/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211203.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 3, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 236

                            Headlines

11 LILAC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Rose Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
A2 MILK: Faces Second Class Action in Supreme Court of Victoria
AFTERSHOKZ LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALABAMA: Summary Judgment Order in Bronner v. PEEHIP Suit Reversed

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid COVID Payout
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Burgess Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Shuttered Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit
AMERICAN HONDA: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ANNOVIS BIO: AD/PD Trial Related Securities Class Suits Dismissed

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL: Gaines Has 30 Days to Amend Complaint
BABOR COSMETICS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAY OF PLENTY: Shine Lawyers Investigates Edgecumbe Flood Suit
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Coppertone Water Babies Sunscreen
BEACH ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct

BELL CANADA: Sued for Carrying Out Itinerant Merchant Acitivities
BMW FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification Due April 25, 2022
BOEING CO: Court Stays Earl RICO Suit Pending Interlocutory Appeal
BOOKSPAN LLC: Says Class Action Should Be Arbitrated, Dismissed
BRIDGEBIO PHARMA: SMART Local Unions File Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.

BYERS ENTERPRISES: Depavloff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CANADA: Apology Awaited for Survivors, Victims of Sexual Misconduct
CANADA: Wants Supreme Court to Toss RCMP Class Action
CG CONSULTING: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery in Ousley
CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS: Ex-Female Employees File FLSA Class Action

CRACKER BARREL: Gillespie Seeks Clarification of Court's Ruling
CRODA INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Cancer Risk
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Topaz Meltzer Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
DESKTOP METAL: Campanella Slams Shareholder Vote Sans Complaint
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: M.J., et al. Seek Extension to File Reply

DIXON ADVISORY: Lawsuit's Attempt to Freeze $7.2MM Penalty Blocked
DOMINION VOTING: Lawyers Ordered to Pay $180K in Attorneys' Fees
EARGO INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of December 6 Deadline
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Wilson Class Suit
FIX MY FITNESS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

FOODSTATE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FORWARD AIR CORP: Garcia Sues Over Data Breach
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Settles Suit Over Jail Pictures for $2.5MM
GASBI LLC: Car Dealer Groups Lose Dismissal Appeal in DCSA Suit
GATE GOURMET: N.D. California Grants Rahman's Bid to Lift Stay

GEBRUEDER KNAUF: A&B Real Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Aguirre-Matat Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Baco Annetta Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Binns Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Shona Blonsky Files Suit in S.D. Florida

GENERAL MOTORS: Casey's 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
GERBER PRODUCTS: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit Denied
GF INC: Guzman Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 15, 2022
GILL INDUSTRIES: Lori Walters Seeks to Certify Class Action
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 17 Deadline

GINKGO BIOWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 18 Deadline
GROCERY DELIVERY: McDonald Challenges TCPA Case Settlement OK
GRUBHUB INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
GSK CONSUMER: New York Court Issues Final Judgment in Swetz Suit
HENDERSON, NV: Loses Bid to Dismiss Woodburn Class Suit

HYP3R INC: Judge Certifies Instagram Users' Privacy Suit in Canada
ISM VUZEM: Court Narrows Claims in Maslic's 1st Amended Complaint
JAGUAR LAND: New Jersey Court Tosses Flynn-Murphy's Amended Suit
JELD-WEN INC: Court Approves $40MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit
JENKINS JOHNSON: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JPMORGAN CHASE: Salveson Seeks High Court Review in Antitrust Suit
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Junk SOPRA Study Suit Pending
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Burnell Deal Appealed
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Rudsell Deal Under Appeal
KOHL'S CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Hennessey Suit

LANCE CAMPER: Bid to Strike Drew's Class Claims Granted in Part
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Zilinsky Class Status Bid Due May 23, 2022
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Dismissal of Veal Class Action Affirmed
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Erceg Suit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Trial in Bradford Suit Set for September 2022

LHOIST NORTH AMERICA: Rogers Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
LIVE OAK BANCSHARES: Initial OK of McAlear Settlement Pending
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Fluharty Purported Class Suit in Arkansas
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Mason Putative Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Savidis Purported Class Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Ongoing in Canada
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Visnack Purported Class Suit Underway
M2 MANAGEMENT: Laborers Slam Misclassification, Claim Overtime
MAGIC MONEY: Class Action Suit Seeks Astroworld Festival Refunds
MATCH GROUP: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Securities Suit

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid for Review in Harris FLSA Suit
META PLATFORMS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
META PLATFORMS: Limits Facial Recognition Use Following BIPA Suit
META PLATFORMS: Perez Hits Share Drop, Questions Corporate Ethics
MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Lead-Contaminated Water Pipes

MIDLAND CREDIT: Seeks to Decertify Class in Schultz Suit
MIKE WALKER LUMBER: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MISTRAS GROUP: $2.3 Million Settlement Reached in Price Suit
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Drop Appeal
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Player Denied Concussion Settlement Payout

NATROL LLC: Faces Class Action Over Cognimum Memory Supplement
NEO TECHNOLOGY: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
NEWELL BRANDS: Must Face Class Action Over Mislabeled Nuk Pacifiers
NFP RETIREMENT: Lauderdale Seeks Certification of Class Action
NORTH CAROLINA: Crittington Suit May Proceed W/o Prepaying Fees

NOVAVAX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 11 Deadline
NSW HEALTH: Faces Two Court Suits Over Junior Doctor Conditions
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Investigates Firm for Possible Lawsuit
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Bid to Certify Class Nixed
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: 6th Cir. Asked to Revive Sex Abuse Suit

OWLET INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of January 18 Deadline
OWLET INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Asks High Court to Settle Split on Jurisdiction
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Cypress Asks 5th Cir. to Transfer "Newman"
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 24 Deadline

PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Schall Law Reminds of January 24 Deadline
PRAIRIE FARMS: Court Dismisses Tropp Class Suit With Prejudice
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Delcid Sues Over Harmful, Unsafe Deodorants
QSUPER LTD: Overcharges Mandatory Insurance Premiums, Suit Says
RALPH MILLER: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in NEB Suit

RESTIGOUCHE HOSPITAL: Decision on Class Certification Challenged
RITE AID: Martelli Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SALLY BEAUTY: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SBK DELIVERY: Miller Suit Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
SEER INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit

SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action Suit
SONY INTERACTIVE: Majo Slams Gender Discrimination in Workplace
SOUTHERN FARM: 8th Circuit Revives Breach of Contract Class Action
SOVEREIGN LENDING: Mannacio Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Accounting Review Suit Pending

STATE FARM: Opposition to Class Certification Due December 9
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Seeks Dec. 3 Extension to Oppose Class Cert.
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Must Face Ranbaxy Antitrust Class Action
TANDEM DIABETES: Continues to Defend Deluna Consolidated Class Suit
TANDEM DIABETES: Settlement in Walsh Suit Gets Preliminary Approval

TD AMERITRADE: Seeks 30-Day Extension to File Class Cert. Brief
TENET FINTECH: Schall Law Reminds of January 18 Deadline
THAILAND: Performance Artists File Class Suit Over COVID-19 Losses
TRAVEL STAFF: Arbitration Ruling in Schwendeman Suit Affirmed
TRI HARBOR: Bonine Appeals Disallowance of Class Claim

UNITED STATES: Court of Federal Claims OK's Class Notice in Smith
W.G. YATES & SONS: Cadena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WELSPUN PIPES: Vines Appeals Atty. Fee Ruling to 8th Cir.
WEST ADA: Idaho Sup. Ct. Partly Flips Dismissal of Gifford's Claims
WEST ADA: Suit Over Kindergarten Fees Remanded to District Court

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: Averts Data Breach Class Action Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Class Cert. Order Lifted in Data Breach Lawsuit
WESTCOURT PLACE: Judge Reserves Decision on Fire Class Action
WISCONSIN: Two Subclasses of Prisoners Certified in Heredia Suit
WV UNIVERSITY: Court Can't Enforce Class Cert. Order in Welch Suit

[*] Australia's Class Action Reform Bill Passes House of Reps
[*] New U.S. Bill May Prohibit Class, Collective Action Waivers
[*] Uptick in Class Action Activity Seen in Alberta Over a Decade

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Completes Internal Review of A&E Exposures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 1,100 Pending Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reports $1.1MM Asbestos-Related Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues Est. Potential Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Still Involved in Various Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Pending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Faces Asbestos-Related Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Unable to Estimate CARO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Faces Indemnification Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH's Subsidiaries Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $11.55MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $167.7MM Net Loss Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan's Affiliates Faces PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $125MM Litigation Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corporation Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Transfers Asbestos-Related Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Intl. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Has $10.2MM Product Liability Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Technologies Defends 223 Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife's Subsidiary Receives 2,156 New Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 2,156 New PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 568 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Re-evaluates A&E Claim Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Defends Various PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Intl. Still Faces Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $7.4MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Products Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Has Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corporation Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Corp. Has $540.4MM Liabilities at Oct. 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Recorded 500 Cases in U.S.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi's Subsidiary Involved in Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vector Group's Subsidiary Defends 16 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Records $68.1MM Liabilities


                            *********

11 LILAC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 11 Lilac LLC. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. 11 Lilac LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-06606 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2021).

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

11 LILAC LLC is a Florida Limited Liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


3M COMPANY: Rose Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Rose, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03742-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


A2 MILK: Faces Second Class Action in Supreme Court of Victoria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the a2 Milk Company is facing a second class ation claim after
Shine Lawyers filed a legal action against the baby formula and
fresh milk maker in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

In early October a2 Milk was slapped with a first class action
proceedings filed in the same court by Slater & Gordon Lawyers.

The Australian Financial Review revealed a few weeks later that
Shine Lawyers was investigating a second claim against the
company.

Shine's legal action was brought on behalf of investors who bought
shares in the dual-listed Kiwi company between August 19, 2020, and
May 7, 2021 - a period during which the infant-formula maker posted
four earnings downgrades and a major write-down of inventory, and
the shares plunged 62 per cent.

The allegations are broadly similar to those advanced by the class
action proceedings filed by Slater and Gordon on behalf of
investors who bought shares over that nine-month period.

Shine class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp previously said
a2 Milk reported earnings 20 per cent lower than expected in fiscal
2021, resulting in the major drop in share price and might have
breached the Corporations Act by engaging in misleading and
deceptive conduct.

A2 Milk said in has done no such thing in a statement: "The company
considers that it has at all times complied with its disclosure
obligations, denies any liability and will vigorously defend the
proceedings."

Chief executive David Bortolussi in late October during an investor
day outlined his new plan to overhaul its China strategy, which
meant operating margins will be sacrificed for revenue growth.

At the company's recent annual meeting chairman David Hearn
responded to shareholders' concerns that company should have kept
the market better informed during fiscal 2021, by saying there was
huge volatility and uncertainty, the various updates were based on
"the best information we had at the time."

Many shareholders asked about the share price slide and the board's
performance over the past year and its ability to allocate
capital.

Mr Hearn looked to reassure shareholders the future is still
"enormously bright", and it is "not impossible to see this business
doubling" in the medium term. [GN]

AFTERSHOKZ LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AfterShokz, LLC. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. AfterShokz, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-06603 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2021).

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

AfterShokz -- https://us.aftershokz.com/ -- is pushing the limits
of traditional audio by making bone conduction technology
accessible to everyone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


ALABAMA: Summary Judgment Order in Bronner v. PEEHIP Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David G. Bronner, as secretary-treasurer of the Public
Education Employees' Health Insurance Plan, et al. v. Chris Barlow,
et al., Case No. 1200570 (Ala.), Judge William Burwell Sellers of
the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the summary judgment entered
in favor of the Plaintiffs and the members of a purported class.

Introduction

David G. Bronner, as secretary-treasurer of the Public Education
Employees' Health Insurance Plan ("PEEHIP"), and individual members
of the Board of Control of PEEHIP ("the PEEHIP Board"), the
remaining Defendants in the action, appeal from a summary judgment
entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class, who are all active public-education employees and PEEHIP
participants married to other active public-education employees and
PEEHIP participants and who have dependent children.

