivise
others to launch parasitic actions to cover the balance of the
universe of electricity consumers."

He said that could be "all but inevitable if I later deliver a
judgment in favour of the present closed class, unless I open the
class after judgment".

"And if then, why not now? Indeed, why should the residual universe
of consumers have the benefit of the asymmetry at that stage? They
should be subject now to the potential risks and benefits, subject
to any right to opt out." [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain
Carrier products or business premises, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporates it into any currently-manufactured products, certain
products that the Company no longer manufactures contained
components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have
been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any
period.

The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on
currently available information and assumptions that the Company
believes are reasonable and are made with input from outside
actuarial experts. Where no amount within a range of estimates is
more likely, the minimum is accrued. These amounts are undiscounted
and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims,
which are expensed as incurred. In addition, the Company has
recorded an insurance recovery receivable for probable
asbestos-related recoveries.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Zg8Ke0



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Increases A&E Reserves by $33M
----------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Limited, during the three months ended September 30, 2021,
has increased its environmental net loss reserves for Brandywine
managed operations by $33 million, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3CIQWWN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 168 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused
mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a
variety of different industries, including suppliers of asbestos
and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's products,
were designed to contain asbestos. As of September 30, 2021, there
were 168 individual cases pending against the Company in state and
federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 151
cases as of June 30, 2021 and 137 cases as of December 31, 2020.
During the three months ended September 30, 2021, 26 new cases were
filed and nine cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal,
settlement or dismissal by court. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2021, 53 new cases were filed and 22 cases were
resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the
court. The values of the settlements in the quarter and
year-to-date period presented were not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of
operations in either such period.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/30VvOiG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.4MM in Est. Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $5,400,000 and $9,700,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 37 years from September 30, 2021, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $7,205,000. The Company has reflected the liability
gross of insurance recoveries of $8,142,000 as a liability in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2021. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement. The reimbursement net of retro-premiums is
approximately 47% which resulted in a $1,830,000 increase to the
Company's asbestos liability during the second quarter of fiscal
2021.

In addition, the insurance carriers were required to reimburse the
Company for past defense costs through the date of the settlement
amounting to $3,006,000 which was paid during the second quarter of
fiscal 2021. The reimbursement for past cost was recorded net of a
contingent legal fee of $1,500,000 which was paid in the third
quarter of fiscal 2021. Further, the insurance carriers are
expected to cover 100% of indemnity costs related to all covered
cases. Estimates of the future cost sharing have been included in
the loss reserve calculation as of September 30, 2021 and March 31,
2021. The Company has recorded a receivable for the estimated
future cost sharing in Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet at September 30, 2021 in the amount of $8,142,000,
which offsets its asbestos reserves.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xfKpS8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Accrues $1.8MM for Estimated ARO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corp has recorded accruals for estimated asset
retirement (ARO) and environmental remediation obligations,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The obligations relate primarily to the
removal of asbestos during development of properties as well as the
estimated equipment removal costs upon termination of a certain
lease where we are the lessee. At September 30, 2021, and December
31, 2020, the amount included in unearned revenue, prepaid rent and
other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets was
approximately $1.9 million and $1.8 million, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3DR5YuX

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $38MM Reserves as of Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is a defendant in certain cases alleging
injuries from asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "At September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020,
the amount of the reserve for these asbestos claims was estimated
to be $38 million and $96 million, respectively, and represented
the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees for
the estimated life of the litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3HSWscS

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in, or accompanying, products made by the Company,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Graham Corp. states, "The Company is a co-defendant with numerous
other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these claims.  The claims in the Company's current
lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos-related
suits that named the Company as a defendant, which either were
dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs’ places of work or were settled for
immaterial amounts.  The Company cannot provide any assurances that
any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner
as previous lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3p1GvJ7

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. continues to receive
A&E claims.  Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries
asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products
containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to
pollution and related clean-up costs, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In
addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and
environmental exposures under general liability policies and
pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported
in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.

Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of
insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company
wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an
insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and
umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses
that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company
acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by
other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance
coverages.

Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly
asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve
estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for
other more traditional exposures.

In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent
emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers,
including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the
rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of
particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of
future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and
insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including
"pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss
payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted
new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of
liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies
of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the
Company's ability to recover reinsurance for A&E claims. Management
believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near
future.