Facts and Procedural History

It is the third time this dispute involving benefits under PEEHIP
has been before the Court. PEEHIP, which is managed by the PEEHIP
Board, provides group health-insurance benefits to public-education
employees in Alabama. Each year, the PEEHIP Board submits 'to the
Governor and to the Legislature the amount or amounts necessary to
fund coverage for benefits authorized by this article [i.e., Ala.
Code 1975, Title 16, Chapter 25A, Article 1] for the following
fiscal year for employees and for retired employees as a monthly
premium per active member per month. That monthly premium is paid
by employers for each of their active members ('the employer
contribution').

In addition, each employee and retired employee is entitled to have
his or her spouse and dependent children, as defined by the rules
and regulations of the PEEHIP board, included in the coverage
provided upon agreeing to pay the employee's contribution of the
health insurance premium for such dependents. Section 16-25A-1(8),
Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part, that 'individual
premiums may include adjustments and surcharges for family size
including, but not limited to, a husband and wife both being
covered by a health insurance plan as defined herein.' The employer
contribution, as well as 'all premiums paid by employees and
retired employees under the provisions of this section and any
other premiums paid under the provisions of this article,' are
deposited into the Public Education Employees' Health Insurance
Fund.

Before Oct. 1, 2010, all public-education employees participating
in PEEHIP earned a monthly "allocation" or benefit, which could be
used to obtain certain coverage alternatives under PEEHIP. The
Plaintiffs describe that benefit as the difference between the
"State's cost of insurance" and the premiums public-education
employees are charged for the insurance. Under a program referred
to as "the combining allocation program," a public-education
employee married to another public-education employee could
"combine" their monthly benefits and receive "family coverage,"
which would also cover their dependent children, without paying any
additional monthly premium.

On May 6, 2010, the PEEHIP Board voted to eliminate "the combining
allocation program" and to phase in a new premium rate structure
("the 2010 policy"), which requires a public-education employee
married to another public-education employee to gradually begin
paying the same monthly premiums for family hospital-medical
coverage that other PEEHIP participants were required to pay. When
the 2010 policy was implemented, all public-education employees
participating in PEEHIP were required to pay a $15 premium for
individual coverage and a $117 premium for family coverage.

In May 2014, the original named Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, commenced in
the Montgomery Circuit Court a purported class action against the
Defendants, among others, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In
their complaint, the original named Plaintiffs sought a judgment
declaring that the 2010 policy was unconstitutional under the Due
Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution because, they claimed,
the 2010 policy denied them and the members of the purported class
a benefit for the payment of insurance accorded every other PEEHIP
participant. The original named Plaintiffs sought an order
enjoining the Defendants from denying them and the members of the
purported class the use of that benefit, which, they claimed, would
permit them and the members of the purported class to obtain family
coverage at no cost. The Defendants thereafter moved for a summary
judgment, which the trial court denied.

In Bronner v. Burks, 270 So.3d 262 (Ala. 2017), the Supreme Court
granted the Defendants' Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., petition to appeal
the trial court's denial of their motion for a summary judgment.
Although it ultimately dismissed the appeal on the basis that
permission to appeal had been improvidently granted, it nonetheless
described the disparity alleged by the original named plaintiffs
regarding the denial of a benefit.

Following the issuance of our opinion in Bronner, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion for a summary judgment; the Defendants filed a
renewed motion for a summary judgment. Following a hearing, the
trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs
and the purported class members on their Section 1983 claims. The
trial court specifically declared that the 2010 policy
discriminated against active public-education employees married to
another active public-education employee, thus denying them equal
protection under the law. It thus ordered the Defendants to "cease
and desist their discriminatory conduct" to the extent that such
conduct denies the Plaintiffs and the purported class members a
benefit made available to other active public-education employees
participating in PEEHIP. The appeal followed

Discussion

In support of their motion for a summary judgment, the Defendants
submitted the affidavit of Diane Scott, the chief financial officer
of PEEHIP and of the Retirement Systems of Alabama ("the RSA").
Scott explained that the Defendants have the statutory authority
and discretion to change the terms of PEEHIP benefits, including
premium rates, from year to year. She stated that, because of
rising health-care costs and a $255 million funding shortfall in
2010, the Defendants made the decision to eliminate the combining
allocation program and to phase in a new premium rate structure
that required active public-education employees married to another
active public-education employee to gradually begin paying the same
premiums for family coverage that other PEEHIP participants were
required to pay.

The Defendants further supported their rationale by pointing out
that the June 2010 edition (Vol. VI - No. 3) of The Advisor, a
newsletter published by the RSA, informed PEEHIP participants that
the decision to eliminate the combining allocation program was made
"to address a real funding crisis and to ensure the sustainability
of the plan in the fairest way possible considering the overall
group of 290,000 covered lives."

Judge Sellers opines that the public-education Plaintiffs offered
no evidence to rebut the Defendants' reasons for implementing the
2010 policy. They do not contest the Defendants' statutory right to
regulate PEEHIP, nor do they dispute that the Defendants have the
discretion to change PEEHIP's terms and benefits from year to year.
More importantly, the public-education Plaintiffs do not dispute
that the Defendants must provide for the financial stability of
PEEHIP.

The evidence presented by the Defendants supports the conclusion
that the 2010 policy furthers one or more legitimate purposes and
that the classifications in the 2010 policy are rationally related
to those purposes. There is nothing before the Court to indicate
that the Defendants intended to single out the public-education
Plaintiffs for disparate treatment under the 2010 policy.

Accordingly, Judge Sellers conclude that the 2010 policy is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory and that it does not violate either
the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Conclusion

Judge Sellers reversed the summary judgment entered in favor of the
public-education Plaintiffs on their 1983 claims and ordering
injunctive relief. He remanded the cause for proceedings consistent
with his Opinion.

Bolin and Wise, JJ., concur. Parker, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur
in the result.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yck3t5m2 from Leagle.com.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid COVID Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Spezzamonte, writing for Law360, reports that grocery store
chain Albertsons failed to factor the appreciation pay it offered
to its workers during the coronavirus pandemic into their overtime
pay, resulting in an underpayment of wages, a worker said Nov. 22
in a proposed collective action. [GN]

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Burgess Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Alltran Financial, LP, et al.
The case is styled as Owen Burgess, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, CACV of
Colorado, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06626-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29,
2021).

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

Alltran Financial -- http://www.alltran.com/-- formerly United
Recovery Systems, is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Shuttered Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Honda
shattered sunroof lawsuit alleges Acura and Honda customers become
distracted from the shock and sound of exploding glass which falls
on and cuts occupants.

The Honda sunroof class action lawsuit includes all 2015-2021 Honda
and Acura vehicles equipped with sunroofs or moonroofs manufactured
with tempered glass.

The Acura and Honda shattered sunroof lawsuit was filed by three
customers.

Missouri plaintiff Mary Tappana owns a 2021 Honda Pilot and paid
$579.05 to replace the shattered sunroof.

Washington plaintiff Darryl Roberts owns a 2017 Honda Accord and
paid $579 for a replacement sunroof.

Florida plaintiff Dustin Fulcomer owns a 2019 Acura TLX and paid
$1,600 to replace the shattered sunroof.

Honda allegedly uses thin tempered glass for the sunroofs which are
contaminated with nickel sulphide that makes the glass vulnerable
to shattering.

"Nickel sulphide crystals can change shape or size over time due to
factors like changes in temperature. The unstable nickel sulphide
deposit embedded within the glass stresses the panel and can
eventually cause an explosion." — Honda sunroof lawsuit

Acura and Honda allegedly use the thin glass to decrease the weight
of the vehicle to help improve fuel economy. But the sunroof class
action lawsuit alleges thin glass is difficult to properly temper
which increases the likelihood of the glass panels cracking and
breaking.

The Acura and Honda sunroofs allegedly cannot withstand the typical
structural forces of the vehicles, something Honda allegedly knew
would cost owners their own money for sunroof repairs or
replacements.

Acura and Honda owners are allegedly told the sunroofs shatter
because of rocks or gravel striking the glass from the outside.

The Honda shattered sunroof class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:
Tappana, et al., vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Girard Sharp LLP, Sauder
Schelkopf LLC, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, and
Gordon & Partners. [GN]

AMERICAN HONDA: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06604 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2021).

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

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ --
develops and manufactures automobiles. The Company offers passenger
cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn
and garden equipment, parts, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


ANNOVIS BIO: AD/PD Trial Related Securities Class Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annovis Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that during the three
months ended September 30, 2021, two securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and its executive
officers following disclosure of interim results from the
Alzheimer's disease ("AD"), Parkinson's disease ("PD") AD/PD Trial.


Both complaints were subsequently voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by the plaintiffs.

Annovis Bio, Inc. is a clinical stage, drug platform company
addressing neurodegeneration such as Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease and Down Syndrome patients with AD ("DS-AD").
The company is based in Berwyn, Pennsylvania.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL: Gaines Has 30 Days to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days in the lawsuit styled ERNEST EDWARD GAINES, Plaintiff v.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL; FERRER, POIROT & WANSBROUGH; HOWARD L.
NATIONS, THE NATIONS LAW FIRM, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-5323
(LTS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in Texas, proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis in the action. The Plaintiff received a settlement
in 2012, as a member of a class action in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County, against Astrazeneca
Pharmaceutical for harms allegedly caused by the drug Seroquel.

The Plaintiff now believes that his settlement was too low because
(1) he has learned that the average settlement in litigation about
the drug Seroquel was generally $14,000 higher than the amount he
received; and (2) after the settlement concluded, in 2014, he
developed further medical issues that he also attributes to his use
of Seroquel for six months (from approximately Dec. 21, 2005, to
June 12, 2006).

Mr. Gaines brought the complaint in June 2021, naming as Defendants
Astrazeneca Pharmaceutical and two law firms whose attorneys
represented him in the state court class action. He attached to the
complaint a retainer agreement for the class action stating that
Texas law would apply to any claim arising out of the agreement.

By order dated July 26, 2021, the Court notified the Plaintiff that
he had not satisfied his burden of showing that the federal court
had subject matter jurisdiction of this matter because (1) he did
not bring a claim arising under federal law, and (2) the
allegations of his complaint suggested that both he and one (or
both) of the Law Firm Defendants are citizens of the same state
(Texas) and the Court, thus, did not have diversity jurisdiction of
the matter.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to show cause why the action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond, which the
Court granted, and the Plaintiff eventually filed a declaration but
failed to comply with the Court's order to indicate whether he
wished to drop from his complaint any non-diverse defendant.

The Court then granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint that would, among other things, satisfy his burden of
demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of
this action. The Court explained that to invoke diversity
jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must plead facts about the citizenship
of each Defendant and can only include Defendants, who are not
citizens of the same state where he is a citizen. The Plaintiff now
asks the Court to grant him an additional 90 days in which to file
an amended complaint.

At this stage, the primary issue is whether the federal court has
jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claims, or whether he must
bring them in state court. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to
delay resolution until February 2022 as requested because if, as it
appears, there is no subject matter jurisdiction, then the
Plaintiff may wish to bring his claims in a court of general
jurisdiction, Chief District Judge Laura Taylor Swain notes.

Moreover, Judge Swain says, whether in the Court or another, the
Plaintiff may face questions about the timeliness of his claims,
because he seems to allege that his harms were caused by using
Seroquel in December 2005 and 2006, and that in 2014, he discovered
new injuries attributable to his earlier use of Seroquel. The
Court, therefore, denies the Plaintiff's request to extend until
Feb. 9, 2022, the time to file an amended complaint. Instead, the
Court grants the Plaintiff an additional 30 days from the date of
this order to respond.

If he chooses to file an amended complaint, the Plaintiff must
include facts showing that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction of this action, Judge Swain holds. To invoke the
Court's diversity jurisdiction, for each Defendant named in the
caption of the complaint, he must plead facts about the citizenship
of the Defendant. A corporation is a citizen of both the state
where it has its principal place of business and the state where it
is incorporated, but a limited liability company or limited
partnership takes the citizenship of each of its members.

If the Plaintiff's amended complaint names a defendant, who is a
citizen of the same state as him, this will defeat diversity of
citizenship and require dismissal of the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; such a dismissal is without prejudice to the
Plaintiff's pursuing his claims in an appropriate forum.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct the Clerk of Court to
provide him a copy of his original complaint. The Plaintiff has not
provided any basis for waiving the charges for copies, and the
Court declines to do so. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit
the Plaintiff's request for copies to the Records Management Unit
for a response.

Conclusion

The Plaintiff's request for an extension of time until February
2022 to amend his complaint and his motion for a copy of his
complaint are denied. The Court grants the Plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. An
amended complaint form is attached to this order. The Court directs
the Clerk of Court to transmit the Plaintiff's request for copies
to the Records Management Unit for a response.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the order to the
Plaintiff and note service on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfd5nrs from Leagle.com.


BABOR COSMETICS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Babor Cosmetics
America Corp. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Babor Cosmetics America Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-10110 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 29, 2021).

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

BABOR -- https://us.babor.com/ -- develops, produces and
distributes premium skincare products.[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



BAY OF PLENTY: Shine Lawyers Investigates Edgecumbe Flood Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane McCarthy, writing for Rotorua Daily Post, report that more
than four years after the Edgecumbe flood, civil litigation
specialist Shine Lawyers is investigating a class action lawsuit
against Bay of Plenty Regional Council on behalf of residents.

The lawsuit is not new, having been started in 2018 by Rangitaiki
Community Board member Graeme Bourk, but has languished due to the
death of one of the key lawyers leading it.

On April 6, 2017, an estimated 300 people suffered property damage
when the Rangitaiki River breached the stopbank. In 2018, almost
275 signed on to take part in the lawsuit.

However, Queen's Counsel David Heaney became ill and died in May
last year, and funding for the case disappeared.

Bourk said, after that, the remaining lawyers were coming to him
with other ideas, but it was going to cost people money.

"Our first deal was that it was going to cost nobody anything, and
if they won, they got a cut of the takings, which is the normal way
of doing things," he said.

He did not put a stop to the action, but just stepped back from it
until he was approached by Shine Lawyers, one of the biggest civil
litigation firms in Australasia, and which has offices in Auckland
and Christchurch.

The firm boasts world-famous civil class action lawyer Erin
Brockovich as its brand ambassador.

"They came out of the blue," Bourk said.

"I was quite surprised. All of a sudden, I got an email from them,
so I rang them. They knew the case."

The firm has told him it has confidence in the case and will take
responsibility for finding a funder for the suit so it will not
cost the members of the class action anything.

He expects about 100 people to take part in the lawsuit,
significantly fewer than in 2018.

"Some people have died, but a lot of people have moved away, too.
I've moved to Kawerau now, from Edgecumbe. So, there's not that 300
people any more.

"Because it has dragged on so long, people have got tired of it.
They just come to the stage where they give in. But it's definitely
going to go ahead."

The lawsuit hinges on whether the regional council knew the
stopbank could burst and failed to do anything about it. Bourk said
the flood could have been easily prevented.

"They were told about it for many years. Since the 2004 flood, they
were told about it, by several people literally every year. But
they were hoping it would just go away."

The potential class action would seek compensation on behalf of
residents for property damage; damaged, lost, or destroyed
contents; business interruption and general damages for distress
and inconvenience.

Anyone who suffered loss as a result of the flood can take part in
the suit. [GN]

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Coppertone Water Babies Sunscreen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Coppertone Water Babies (SPF 50) sunscreen is
defective in that it's contaminated with the chemical benzophenone,
a known mutagen, carcinogen and endocrine disruptor.

The 29-page lawsuit was filed in New York against Coppertone maker
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and parent Bayer AG, and alleges
the companies have misrepresented to consumers that the sunscreen
is "safe and gentle on a baby's skin" and offers "unbeatable
protection." The suit goes on to chide Bayer for allegedly
misrepresenting its "commit[ment] to quality, excellence,
innovation and truth in labeling" given the apparent presence of
the unsafe ingredient in Coppertone Water Babies sunscreen.

"Parents, like [the plaintiff], trust manufacturers like Defendant
to sell Product(s) that are safe and free from harmful toxins,
contaminants, and chemicals, but rather here, the Product contains
benzophenone which is known to have significant and dangerous
health consequences," the complaint reads.

According to the lawsuit, the presence of benzophenone in
Coppertone Water Babies sunscreen stems from the degradation (or
contamination) of the active ingredient octocrylene, a synthetic
chemical that protects the skin by absorbing ultraviolet (UV)
radiation and dissipating it as heat.

Benzophenone is associated with a wide range of toxicities, the
case says, including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and endocrine
disruption. Moreover, the suit relays that benzophenone is
notorious for inducing dermatological pathologies, including
contact dermatitis, erythema, urticaria and photoinduced
dermatitis.

Per the lawsuit, the presence of benzophenone in food products or
food packaging is banned in the United States, and the personal
care products industry has admitted that benzophenone is a
contaminant found in octocrylene that cannot be removed in its
entirety during processing, the suit says. Further, benzophenone,
given its ability to cause cancer, is included on the California
Proposition 65 list, the case adds.

According to the suit, a March 2021 study in which a number of
samples of Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena sunscreens were
tested found that benzophenone was detected in each product that
contained octocrylene, but not detected in products that did not
contain octocrylene.

Overall, Bayer's Coppertone Water Babies (SPF 50) sunscreen is an
adulterated drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act due
to the presence of benzophenone, the case alleges.

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who bought Coppertone
Water Babies (SPF 50) for personal use during the fullest period
allowed by law. [GN]

BEACH ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
miningweekly.com reports that Oil and gas producer Beach Energy is
facing a shareholder class action.

The company confirmed that it had been served with group
proceedings filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which name
Beach as the defendant.

The proceedings, filed by Slater & Gordon Lawyers, are said to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in
ordinary shares in Beach and/or American Depository Receipts
between August 17, 2020 and April 19, 2021.

The class action alleges the energy company engaged in misleading
or deceptive conduct and breached its continuous disclosure
obligations under the Corporations Act.

Law firm Slater & Gordon noted that on August 17 last year, Beach
advised the ASX that it had updated its five-year outlook which
included expected annual production of between 37- and 43-million
barrels of oil equivalent in the 2025 financial year, and
cumulative free cash flow of A$2.1-billion for 2021 to 2025.

The company also provided guidance for 2021 which included expected
production of between 26- and 28.5-million barrels, and underlying
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation
(Ebitda) of between A$900-million and A$1-billion.

On February 15 this year, it announced expected 2021 production of
between 26.5- and 27.5-million barrels of oil equivalent, and
underlying Ebitda of between A$900-million and A$950-million.
However, the company maintained its five-year outlook target.

But on April 30, the company completely withdrew its five-year
outlook and announced significant downgrades to its 2P oil and gas
reserves at the Western Flank. It also downgraded its 2021
guidance, revising expected production to between 25.2- and
25.7-million barrels of oil equivalent and underlying Ebitda to
between A$850-million and A$900-million. In the day of trading that
followed, the company's share price dropped by about 25%.

Slater & Gordon Class Actions Lawyer Eleanor Toohey said Beach
Energy knew or ought to have been aware that it had failed to
consider factors that would affect its performance. This included
the largely unsuccessful 2020 exploration and appraisal drilling
results on the Western Flank, the declining reserves position on
the Western Flank, and the reliability of the modelling system used
to assess reserves on the Western Flank.

"As a result of our investigation following Beach Energy's profit
downgrades in the 2021 financial year, we concluded that there was
a strong basis to allege that the company provided misleading
guidance and was obliged to correct the market's understanding of
its financial position at a much earlier time," Toohey said.

"Investors are entitled to assume that when they purchase shares in
a listed company all of the material information relevant to its
financial position has been disclosed. The downgrades by Beach
Energy during the August 2020 to April 2021 claim period caught the
market by surprise and revealed that this had not been the case."

The lead plaintiffs in the case, John and Gail Nelson, bought 3 000
shares in Beach Energy on April 28, 2021. Just two days later,
their investment had plummeted by a quarter.

Beach told shareholders that it considers that it had at all times
complied with its disclosure obligations, and has denied any
liability and will "vigorously defend" the proceedings. [GN]

BELL CANADA: Sued for Carrying Out Itinerant Merchant Acitivities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Marie-Josee Langlois Vinet, represented by the law firm
Paquette Gadler Inc., announced on Nov. 24 the filing of a request
for authorization to institute a class action against Bell Canada
for having carried out itinerant merchant activities through Bell
Canada employees, representatives or subcontractors without having
the permits required by law, thus contravening to the dispositions
of the Consumer Protection Act, its Application Regulations and the
Civil Code of Quebec.

This class action concerns all Quebec consumers who contracted or
renewed a subscription to residential telephone services and/or
Internet services and/or television services from Bell Canada
through an employee or representative of Bell Canada or one of its
subcontractors after a door-to-door activities or elsewhere than at
a permanent establishment of Bell Canada during the period from
June 23, 2018, to the date of final judgment to be entered in this
proceeding.

For example, if a Bell Canada representative came to your door to
offer you the products and services available in your area and
following this visit, you contract or renewed your subscription to
residential telephone, Internet or television services offered by
Bell Canada, you may be a member of this class action.

Bell Canada is also doing business as these names: Bell Canada
(Bell MTS), Bell, Bell MTS, Communications MTS/ MTS Communications,
Les Reseaux Q9/Q9 Networks, Mobilite MTS/MTS Mobility, MTS, Q9,
Virgin Mobile and Virgin Mobile Canada,
Virgin Plus MD and Industrie AlarmForce/AlarmForce Industries.

Any interested person may, if they wish, register for this class
action by accessing the lawyers website at this address:
www.paquettegadler.com

For any additional information regarding this class action, you are
invited to contact anyone of the lawyers listed below.

For further information: Me Guy Paquette, Telephone: (514)
849-7071, Courriel: gpaquette@paquettegadler.com; Me Annie
Montplaisir, Telephone: (514) 903-0153, Courriel:
amontplaisir@paquettegadler.com; PAQUETTE GADLER INC., 353
Saint-Nicolas, Bureau 200, Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 2P1, Telephone:
(514) 849-0771, www.paquettegadler.com, Courriel:
recourscollectifs@paquettegadler.com [GN]

BMW FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification Due April 25, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rawlings v. BMW Financial
Services NA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02289 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order amending class
certification deadlines as follows:

   -- Motions to Amend or Joinder of Parties due by Jan. 24,
      2022;

   -- Motion for Class Certification due by April 25, 2022;

   -- Discovery due by May 17, 2022 or 90 days after the Courts
      ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

   -- All other deadlines set out in the scheduling order are
      unchanged.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BMW Financial provides financial services.[CC]


BOEING CO: Court Stays Earl RICO Suit Pending Interlocutory Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAMONIE EARL, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE BOEING COMPANY
and SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendants, Civil Action No.
4:19-cv-00507 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division,
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Pending Interlocutory Appeal.

Background

The case involves allegations of collusion under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") between
Defendants Boeing and Southwest to conceal fatal defects in
Boeing's 737 MAX 8 aircraft.

On Sept. 3, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

After 82 pages of analysis, the Court certified four separate
classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

     (1) Southwest Airlines purchasing class: "All persons who
conducted the transaction to purchase and bore the economic burden
for a ticket for air travel within, to, or from the United States
on a Southwest Airlines aircraft, except for such persons whose
tickets were solely for flight segments (a) for which the MAX 8
aircraft was not scheduled for use as of the reservation date nor
actually used or (b) that were not on MAX 8 routes as of the
reservation date (i.e., routes that had not as of the time of the
reservation included the use of a MAX 8 aircraft)."

     (2) Southwest Airlines reimbursing class: "All persons who did
not conduct a transaction to purchase, but bore the economic burden
for, a ticket for air travel within, to, or from the United States
on a Southwest Airlines aircraft, except for such persons whose
tickets were solely for flight segments (a) for which the MAX 8
aircraft was not scheduled for use as of the reservation date nor
actually used or (b) that were not on MAX 8 routes as of the
reservation date (i.e., routes that had not as of the time of the
reservation included the use of a MAX 8 aircraft)."

     (3) American Airlines purchasing class: "All persons who
conducted the transaction to purchase and bore the economic burden
for a ticket for air travel within, to, or from the United States
on an American Airlines aircraft, except for such persons whose
tickets were solely for flight segments (a) for which the MAX 8
aircraft was not scheduled for use as of the reservation date nor
actually used or (b) that were not on MAX 8 routes as of the
reservation date (i.e., routes that had not as of the time of the
reservation included the use of a MAX 8 aircraft)."