A full-text copy of the Form 1Q-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3CJEfe5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intl Paper Has $112MM in Asbestos-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company, as of September 30, 2021, has a total
recorded liability with respect to pending and future
asbestos-related claims of $112 million, net of estimated insurance
recoveries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and
federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company. While it is
reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of
its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we
do not believe additional material losses are probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3FIL7dH

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 2,768 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of September 30, 2021, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 2,768 plaintiffs, which is a net increase
of 17 claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995,
the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that
have been resolved as follows: 55,550 of those claims were
dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,008 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3nJKkD4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Defends 4,145 Active Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's affiliate, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC"), was named as a defendant in 1,672
lawsuits comprised of 4,145 claims as of September 30, 2021,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory
protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by MSA LLC or
its predecessors. The product models alleged were manufactured many
years ago by MSA LLC and are no longer sold.

"The increases in the number of claims in 2020 and in 2021 are
largely driven by an increase in claims alleging injuries from
exposure to coal mine dust, including claims brought by plaintiffs'
counsel with which MSA LLC does not have substantial prior
experience. The claims allege use of product models that were
manufactured many years ago by MSA LLC and are no longer sold.

"More than half of the total open lawsuits at September 30, 2021,
have had a de minimis level of activity over the last 5 years. It
is possible that these cases could become active again at any time
due to changes in circumstances."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3p3XQ4a


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Paid $53.4MM in Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., since inception in September 2001
through September 30, 2021, has reportedly paid an amount of
approximately $53.4 million for settled claims and awards of
asbestos-related damages, including interest, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.  At September 30, 2021, approximately
1,585 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for
any related liabilities.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims.  As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average future
settlement values. Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study and all other available information considered by
us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement
payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely
than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability
we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an updated actuarial
study was performed as of August 31, 2021.  The results of the
August 31, 2021 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from $60.9 million to $100.2 million
for the period through 2065.  The change from the updated prior
year study, which was performed in December of 2020, was a $2.1
million decrease for the low end of the range and a $1.1 million
increase for the high end of the range.  The change in the
estimated undiscounted liability from the updated prior year study
at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual
experience, our historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.  Based upon the
results of the August 31, 2021 actuarial study, in September 2021,
we increased our asbestos liability to $60.9 million, the low end
of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $5.3
million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations. Future legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the August 2021 study, to
range from $49.4 million to $99.3 million for the period through
2065.  Total operating cash outflows related to discontinued
operations, which include settlements, awards of asbestos-related
damages and legal costs, net of taxes, were $7.3 million and $4.7
million for the nine months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020,
respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3l5ya5Z

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Has 4,709 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trimas Corporation, as of September 30, 2021, was a party to 370
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,709 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending
cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,709 claims pending at
September 30, 2021, 24 set forth specific amounts of damages (other
than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At September
30, 2021, of the 24 claims that set forth specific amounts, there
was one claim seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages.

Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even
fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 25 years ago, have been approximately $10.3
million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in
nature. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of
claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification,
the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does
not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.

There has been significant volatility in the historical number of
claim filings and costs to defend, with previous claim counts and
spend levels much higher than current levels. Management believes
this volatility was associated more with tort reform, plaintiff
practices and state-specific legal dockets than the Company’s
underlying asbestos-related exposures. From 2017 to 2019, however,
the number of new claim filings, and costs to defend, had become
much more consistent, ranging between 143 to 173 new claims per
year and total defense costs ranging between $2.2 million and $2.3
million.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/30VTEL5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 925 Cases as of Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of September 30, 2021, was a
defendant in approximately 925 active cases involving approximately
2,515 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 61 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction
which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At
December 31, 2020, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 855
cases involving approximately 2,445 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S.
Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual
number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S.
Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs.

"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.

"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. In 2020 and 2019, the Company
engaged an outside valuation consultant to assist in assessing its
ability to estimate an accrual for unasserted claims. This
assessment was based on the Company's settlement experience,
including recent claims trends. The analysis focused on settlements
made over the last several years as these claims are likely to best
represent future claim characteristics. After review by the
valuation consultant and U. S. Steel management, it was determined
that the Company could not estimate an accrual for unasserted
claims.

"Despite these uncertainties, management believes that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect
on U. S. Steel's financial condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3CVxZQQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., from time to time, has also been named, along
with numerous other nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in
litigation in various states involving asbestos and/or silica,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits typically assert claims of
personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or
silica as a consequence of products manufactured by third parties
purportedly distributed by the Company. While several lawsuits have
been dismissed in the past based on the lack of product
identification, if a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any pending or future lawsuits, the Company will seek
to exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer to the extent available. In addition, the Company
believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by
insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major
insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and the costs of
defense, of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. The
Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in these
lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3COxsQu


                            *********

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 ***