     (4) American Airlines reimbursing class: "All persons who did
not conduct a transaction to purchase, but bore the economic burden
for, a ticket for air travel within, to, or from the United States
on an American Airlines aircraft, except for such persons whose
tickets were solely for flight segments (a) for which the MAX 8
aircraft was not scheduled for use as of the reservation date nor
actually used or (b) that were not on MAX 8 routes as of the
reservation date (i.e., routes that had not as of the time of the
reservation included the use of a MAX 8 aircraft)."

The class period spans from August 29, 2017 through March 13, 2019,
and each class is estimated to include thousands of members.

On Sept. 17, 2021, Boeing and Southwest each filed petitions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking appeal of the
Certification Order. The Fifth Circuit granted the petitions on
Oct. 6, 2021. On Oct. 5, 2021, the Defendants filed the present
motion. On Oct. 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a response. On Oct.
15, 2021, the Defendants filed a reply, and the Plaintiffs filed a
sur-reply on Oct. 19, 2021.

Analysis

The Defendants ask the Court to enter a stay of all further
proceedings pending their Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal of the
Certification Order because "all four recognized stay factors
support pausing this litigation pending appeal." The Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendants have not satisfied any of the factors to
justify a stay.

I. Success on the Merits

Under the traditional four-factor test, the movant must first
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on appeal. A
sufficient demonstration of a likelihood of success on the merits
requires more than a mere possibility that relief will be granted.
The Fifth Circuit, however, has recognized an exception to this
rule where the movant shows that a serious legal question is
involved.

The Defendants allege the exception is satisfied in the case.
Specifically, they contend the case on appeal involves several
legal issues that are undecided in the Circuit: (1) "the
evidentiary burden the Plaintiffs must satisfy to show Article III
standing at the class certification stage"; (2) "whether standing
for absent class members must be established at" the class
certification stage; (3) "the level of demonstrable workability"
required to establish ascertainability; and, (4) the appropriate
test for causation under RICO required to establish predominance.
Alternatively, the Defendants assert a substantial showing of
likelihood of success on the merits "because the Plaintiffs lack a
cognizable Article III injury," an issue Defendants describe as
"hotly contested" in the case from the beginning.

The Plaintiffs disagree on all counts.

Judge Mazzant stands by the Court's analysis on class
certification. He considers it unlikely the Defendants will succeed
in their attempt to have the Certification Order fully reversed or
otherwise vacated on the ground the Fifth Circuit finds it -- to
use Southwest's term -- "incoherent." Nevertheless, for the purpose
of issuing a stay pending appeal, a sufficient showing of a
substantial case on the merits is met "when there is a lack of
precedent to clarify the issues at bar." Judge Mazzant agrees that
the Certification Order involves presently unsettled questions of
law and thus raises significant legal issues. Therefore, he finds
that the Defendants have satisfied the exception by presenting a
substantial case on the merits.

II. Balancing the Equitable Factors

Judge Mazzant must now considers the following equitable factors to
determine if the factors weigh heavily in the Defendants' favor:
(1) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay;
(2) whether the non-movant will suffer injury if the stay is
granted; and (3) whether a stay serves the public interest.

The Defendants contend they "have each already spent millions in
defense costs in the matter reviewing and producing millions of
pages of documents as well as preparing for fact and expert
depositions." Absent a stay, the Defendants fear they will suffer
irreparable harm in defending a class action of this size due to
"the enormous yet noncompensable expense of pretrial litigation"
that they will be unable to recoup.

The Plaintiffs respond that any outstanding discovery issues "are
wholly separate from class issues—big or small." In addition,
they argue, the "Defendants do not explain why the process of
producing discovery that would be required to give notice to the
class would cause irreparable injury, nor do they address that this
process may take months -- time that will be wasted if the case is
paused entirely pending appeal."

Judge Mazzant has carefully considered each of the factors relevant
to a stay pending interlocutory appeal. He finds that, in
combination with the Defendants' showing of a substantial case on
the merits, the balance of equities favors a limited stay. If any
dispute arises as to whether an item of discovery is stayed by his
Order, Judge Mazzant refers the Parties to the dispute procedures
referenced in the Scheduling Order and the Parties' discovery and
preservation obligations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
and 37.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Defendants' Motion to Stay is granted
in part and denied in part. Discovery in the case pertaining to
class membership is stayed pending the Defendants' appeal of the
Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. All other discovery, including discovery on the
merits, will proceed as scheduled.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3r22n4y5 from
Leagle.com.


BOOKSPAN LLC: Says Class Action Should Be Arbitrated, Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
privacy class action against book club company Bookspan LLC should
be arbitrated and dismissed because the plaintiff signed a
membership agreement granting arbitration when she had signed up,
the company is arguing in Michigan federal court.

In the event the court decides to not compel arbitration and
dismiss, it should order a stay pending arbitration, Bookspan
argued in a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss filed on Nov.
23 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

Attorneys representing plaintiff Jill Shye didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment. [GN]

BRIDGEBIO PHARMA: SMART Local Unions File Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BridgeBio Pharma,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as SMART Local Unions and Councils
Pension Fund, individually and behalf on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., Ali Satvat, Neil Kumar, Uma
Sinha, Case No. 2021-1030 (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 26, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Bridgebio Pharma, Inc. -- https://bridgebio.com/ -- operates as a
bio technology company. The Company focuses on development of
medicines for genetic diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          Saxena White, Esq.
          1000 N. West St., Suite 1200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 485-0480
          Email: tcurry@saxenawhite.com



BYERS ENTERPRISES: Depavloff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Byers Enterprises,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lisa Nichole Depavloff, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Byers Enterprises, Inc.,
Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00311354-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 17, 2021).

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

Byers Enterprises, Inc. -- https://thatsbyers.com/ -- is located in
Grass Valley, California and is part of the Building Finishing
Contractors Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com


CANADA: Apology Awaited for Survivors, Victims of Sexual Misconduct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Connolly, writing for Global News, reports that the apology
promised two years ago to survivors and victims of military sexual
misconduct will come before the end of this year, with a firm date
coming "shortly," the defence minister's office confirms.

In a statement to Global News, a spokesperson for Defence Minister
Anita Anand said the planning for the apology is happening now but
what that apology will look like is still to be determined, based
on conversations with survivors and victims.

"We expect that the apology will take place before the end of 2021
and we intend to announce a firm date very shortly," said Daniel
Minden in an email.

"We are consulting with survivors' groups to receive their input on
their preferred structure for this apology. Planning for the
apology is ongoing, and we look forward to sharing further details
in due course."

It is still not clear whether Anand plans to participate in
offering that apology herself.

A spokesperson for the Department of National Defence added the
event will be virtual.

"We recognize that this apology is an important part of restoring
relationships with those harmed by sexual misconduct and that this
matter is deeply personal and emotional for those who have been
affected," said Daniel Lebouthillier in an email.

"Given our preference has always been for an in-person event, we
monitored the pandemic's progress closely with the hope that public
health measures would allow it.

"However, given the unprecedented impact of the pandemic, we are
now looking at a virtual event at a date -- this year -- that
remains to be confirmed."

READ MORE: Military sexual misconduct survivors were promised an
apology in 2019. Why the delay?

Military officials confirmed in November 2020 to the Canadian Press
that an apology was in the works but did not give a clear timeline.
That report suggested it would be the head of the military who
offers the apology, rather than the defence minister or prime
minister.

Advocates for survivors and victims, however, have said they
believe the apology should come from the defence minister and the
prime minister as well, given the extent of the military sexual
misconduct crisis and the government's failures to implement key
recommendations from the 2015 Deschamps report.

That landmark report documented the extent of the longstanding
issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, describing the
problem as "endemic" and the culture of the military as "toxic."

READ MORE: CAF commander to issue formal apology as part of sexual
misconduct settlement

In 2019, the government reached a $900-million settlement over a
class-action lawsuit from survivors and victims of military sexual
misconduct. The deadline for claims under that process is midnight
Pacific Time on Nov. 24, and so far more than 18,000 survivors and
victims have come forward to submit claims.

"The most important thing is for any class members who are
interested in participating in the class action to submit a claim
form before the deadline, even if they need to add details after
the deadline has passed," said Andrew Astritis, a lawyer with
RavenLaw and part of the legal team working on the process.

"They can contact class counsel or the Administrator to help them
provide additional details at that time."

The Federal Court certified the class action and approved a
settlement deal reached with the government on Nov. 25, 2019, while
the claims process opened on May 25, 2020.

But by December 2020, the process had received just 2,729 claims.

That number has soared, however, over the course of 2021 amid an
ongoing reckoning and what experts have deemed an institutional
"crisis" facing the Canadian Forces as multiple senior leaders face
allegations of sexual misconduct.

Global News reported on the first of those allegations exclusively
on Feb. 2, 2021.

In mid-June 2021, the number of claims stood at 6,666 then rose to
7,346 as of July 13 -- an increase of 170 per cent from December
2020.

Claims rose again to 13,522 on Nov. 8, and as of Nov. 24 stand at
18,232. [GN]

CANADA: Wants Supreme Court to Toss RCMP Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Catharine Tunney, writing for CBC News, reports that the federal
government is appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada to end a
massive class-action lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police alleging "systemic negligence" in its handling of
allegations of bullying and harassment.

The plaintiffs allege that internal channels within the RCMP to
handle complaints of bullying and harassment are ineffective
because they depend on the chain of command. The statement of claim
says that chain of command is often made up of people who were
either responsible for the offending behaviour or acted to protect
others.

A Federal Court judge last year certified the lawsuit -- which is
seeking more than $1.1 billion -- as a class action. Earlier this
fall, a judge dismissed the Crown's arguments seeking to de-certify
the class action claim.

The Attorney General of Canada is now appealing the case up to the
Supreme Court of Canada, arguing an RCMP member's claims of
harassment and bullying can be addressed by filing a grievance or
harassment complaint, or through an internal RCMP Code of Conduct
investigation.

The federal Department of Justice referred questions about the case
to the RCMP.

"Canada is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear its appeal to
obtain clarity on whether the courts should certify a class action
relating to workplace disputes when there are already
administrative resolution processes in place," said RCMP
Commissioner Brenda Lucki in a media statement.

Megan McPhee, the plaintiffs' lawyer, called the move
disappointing.

"I think the commissioner's statement and the decision to seek
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is, frankly, an insult to the
class. The force is essentially saying, 'Too bad for you,'" she
said.

"So we see their actions as being irreconcilable with the force's
supposed commitment [to] eradicating harassment. It does nothing to
address or compensate the thousands of class members who have
suffered and who continue to suffer."

In its appeal documents, the federal government is arguing the
lower courts' decisions will "do grave harm" and have wide-reaching
impacts on workplace disputes among non-unionized employees.

It also argues the matter was settled in a 2005 Supreme Court
decision, known as Vaughan, involving a federal public servant's
fight for early retirement benefits.

In that case, the bench ruled that Parliament had created a
comprehensive scheme for dealing with labour disputes and that
scheme shouldn't be jeopardized by permitting parallel access to
the courts.  

"The court's reasoning allows for the routine evasion of statutory
workplace dispute resolution regimes by whole classes of
non-unionized employees," the Crown wrote.

"Troublingly, this extraordinary assumption of jurisdiction would
not be based on particularized evidence of the inefficacy of the
existing regimes. As this court noted in Vaughan, the outcome could
give a new dimension to the concept of floodgates."

One of the lead plaintiffs in the case, Geoffrey Greenwood, said he
endured workplace reprisals after reporting allegations of bribery
and corruption against fellow RCMP drug officers in 2008 -- years
before RCMP members were allowed to unionize.

Greenwood said he was demonized and ostracized by fellow officers
who wanted him to drop the case.

"I ended up kind of leaving a shell of a person," he told CBC back
in 2018. "Your whole character is torn apart and stripped down and
you're villainized."

In her statement, Lucki said the RCMP has made an ongoing effort to
address harassment.

"All of these efforts are a reflection of the RCMP's continued
dedication to fostering a safe and inclusive workplace," she said.

"We are confident the changes we are implementing will show
significant results for our employees and the RCMP."

Almost a year ago, former Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache
released a scathing report pointing to systemic cultural problems
within the RCMP and called for an external review of the future of
the iconic Canadian institution.

The report grew out of the Merlo-Davidson settlement, which was the
result of a separate class action lawsuit on behalf of women who
were sexually abused or discriminated against while serving in the
RCMP. [GN]

CG CONSULTING: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery in Ousley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ousley v. CG Consulting,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01744 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order on motion for extension of time
to complete discovery as follows:

   -- Class-based Discovery due by Feb. 2, 2022;

   -- Class Certification Motion due by March 16, 2022;

   -- Merits-based Discovery due by March 30, 2022; and

   -- Dispositive motions due by May 4, 2022.

The nature of suit civil rights -- employment.[CC]

CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS: Ex-Female Employees File FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that six former
female employees have sued the company and its leaders for
underpayment, failure to keep records, and retaliation. The
plaintiffs claim that despite working more than 40 hours per week,
they were never paid for their overtime in violation of state and
federal law.

The Nov. 22 complaint names Clear19 Diagnostics LLC, Clear19 Rapid
Testing LLC, and ClearMD LLC (collectively Clear), entities that
reportedly functioned as one operation and offered Covid-19 testing
services. The complaint explains the plaintiffs worked as "medical
assistants" primarily at Clear's testing location in central
Manhattan from tenures ranging between several months and more than
a year from 2020 to 2021.

The complaint details several of the plaintiffs' work schedules and
communications with their employer about overtime pay. It explains
that in addition to scheduled shifts, some plaintiffs worked one or
two additional hours per day, were not given uninterrupted breaks
or meal periods, were not given accurate wage statements, and were
brushed off when they raised concerns about overtime pay.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA) class that will pursue minimum wage, overtime compensation,
and liquidated damages claims. The lawsuit states several other
causes of action for violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL)
and the overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.
Two causes of action claim retaliation under the FLSA and NYLL,
citing one plaintiff's efforts to rectify the purported
underpayment and her subsequent termination, reportedly in
retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.

The complaint seeks declaratory and monetary relief, including
liquidated damages, interest, and the plaintiffs' litigation fees
and costs. The former employees and putative class are represented
by Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq. [GN]

CRACKER BARREL: Gillespie Seeks Clarification of Court's Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Gillespie; Tonya
Miller; Tami Brown; Sarah Mangano, individually and behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00940-DJH (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiffs file motion for clarification or partial
motion for reconsideration of the Court's recent ruling.

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case for unpaid wages and
other penalties in which the four Named Plaintiffs and 323 opt-in
plaintiffs are claiming Cracker Barrel violated the tip-credit rule
(section 203(m) of the FLSA) and also required them to work
off-the-clock. The parties had briefed issues relating to
conditional certification as well as enforceability of an ADR
Agreement that required arbitration.

The Court ruled that Named Plaintiffs, as well as any opt-in
plaintiffs who are subject to the ADR Agreement, must proceed in
arbitration; however, those who are not may proceed in court (and
file an amended complaint).

For purposes of a potential appeal to the Ninth Circuit and to
insure compliance with the Court's order as intended, the
Plaintiffs seek clarification of the Court's order or partial
reconsideration.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G63mK6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nitin Sud, Esq.
          SUD LAW P.C.
          6750 West Loop South, Suite 920
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (832) 623-6420
          Facsimile: (832) 304-2552
          E-mail: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Monika Sud-Devaraj, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MONIKA SUD-DEVARAJ, PLLC
          141 E. Palm Lane, Ste. 100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 234-0782
          E-mail: monika@msdlawaz.com

CRODA INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Cancer Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Malo, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in Wilmington, Delaware on Nov. 23 dismissed a proposed class
action lawsuit that accused a subsidiary of specialty chemicals
maker Croda International Plc of knowingly risking people's health
from exposure to a carcinogenic chemical.

U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas agreed with Croda's lawyers that
"the mere risk of disease alone is not a compensable tort injury"
under Delaware law. Bibas, a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
judge who sat by designation to handle the federal district court
case, said the plaintiff can file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit was brought by Catherine Baker of New Castle, Delaware,
where Croda Inc operates its Atlas Point manufacturing plant. The
plant in 2018 leaked thousands of pounds of ethylene oxide, a
carcinogen, into a surrounding neighborhood, her complaint alleges.
Croda says that following the leak, it sprayed water to quickly
dissolve the chemical.

The substance is an odorless and colorless gas that the
Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a hazardous air
pollutant because long-term exposure can increase the risks of
cancer of the white blood cells and breast cancer. It is used to
make chemicals that allow the manufacturing of products including
antifreeze and detergents.

Baker in her complaint said residents' exposure to large amounts of
ethylene oxide put them at increased risk of falling ill to
cancer.

In his ruling, Bibas said that while a few states recognize an
increased risk of disease as a legal injury, Delaware does not.

He rejected Baker's argument that New Jersey law should apply
because Croda Inc is headquartered there.

Baker's lawsuit would have stood a better chance in New Jersey,
where state law allows claims over increased risks of disease if
the plaintiffs are "more likely than not" to develop a disease, the
ruling said.

Croda declined to comment. Attorneys representing Baker did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Baker v. Croda Inc, the U.S. District Court of the
District of Delaware, No. 1:20-cv-01108.

For Baker: Kimberly Evans and Kyle McGee of Grant & Eisenhofer

For Croda Inc: Kenneth Nachbar and Miranda Gilbert of Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell [GN]

D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Topaz Meltzer Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim
Şirketi a/k/a D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading d/b/a
Hepsiburada ("Hepsiburada") (NASDAQ: HEPS). The action charges the
company with violations of the federal securities laws, including
omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations involving its American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Hepsiburada's
July 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). Hepsiburada's materially
misleading statements regarding their business, operations, and
prospects caused investors to suffer significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 20, 2021

CLASS PERIOD: Pursuant and/or Traceable to July 1, 2021 IPO through
October 21, 2021

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

HEPSIBURADA'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Hepsiburada operates an ecommerce platform in Turkey, regarded as
the "Amazon of Turkey." On July 1, 2021, Hepsiburada filed its
prospectus on a Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. In the IPO, Hepsiburada sold approximately 62,251,000
ADRs at a price of $12 per ADR and received proceeds of
approximately $783 million from the Offering. The Registration
Statement touted Hepsiburada's purported growth attributable to
"meticulous execution." The Registration Statement also touted the
increase in gross merchandise value ("GMV"), which "refers to the
total value of orders/products sold through [the] platform over a
given period of time," including shipping fees but excluding other
service revenues and transaction fees.

The truth regarding Hepsiburada was revealed on August 26, 2021,
when it announced its second quarter 2021 financial results (the
quarter which had ended before the IPO closed) reporting that
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or
EBITDA, was "negative TRY 188.6 million in Q2 2021 compared to
positive TRY 71.1 million in Q2 2020 . . . due to lower gross
contribution driven primarily by investments to fortify our
position in electronics, investments to penetrate in high frequency
categories as well as higher customer demand for low margin
products." The company also reported a "shift in GMV mix in favor
of Marketplace."

Following this news, Hepsiburada's ADR price fell $3.05, or 25%, to
close at $8.97 per ADR on August 26, 2021. At the time the class
action lawsuit was filed, Hepsiburada's ADRs were trading as low as
$5.30 per ADR, a nearly 56% decline from the $12 per ADR IPO
price.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Hepsiburada investors may, no later than December 20, 2021, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Hepsiburada investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.

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

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

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

DESKTOP METAL: Campanella Slams Shareholder Vote Sans Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pietro Campanella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S. Kent Rockwell, John Hartner,
John Irvin, Gregory F. Pashke, William F. Strome, Roger W.
Thiltgen, Bonnie K. Wachtel, Paul A. Camuti, Loretta L. Benec and
Desktop Metal Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2021-1013 (Del. Ch.,
November 22, 2022), seeks to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' failure to comply with their fiduciary duties arising
from the merger between Desktop Metal, Inc. and The ExOne Company.

On August 11, 2021, Desktop Metal and ExOne announced an agreement
and plan of merger pursuant to which ExOne would become a wholly
owned subsidiary of Desktop Metal. Pursuant to the terms of the
merger agreement, ExOne's common stock shareholders became entitled
to receive $8.50 in cash and 2.1416 shares of Desktop Metal Class A
common stock which was calculated based on the "average stock
price" of Desktop Metal Class A common stock over a twenty-day
period.

On or about October 8, 2021, ExOne soliciting shareholders to vote
in favor of the merger at a special meeting of shareholders that
would be held on November 9, 2021. On the evening of November 8,
2021, Desktop Metal filed with the SEC that it had engaged a third
party to conduct an independent internal investigation as a result
of a whistleblower complaint relating to manufacturing and product
compliance practices and procedures with respect to a subset of its
photopolymer equipment and materials at Desktop Metal subsidiary
EnvisionTec US LLC's facility in Dearborn, Michigan and had taken
initial actions, including implementing changes in the management
of and procedures associated with manufacturing the applicable
products.

Campanella, owns ExOne common stock prior to the merger. He claims
that the whistleblower investigation was not disclosed before the
vast majority of ExOne's voting shareholders had already submitted
their votes by proxy. He claims that the shareholders were not
fully-informed given the incredibly short time between the
disclosure of the Whistleblower Investigation and the special
meeting. ExOne's shareholders who had submitted their votes by
proxy did not have adequate time to rescind or change their vote
before the special meeting occurred.

Desktop Metal designs and markets 3D printing systems. ExOne's
business primarily consisted of manufacturing and selling 3D
printing machines and printing products to specification for its
customers for both direct and indirect applications. ExOne offered
its pre-production collaboration and print products for customers
through its network of ExOne Adoption Centers and supplied the
associated materials, including consumables and replacements parts,
and other services, including training and technical support,
necessary for purchasers of its 3D printing machines to print
products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC.
      1204 N. King St.
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 803-4600
      Email: rernst@bk-legal.com

             - and -

      Guri Ademi, Esq.
      Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
      ADEMI LLP
      3620 E Layton Ave
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482−8000
      Fax: (414) 482−8001
      Email: gademi@ademilaw.com
             jfruchter@ademilaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: M.J., et al. Seek Extension to File Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J., et al., v. The
District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01901-EGS (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 21-day
extension of time to file a reply in support to their motion for
class certification.

If Plaintiffs' motion is granted, their Reply in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification would be due by December
24, 2021.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification is currently December 3, 2021.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3peoHuc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Mitchell, Esq.
          Sandra J. Bernstein, Esq.
          Mary Nell Clark, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS DC AT UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES
          220 I Street NE, Suite 130
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 547-0198

               - and -

          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          Lewis L. Bossing, Esq.
          Brittany Vanneman, Esq.
          JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER
          FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 220
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730

               - and -

          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          1212 Broadway, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098

               - and -

          Howard Schiffman, Esq.
          Jason T. Mitchell, Esq.
          SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
          901 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20005

DIXON ADVISORY: Lawsuit's Attempt to Freeze $7.2MM Penalty Blocked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maja Garaca Djurdjevic, writing for Independent Financial Adviser,
reports that a last-minute request by ASIC has delayed a class
action's attempt to freeze a $7.2 million Dixon penalty headed for
the Commonwealth.

Filed by Piper Alderman earlier in November, a class action was
brought against Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services (DASS),
its ASX-listed parent and wealth manager E&P Financial Planning
(EP1) and former director Alan Dixon by self-managed super fund
Kosen-Rufu on allegations of conflicting advice.

Following the class action lodgement, Kosen-Rufu then applied to
activate an untested section in the Corporations Act 2001 to
ring-fence a $7.2 million penalty agreed to by DASS and the
corporate regulator in July, settling civil penalty proceedings
that alleged DASS provided conflicted financial advice and engaged
in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The reasoning for Kosen-Rufu's move was to ensure DASS had funds
for a possible future judgement debt.

However, in a statement issued on Nov. 18, Piper Alderman confirmed
Kosen-Rufu's attempt has now been stalled by ASIC. Namely, a
hearing due to be held on 25 November was postponed at the request
of the corporate regulator.

"The application has been deferred for determination at a later
date, after ASIC requested further time to consider its position,"
the statement reads.

According to Kosen-Rufu's lawyers, the plaintiff was seeking to
obtain "greater certainty" for itself and participants in the class
action that it represents, at an early stage of the class action,
around possible recoverability from DASS.

"The applicants are disappointed that the hearing of this important
application did not proceed today," said Martin del Gallego,
leading class action lawyer and partner at Piper Alderman.

"The intent of the provision is to ensure that facilitating
compensation for victims is given preference over the payment of
penalties, if there is a risk that a defendant cannot do both.

"We will continue to work with ASIC and DASS to favourably resolve
the application as quickly as possible, and set aside the funds for
possible distribution to participants in its class action at a
later date."

The class action lodged against DASS and EP1 alleged that Dixon
Advisory failed to act in the best interests of clients after its
investment committee approved and recommended products to "be
pushed on" to group members that Dixon Advisory stood to earn
millions in fees from.

Interestingly, it came only weeks after Dixon Advisory was also
sued by Maurice Blackburn on behalf of a couple for poor retirement
advice that left them $900,000 worse off.

"Our clients placed their trust in Dixon Advisory as their
professional advisers to help them plan for retirement in a
balanced and measured way, and instead Dixon Advisory exposed our
clients to a level of non-diversified and highly leveraged risk
which they did not want nor need and invested them in products in
which Dixon Advisory had a financial interest," Maurice Blackburn
principal lawyer Craig Parrish told ifa in November.

"Our evidence suggests that had Dixon recommended that our clients
invest their super in a balanced portfolio over the same period,
our clients would have been almost $900k better off today."

In July, Dixon Advisory paid a $7.2 million penalty for breaches of
the Corporations Act and $1 million to go towards an ASIC
investigation. [GN]

DOMINION VOTING: Lawyers Ordered to Pay $180K in Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ordered two
lawyers who filed a class action lawsuit alleging the 2020
presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump to pay more than
$180,000 in attorney's fees for defendants Dominion Voting Systems,
Facebook and others, saying the lawsuit was intended to manipulate
"gullible members of the public" and helped spur the Jan. 6
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The now-dismissed suit relied on baseless conspiracy theories
spread by the former president and his supporters. It named elected
officials in four swing states, Facebook and Denver-based Dominion,
whose election machines were at the center of some of the most
fevered speculation.

U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter ruled in August that
attorneys Gary D. Fielder and Ernest J. Walker should pay
penalties. Neureiter's Nov. 22 order, first reported by Colorado
Politics, awarded individual fees -- but he stayed the awards
pending an appeal of the dismissed lawsuit to the 10th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Denver.

The penalties included $62,930 to Dominion and $50,000 to Facebook,
which the suit alleged censored conservative voices leading up to
the election.

Neureiter scolded the attorneys, saying they'd appealed for public
donations to hire legal experts for their case though none were
hired, and that the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was promoted
by the lies it repeated.

He said the suit repeated "unverified and uninvestigated defamatory
rumors that strike at the heart of our democratic system and were
used by others to foment a violent insurrection that threatened our
system of government."

Repeated audits and recounts found no significant fraud in the
presidential election. Trump's own administration said the election
was clean. Still, Trump and his allies filed dozens of suits.
Ultimately they lost more than 50 of the election lawsuits.

Fielder and Walker were not connected with other Trump lawyers.
They argued in court that they were trying to protect democracy.

Telephone messages and emails seeking comment from Fielder and
Walker on Nov. 24 were not immediately returned. [GN]

EARGO INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of December 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Eargo, Inc. (EAR)
Class Period: 10/15/2020 - 9/22/2021, or shares issued pursuant to
the October 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-ear/

D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading (d/b/a "Hepsiburada")
(HEPS)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the July
2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 20, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-heps

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

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

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

About ClaimsFiler

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

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

FIRST ADVANTAGE: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Wilson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRYTON WILSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FIRST
ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No.
5:21-cv-06071-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order granting the parties' amended joint motion to
modify scheduling order to extend all deadlines as follows:

   1. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or
      before February 10, 2022.

   2. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or
      before February 10, 2022.

   3. The Court will not entertain any discovery motion absent
      full compliance with Local Rule 37.1.

   4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
      filed on or before May 26, 2022.

   5. Defendant's opposition to class certification brief is due
      on or before June 27, 2022.

   6. Plaintiff's reply brief for class certification is due on
      or before July 14, 2022.

   7. A class certification hearing will be held on August 1,
      2022, in Courtroom 7B in the United States District
      Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri, at 10:00 a.m.

First Advantage is a global consumer reporting agency headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31l5M93 at no extra charge.[CC]

FIX MY FITNESS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fix My Fitness Club
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Fix My Fitness Club
LLC d/b/a Inertiawave.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-06605 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
25, 2021).

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

Fix My Fitness Club LLC doing business as Inertiawave.com --
https://inertiawave.com/ -- offers Inertia Wave SOLO which is an
original single-person HIIT training device for at home or on the
go.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


FOODSTATE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foodstate, Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Foodstate, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06618 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2021).


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

FoodState Inc. produces and markets natural whole-food supplements.
The Company offers nutrients and vitamins for men and women.[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


FORWARD AIR CORP: Garcia Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Mario Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Forward Air Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00180 (E.D. Tenn., November 22, 2021) seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief in violation of California's Consumer
Privacy Act and resulting from the failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information and protected health
information that Forward Air acquired from or created for its
employees, including without limitation, names, addresses, dates of
birth, patient identification numbers, Social Security numbers,
driver's license/state ID numbers, passport numbers, credit/debit
card information and financial account information.

Forward Air is a provider of ground transportation and related
logistics services to the North American air freight and expedited
market. On or before December 15, 2020, Forward Air's computer
systems was breached involving ransomware, allowing hackers
unauthorized access to its computer systems in November and early
December 2020, including unauthorized access to information about
more than 40,655 current or former employees including Garcia.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
      THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
      1025 Westhaven Blvd., Suite 220
      Franklin, Tennessee 37064
      Tel: (615) 370-9659
      Fax: (205) 208.9632
      Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com

             - and -

      Jean S. Martin, Esq.
      Francesca Kester, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, Florida 33602
      Tel: (813) 559-4908
      Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
             fkester@forthepeople.com


FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Settles Suit Over Jail Pictures for $2.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Kovac, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that more
than 680 women who were stripped and photographed at Franklin
County's Jackson Pike jail in years past would share in a proposed
$2.5 million settlement of a federal lawsuit approved on Nov. 23 by
the county commissioners.

The settlement agreement would close a class-action lawsuit filed
in 2013 in federal court in Columbus by women who were arrested
between May 23, 2011, and April 30, 2014, and had photographs taken
of tattoos on or near their private parts while being booked into
the jail.

"A more humiliating and abusive set of procedures, enforced on
individuals who oftentimes have been convicted of nothing and have
not even been arraigned, is difficult to imagine," according to the
plaintiff's original court complaint.

The Franklin County Sheriff's office, which operates the jail,
ceased the practice in April 2014, said Assistant County Prosecutor
Amy Hiers.

Before that, detainees, "after being charged with misdemeanors,
minor misdemeanors, violations of probation, traffic infractions,
civil commitments, city code violations or other minor crimes,
including failure to pay fines, and had photographs taken of their
breasts, hypogastric region, genitals, and/or buttocks upon their
entry into the Jackson Pike facility prior to being arraigned
before a judicial officer," according to court documents.

The settlement approved by the board of commissioners on Nov. 23
"does not cover men, individuals charged with felony offenses, or
individuals who had tattoos photographed that were not on their
private parts at the time of their entry into the Jackson Pike
facility," according to documents.

About one-third of the total settlement will go to attorneys' fees,
plus additional costs and expenses, according to documents. The
remainder will be distributed among up to 682 women who are
potential members of the class action, with court documents
estimating payouts of about $2,735 each.

County officials are not admitting any wrongdoing in the settlement
agreement. Hiers noted in a written explanation to the
commissioners on Nov. 23 that "there is no evidence that these
photographs have ever been inappropriately accessed or used."

The agreement also calls for the Franklin County Sheriff's office
to destroy photographs of the women and permanently cease taking
pictures of the tattoos on the private parts of misdemeanor
detainees, according to documents.

A federal judge must sign off on the settlement before it becomes
final.

In other business on Nov. 23, the commissioners formally removed
the Columbus Day holiday in October and replaced it with a paid day
off for county employees annually on the Friday after
Thanksgiving.

The move follows an earlier vote by the commissioners last year
that designated June 17 as a paid Juneteenth holiday and eliminated
the Columbus Day paid holiday.

Subsequently, however, President Joe Biden signed legislation
formally declaring Juneteenth as a federal holiday, and Gov. Mike
DeWine affirmed it as a state holiday.

On Nov. 23, the board of commissioners officially declared the day
after Thanksgiving a paid holiday as well, and declared that
offices under their administration would remain open on Columbus
Day, the second Monday in October. [GN]

GASBI LLC: Car Dealer Groups Lose Dismissal Appeal in DCSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Stancombe, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that two
car dealer groups could not convince the Court of Appeals of
Indiana to order the dismissal of class action lawsuits brought
against them by angry customers.

Customers in 14 consolidated class action causes had purchased or
leased a vehicle from a group of Indiana automobile dealers and a
second group described as "alter ego dealers," named as defendants
under the alter ego doctrine.

During various transactions that took place between 2013 and 2020,
the dealers charged consumers a document preparation fee of less
than $200. The dealers listed the document preparation fee as an
itemized expense in the sales contracts, but neither included the
fee in the advertised price of the vehicle nor negotiated it with
the consumers.

In their class action complaints, the consumers raised three
claims, including a violation of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act,
constructive fraud and unjust enrichment. Their claims were based
on the allegation that, between the years at issue, the dealers had
charged a document preparation fee that was contrary to the Motor
Vehicle Dealer Services Act under Indiana Code § 9-32-13-7.

Members of the Indiana Legislature amended the statute in May 2019,
making the effective date of the amended statute retroactive to
July 1, 2013.

The consumers' cases were consolidated, and both the dealers and
the alter ego dealers filed motions to dismiss.

The alter ego dealers argued the consumers' claims against them
should be dismissed because they had not charged a document
preparation fee to any of the consumers because their names were
not on the sales contracts. For their part, the dealers primarily
argued that the consumers' DCSA claims should be dismissed because
the 2019 document preparation fee amendment should be applied
retroactively. It also maintained that the amendment expressly
permitted a document preparation fee under $200, which the dealers
asserted made the fees they charged "per se" lawful.

"Despite arguing that the 2019 Doc Fee Amendment applied
retroactively, Dealers argued that Consumers could not use that
retroactive amendment to prove their DCSA claim that Dealers had
failed to include the Doc Fee in the advertised sale price," Judge
Rudolph Pyle wrote for the COA, adding that the consumers responded
by asserting their DCSA claims were not precluded by the 2019
amendment.

The dealers also acknowledged that Gasbi LLC v. Sanders, 120 N.E.3d
614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, provided that a consumer
could raise a claim under the DCSA by alleging a dealer had
violated the MVDSA document preparation fee statute.

"Dealers, however, argued that Gasbi predated the 2019 Doc Fee
Amendment and applied only to the pre-amendment version of the Doc
Fee Statute," the COA wrote.

The Marion Superior Court ultimately denied both motions to dismiss
in two interlocutory orders.

As to the dealers' motion, it concluded the consumers' DCSA claims
were not subject to dismissal because the 2019 amendment applied
retroactively and did not expressly authorize the dealers to charge
a document preparation fee under $200. Additionally, the trial
court found the consumers' complaints would survive the alter ego
dealers' motion to dismiss because the consumers had sufficiently
demonstrated a claim under the alter ego doctrine and had
standing.

After the trial court granted the defendants' motion to certify the
orders and stay the proceedings, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a
unanimous 42-page decision in Butler Motors, Inc., et al. v.
Michael Benosky, et al., 20A-PL-1871.

As to the dealers' challenge to the trial court's denial of its
consolidated motion to dismiss, the COA concluded that because the
2019 amendment did not expressly authorize the charging of the
document preparation fee of $200 or less, "there is no preclusive
effect under Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-6(2)," and the DCSA was
applicable to the consumers' related claims.

"Because Consumers' complaints, in relation to their DCSA claims,
set forth allegations upon which relief could be granted, the trial
court did not err by denying Dealers' Consolidated MTD in regard to
Consumers' DCSA claims," it concluded.

The appellate court also found the consumers' complaint
sufficiently raised fraudulent concealment that may toll the
statute of limitations to survive the motion to dismiss stage. The
COA also determined the trial court did not err by concluding that
the common law claims were not precluded by the 2019 amendment.

Next, it concluded that the consumers pleaded the operative facts
necessary to establish a claim of constructive fraud, and that the
trial court did not err by denying the dealers' motion to dismiss
the consumers' unjust enrichment claim.

Finally, the COA concluded the trial court did not err by denying
the alter ego dealers' motion to dismiss for lack of standing under
the alter ego doctrine "(b)ecause Consumers' allegations are
sufficient to establish circumstances under which they could be
entitled to relief if they are able to prove their claim . . . ."
[GN]

GATE GOURMET: N.D. California Grants Rahman's Bid to Lift Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to lift stay
in the lawsuit captioned MOHAMMED RAHMAN, Plaintiff v. GATE
GOURMET, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03047-WHO (N.D.
Cal.).

The parties in the putative class action agreed to stay the case to
examine a proposed settlement reached in California state court.
That state-court case had previously been in federal court and is
between the Defendant here, Gate Gourmet, and a different named
plaintiff representing essentially the same putative class. "Gate
Gourmet" refers to Defendants Gate Gourmet, Inc., and Gategroup
U.S. Holdings, Inc.

The Plaintiff, Mohammed Rahman, sought to intervene in that matter
to prevent the settlement from being approved. According to him, it
does a disservice to the class and may be collusive. The
state-court judge, the Hon. Elihu M. Berle, has yet to rule on that
motion.

Mr. Rahman moves to lift the stay. That motion is granted. Because
this case was filed before the state-court action, Judge Berle
asked the parties to inquire about Judge Orrick's views on whether
that case should be stayed in favor of this one.

In response to Judge Berle's inquiry, Judge Orrick explains in this
Order why he concludes that this case is the better vehicle for
these overlapping claims to proceed. This case was the
first-filed--both California and federal law usually favor that
case over others. And the state-court action shows indications of
being a "reverse auction" (in which a class-action defendant
chooses its favorite class counsel to negotiate a settlement that
binds the class, regardless of which case was first) leading to a
collusive settlement and a stipulated remand to state court (to
avoid federal rules indicating that case to being stayed or
dismissed in favor of this one).

"That said, whether to stay the state-court case is a decision for
Judge Berle, not me," Judge Orrick writes.

The case management conference set for Dec. 1, 2021, is continued
to Jan. 4, 2022, so that the parties can discuss the status of this
case after Judge Berle holds an upcoming hearing on these issues.

Background

Mr. Rahman worked as a non-exempt employee of Gate Gourmet, located
at the San Francisco International Airport, from January 2014 until
March 2020. Gate Gourmet is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business in Virginia. He alleges--on behalf of
himself, on behalf of a proposed class, and under the California
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")--that Gate Gourmet failed to
compensate Rahman and other employees for all hours worked. In
brief, he alleges that Gate Gourmet required employees to submit to
searches off-the-clock and without compensation, including during
what should have been overtime and during meal breaks.

Mr. Rahman filed his complaint in this court in May 2020. The case
proceeded to discovery. In May 2021, Gate Gourmet filed a notice of
a related matter, seven months after that action had been filed.
The related matter ("Diaz") was a PAGA suit and class action by a
different plaintiff against Gate Gourmet for materially similar
alleged violations in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. See Alicia Noemi Bautista Diaz v. Gate
Gourmet, Inc., C.D. Cal. No. 2:20-cv-09454.

In June 2021, Rahman moved to put these two cases (and a third not
at issue here) into multi-district litigation ("MDL"). See In re:
Gate Gourmet, Inc., Wage and Hour Employment Prac. Lit., MDL No.
3012. Three days later, the parties in Diaz reached a proposed
class action settlement. Gate Gourmet represented that the
settlement would release all claims asserted by Plaintiff Rahman in
this action, if approved. The Diaz parties stipulated to remanding
the matter to state court, which the federal judge approved. Diaz
is now pending in the Superior Court of California before Judge
Berle; see Diaz v. Gate Gourmet, et al., Sup. Ct. Cal.,
20STCV34299.

In July 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation staying
the case. The parties sought a stay because of the cost of
discovery and motion practice, because the case may become moot by
the Diaz settlement, and for the orderly administration of
justice.

On Oct. 15, 2021, Judge Berle held a hearing in Diaz on Rahman's
motion to intervene in that case. He ultimately continued the
hearing without ruling so that he could receive supplemental
briefing on the issue of intervention and so that counsel for all
parties could attempt to reach a "global settlement."

The parties filed a joint a joint status report three days later
alerting the Court to these developments, and Rahman moved to lift
the stay four days after that. The hearing before Judge Berle is
set for Dec. 13, 2021.

Discussion

For the reasons that follow, Judge Orrick concludes that the stay
of this case should be lifted. Because that question depends in
large measure on Diaz and because Judge Berle has requested his
views, Judge Orrick also explains why he concludes that this case,
not Diaz, should proceed--though he emphasizes that whether to stay
Diaz is Judge Berle's decision. Gate Gourmet is ordered to file a
notice in this case when Judge Berle determines whether or not to
stay Diaz and when Judge Berle determines whether or not to permit
Rahman to intervene.

Mr. Rahman argues that the stay in this case should be lifted so
that it may be fully litigated and that Diaz can be stayed by that
court. Gate Gourmet replies that the stay should be maintained for
the reasons it was entered in the first place.

Judge Orrick notes that the stay was only put in place to assess
the impact of the Diaz proposed settlement. Now that Rahman has
sought to intervene and Judge Berle has asked for Judge Orrick's
views on which action should proceed, Judge Orrick sees no reason
to maintain the stay. Further, if this action proceeds instead of
Diaz, there would not even be an arguable reason for a stay because
there would be no parallel proceeding.

For these reasons--and in light of Judge Berle's request--the core
issue is whether this case or Diaz is the proper vehicle to
litigate these matters. That analysis, too, implicitly dictates the
result of the classic stay factors because it determines the
competing harms and interests, Judge Orrick holds.

To start, Judge Orrick says, this case was filed first. Usually,
considerations of efficiency, economy, and avoiding duplicative
litigation give favor to the first-filed case. If Diaz had remained
pending in federal court, it would likely have been subject to the
first-to-file rule and stayed or dismissed in favor of this case.
Or it may have been put into an MDL. But the parties in Diaz
stipulated to remand to state court, where the federal
first-to-file rule does not apply and the MDL process cannot reach.
Indeed, it would be an unfortunate development in the law to
incentivise defendants to pick their favorite proposed class action
and stipulate to remanding it to escape the first-to-file rule,
Judge Orrick points out.

Further, the parties' conduct in Diaz smacks of a "reverse auction"
leading to a collusive settlement, Judge Orrick observes. Gate
Gourmet removed Diaz to federal court in October 2020. Even though
there is significant overlap in the claims (because both cases are
proposed class actions), Gate Gourmet failed to put Rahman and this
Court on notice that there was a related case. If it had done so,
there presumably would have been motions about the first-to-file
rule or an earlier motion about MDL transfer. Instead, Gate Gourmet
negotiated a pre-certification settlement with the plaintiffs'
counsel in Diaz and swiftly stipulated to remand the case to state
court once it did so. It only filed notices in this case and Diaz a
month before that remand. Even today, it has offered no principled
reason for choosing to settle a later-filed case, Judge Orrick
states.

In short, Judge Orrick points out, if this case were to yield to
Diaz, it would reward a case that appears to be reverse auction. It
would incentivise class-action defendants to pick their favorite
class counsel from among various cases; reach a pre-certification
settlement that is good for the Defendants, good for class counsel,
and potentially bad for the class; and then stipulate to remanding
to state court to escape the first-to-file rule.

While there is no proposed settlement in the case, which in some
sense means that Diaz is at a more advanced stage than this case,
that does not argue for a different result here, Judge Orrick
notes. On the contrary, the Diaz settlement was not reached after
going through the crucible of class certification and dispositive
motions. Diaz, like this case, was still in discovery before the
parties hurriedly settled. Judge Orrick states that the indications
of collusion present there make him discount any argument that this
case should remain stayed.

Gate Gourmet's primary response is that the same reasons that the
parties entered the stay initially still favor it. As explained,
Judge Orrick says the stay was only entered pending review of the
Diaz proposed settlement. The parties have now done so, and Rahman
has concluded it is insufficient and moved to intervene there.
Circumstances have also changed, including that Judge Berle
inquired about Judge Orrick's views of which case should be stayed.
Gate Gourmet argues that pursuing this action will cost it money
and time. True enough, but that is the case in any judicial
proceeding; Rahman has the right to pursue his claims unless there
are compelling reasons to keep the case stayed, Judge Orrick
holds.

All that Judge Orrick is deciding today is whether to lift the stay
in this matter. In response to Judge Berle's inquiry, Judge Orrick
has explained why it seems that this action, rather than Diaz,
should proceed.

"But it is his decision whether Diaz should be stayed, not mine. He
is also better positioned than I to assess the concerns about
collusion that I have raised. If Diaz proceeds and is settled, I
will apply whatever res judicata rules are appropriate to this
case," Judge Orrick explains.

Conclusion

The motion to lift the stay is granted. Gate Gourmet is ordered to
file a copy of this Order on the docket in Diaz within 24 hours.
The Dec. 1, 2021, case management conference is continued to Jan.
4, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The parties' Joint Case Management Statement,
due Dec. 28, 2021, should update the Court on the status of Diaz
and make any proposals necessary to adjust the case schedule in
light of these developments.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p852erc from Leagle.com.


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: A&B Real Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as A&B Real Estate
Holdings LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24191-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.

Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 677-3388
          Fax: (844) 638-5812
          Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com

               - and -

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 533-9500
          Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Aguirre-Matat Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Jackelyn
Aguirre-Matat, on behalf of Home and Land Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No. 1:21-cv-24204-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.

Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 677-3388
          Fax: (844) 638-5812
          Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com

               - and -

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 533-9500
          Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Baco Annetta Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Baco Annetta
LLC, on behalf of itelf and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24211-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.

Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 677-3388
          Fax: (844) 638-5812
          Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com

               - and -

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 533-9500
          Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Binns Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Steve Binns, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder
Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No. 1:21-cv-24193-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.

Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 677-3388
          Fax: (844) 638-5812
          Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com

               - and -

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 533-9500
          Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Shona Blonsky Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Shona Blonsky,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24214-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.

Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 677-3388
          Fax: (844) 638-5812
          Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com

               - and -

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 533-9500
          Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Casey's 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA CASEY, individually, and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-299-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted GM's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Procedural Background

On Feb. 18, 2020, Plaintiff Casey filed a Class Action Complaint
against Defendant GM. On Sept. 15, 2020, Casey filed an Amended
Class Action Complaint against Defendants GM and Does 1 through 10.
On April 13, 2021, the Court granted GM's Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim and dismissed the Amended Class Action
Complaint without prejudice.

On July 19, 2021, the Court granted Casey's Motion for Leave to
File Second Amended Complaint. On July 20, 2021, Casey filed a SAC
against Defendants GM and Does 1 through 10. The SAC alleges that
that the Defendants violated California state law by failing to
adequately acknowledge or remedy a defect located in the engine bay
fuse blocks of certain vehicles manufactured by GM between 2013 and
2017.

On Aug. 3, 2021, GM filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC for failure
to state a claim. On Aug. 24, 2021, Casey filed an Opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss. On Aug. 30, 2021, GM filed a Reply.

Allegations in the SAC

On Dec. 9, 2016, Casey purchased a used 2014 Buick Enclave
("Vehicle") from GM franchise dealership Hoehn Buick, GMC, Cadillac
in Carlsbad, California. The Vehicle had previously been "sold new"
on Oct. 13, 2013.

On April 30, 2018, at 89,373 miles, Casey brought the Vehicle to
Hoehn for repair. On approximately five occasions, the Vehicle lost
power, and the "stability and traction warning illuminated,"
requiring Casey to pull over and restart the Vehicle. Hoehn
"identified Fault Code P1682, and found that the fuse block
ignition bus, also known as both Terminal 51 and the Engine Relay,
was loose." It attempted to fix the problem by reinstalling and
resecuring the engine bay fuse block. "The repair did not work, and
the Vehicle was brought back by Casey on June 20, 2018 with the
same symptoms." Hoehn diagnosed the engine bay fuse block as
"defective" and replaced it. Casey was required to pay for the
repairs.

On Dec. 12, 2019, GM issued Technical Service Bulletin 19-NA-276.
The bulletin applies to the 2013-2017 Buick Enclave, 2013-2017
Chevrolet Traverse, 2013-2016 Chevrolet Acadia, and 2017 Chevrolet
Acadia Limited, which share the common fuse block design. The
bulletin states: "Subject: Potential reduced engine power message
displayed and/or engine stall with DTCs P1682 and/or P0689 set,"
"Condition: Some customers may comment that the engine stalled
and/or a reduced engine power message was displayed. The technician
may find DTCs P1682 and/or P0689 stored," "Cause: The cause of the
condition may be poor terminal tension on terminal 51 in X50A Fuse
Block - underhood X3."

As a result of GM's conduct, Casey and other consumers have
expended money for repairs, have not received the value for which
they bargained when they purchased their vehicles, and have
experienced a diminished resale value of their vehicles.

Ms. Casey seeks to represent the following class: "All Persons in
the State of California who purchased or leased model year 2013
through 2017 Buick Enclave, model year 2013 through 2017 Chevrolet
Traverse, model year 2013 through 2016 Chevrolet Acadia, and model
year 2017 Chevrolet Acadia Limited vehicles (Class Vehicles)."

Ms. Casey and the class bring the following claims against the
Defendants: 1) violation of the California Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790, et seq.; and 2)
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal.
Civ. Code Section 17200, et seq. Casey and class seek injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Discussion

GM contends that the "Plaintiff's Song-Beverly claim fails as a
matter of law because she purchased her Vehicle used." It contends
that even if the Song-Beverly Act was applicable, Casey's Vehicle
was merchantable due to "extensive trouble-free use" and because
repairs "solved" the Vehicle's problems. GM contends that its
actions do not fall within the "unlawful" UCL prong because Casey's
claim is not premised on any viable independent legal violation. It
contends that Casey's "unfair" prong UCL claim should be dismissed
because a Vehicle part that "functions throughout the term of its
express warranty cannot be characterized as causing a substantial
injury to consumers." GM contends that Casey's UCL claim should be
dismissed because Casey has an adequate remedy at law.

Ms. Casey contends that the Song-Beverly Act applies because the
Vehicle was still partially covered by the original factory
warranty. Se contends that her Vehicle is not considered a used
vehicle because she had previously leased the Vehicle and
subsequently purchased the Vehicle pursuant to an option in her
lease. Casey contends that the Vehicle was not merchantable because
the "inherent design flaw" in a part alleged to last the life of
the Vehicle "caused the Vehicle to fail during its useful life" and
rendered the Vehicle "not fit for ordinary use." Casey contends
that GM's conduct was unlawful under the UCL because GM violated
the Song-Beverly Act and federal regulations issued by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). She contends that
GM's conduct was unfair under the UCL. Casey contends that she is
permitted to plead her equitable UCL claim in the alternative.

First, Judge Hayes finds that the SAC's allegation that Casey
purchased a used Vehicle from an authorized dealership that was
still partially covered by the balance of GM's original
manufacturer warranty fails to establish that GM owed any implied
warranty obligations to Casey. Hence, GM's Motion to Dismiss
Casey's Song-Beverly Act claim is granted.

Next, Judge Hayes finds that GM's alleged conduct is not "tethered
to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory
provision," because he has already concluded that the SAC fails to
allege facts to support an inference that GM's conduct violated the
Song-Beverly Act or NHTSA regulations. GM's failure to acknowledge
or remedy a defect that occurred outside any applicable express
warranty period cannot plausibly be characterized as "immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to
consumers.

Lastly, according to Judge Hayes, the SAC's conclusory allegations
are insufficient to support a UCL "unfair" prong claim. The SAC
alleges that "the gravity of the consequences of GM's conduct
outweighs the justifications." It alleges that weighing the
relevant factors "is fact intensive and requires a full factual
record. For these reasons, Judge Hayes granted GM's Motion to
Dismiss the "unfair" UCL claim is granted.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Hayes granted GM's Motion to
Dismiss. The SAC is dismissed without prejudice. No later than 30
days from the date of the Order, Plaintiff Casey may file any
motion for leave to amend pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7.1 and
15.1(c). If no motion is filed, the case will be closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9dj4ts from Leagle.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
legalexaminer.com reports that back in April 2021, a New York
plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against Gerber Products
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The plaintiff claimed that Gerber misled consumers into
believing its Good Start Grow Stage 3 baby food was nutritionally
appropriate when major pediatric health organizations like the
American Academy of Pediatrics recommended otherwise.

Gerber filed a motion to get the lawsuit dismissed, stating that
the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action. On November
1, 2021, Senior U.S. District Judge Frederic Block denied the
defendant's motion, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

Gerber Recommends Formula for Babies Over 1-Year-Old
Gerber's Good Start Grow is marketed for children between 12-24
months old and is designed to fill common nutrient gaps in the diet
during that period. It is fortified with essential nutrients like
vitamins D and E and has DHA and iron to support brain
development.

The formula trade group, Infant Nutrition Council of America, which
includes Gerber, states that transition formulas can be used to
fill nutrition gaps after the age of 12 months. The American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, recommends that once the baby
is over 12 months old, parents should "give them whole cow's milk
or reduced-fat (2%) milk, provided they have a balanced diet of
solid foods (cereals, vegetables, fruits, and meats)."

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) makes similar
recommendations, suggesting that after babies turn one year old,
they should drink whole milk for proper growth and development.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also
recommends that when it's time to wean your child and once the
child is 12 months or older, it's best to give the child cow's milk
or fortified soy milk in place of breast milk: "He or she does not
need infant formula or toddler milk, drinks, or formula," the CDC
states.

Plaintiff Claims Infant Formula No More Nutritious Than Regular
Food/Drink
The plaintiff states that since breastfeeding has become more
common, there's been a decrease in sales of infant formula. To make
up for that, companies have introduced "transition formulas" to
children over 12 months old. Yet these formulas are not as healthy
as they look, according to the plaintiff.

Gerber Good Start Grow Toddler Drink, for instance, contains 15
grams of added sugar plus less protein than whole cow's milk. It's
also more expensive than whole milk, but according to the
plaintiff, Gerber has manipulated the labeling to make parents
believe that they're giving their children something extra
nutritious that they wouldn't get from regular cow's milk.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all New York residents who
purchased the product for a child 12-24 months old. Gerber filed a
motion to get the case dismissed, but Judge Block denied Gerber's
challenge on all the claims in the lawsuit but one, which means the
lawsuit will move forward.

Baby Food Manufacturers Facing Lawsuits Concerning Heavy Metals in
Foods
Though this particular case focuses on the nutrition value of the
infant formula, many other baby food lawsuits are pending at the
moment that claim manufacturers allowed their products to be
tainted with heavy metals.

The U.S. House of Representatives published a report on the matter
in February 2021, finding that commercial baby foods are tainted
with significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic,
lead, cadmium, and mercury. Exposure to these metals at a very
young age has been linked with an increased risk of cognitive
issues, decreases in IQ levels, and future criminal and antisocial
behavior in children. [GN]

GF INC: Guzman Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 15, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUZMAN v. GF, INC. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02338 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich
entered an order on the motion for extension of time to set/reset
deadlines as follows:

   -- the plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend the
      pleadings on or before December 8, 2021;

   -- the defendants shall file their motion to decertify the
      collective and plaintiffs shall file their motion for
      class certification, on or before January 15, 2022; and

   -- the defendants shall file their opposition to the
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before
      January 30, 2022.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GF Inc supplies industrial packaging, equipment and warehouse
supplies.[CC]


GILL INDUSTRIES: Lori Walters Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI WALTERS, in her
individual capacity, and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
v. GILL INDUSTRIES, INC., GILL CORPORATION, GRM AUTOMATION INC.,
GILL REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS CO., GILL HOLDING COMPANY, INC., GILL
ACQUISITION COMPANY, GILL MEXICO HOLDINGS, INC., GILL INDUSTRIES
DISC, INC. and HERON INDUSTRIES, INC., and GORDON SCHREUR and
ALICIA MASSE and DAVID DEGRAAF, Case No. 5:21-cv-00069-DCR (E.D.
Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
class action:

In the event that the Court concludes that a class should not be
certified on any individual counts pled in Plaintiff's Complaint,
the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court, in its
discretion, bifurcate non-class claims or stages of the case,
create subclasses, redefine the class, appoint a special master, or
engage in the employment of other administrative
techniques.

Gill Industries is an American global supplier that works mainly in
welding and assembly, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan with
offices in Trenton, Georgia, Richmond, KY, and global offices in
Mexico, Europe, and Asia.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpiJt6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin S. Peterson, Esq.
          Laraclay Parker, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          Alexandra DeMoss-Campbell
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 469-5000
          Facsimile: (859) 469-5001
          E-mail: jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com
                  lparker@goldenlawoffice.com
                  ali@goldenlawoffice.com

GINKGO BIOWORKS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 24 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against of Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.
("Ginkgo" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNA) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
those who purchased Ginkgo common stock between May 11, 2021 and
October 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Ginkgo operates a horizontal platform for cell programming,
designed to enable biological production of products such as novel
therapeutics, key food ingredients, and chemicals currently derived
from petroleum. Before the merger with special purpose acquisition
company ("SPAC") Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Soaring Eagle"),
the Company was known as Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's failure
to derive real revenue from third-party customers left it almost
completely dependent on related parties; (ii) most, if not all, of
the Company's revenue came from related parties the Company
created, funded, or controlled through its ownership and board
seats; (iii) the Company was misclassifying and underreporting
related party revenue in order to conceal the Company's near
total-dependence on related parties; and (iv) many of the Company's
new R&D partners are undisclosed related parties and/or façades.

On October 6, 2021, market researcher Scorpion Capital released a
175-page report alleging that Ginkgo is a "colossal scam,"
describing the Company as a "shell game" whose revenue is highly
dependent on related party transactions. The report alleges that
Gingko is a "Frankenstein mash-up of the worst frauds of the last
20 years" and "one of the most brazen frauds of the last 20 years."
On this news, Ginkgo's shares fell $1.39 per share, or
approximately 12%, to close at $10.59 per share on October 6, 2021,
damaging investors.

On November 15, 2021, the Company acknowledged that shortly after
the Scorpion Capital report, Ginkgo received an inquiry from the
United States Department of Justice relating to the financial
misconduct allegations in the report.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ginkgo
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]

GINKGO BIOWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 25
announced it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.
f/k/a Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: DNA; NASDAQ: SRNG)
between May 11, 2021 and October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action 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 Ginkgo 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 Ginkgo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2172.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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. 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) the Company's failure to derive
real revenue from third-party customers left it almost completely
dependent on related parties; (2) as a result, most, if not all, of
the Company's revenue came from related parties the Company
created, funded, or controlled through its ownership and board
seats; (3) the Company was misclassifying and underreporting
related party revenue in order to conceal the Company's near
total-dependence on related parties; (4) many of the Company's new
R&D partners are undisclosed related parties and/or façades; (5)
as a result, the Company's valuation was significant less than
Defendants disclosed to investors; and (6) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Ginkgo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2172.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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

Contacts:

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]

GROCERY DELIVERY: McDonald Challenges TCPA Case Settlement OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class Member and Objector Sarah McDonald filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GRACE MURRAY,
Plaintiff, v. GROCERY DELIVERY E-SERVICES USA INC., doing business
as HELLOFRESH, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-12608-WGY, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit is brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted
in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant sent telemarketing calls to her
and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry without their prior express written consent. Because
telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of
thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

On May 11, June 9, July 8 and September 29, 2021, the Court heard
the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and
for Entry of Judgment filed by Plaintiffs, as well as the Status
Report and Amendment No. 1 to the Settlement Agreement and Release.
The Court reviewed: (a) the motion and the supporting papers,
including the Settlement Agreement and Release; (b) the objections
filed with or presented to the Court; (c) the responses to the
objections; and (d) counsel's arguments. Based on the review and
the findings, the Court found good cause to approve the
Settlement.

On October 15, 2021, Judge William G. Young entered a final
approval order and judgment, granting the motion as well as any
prior rulings, opinions, or orders that merge therein.

Ms. McDonald now seeks a review of the settlement order.

The appellate case is captioned as GRACE MURRAY; AMANDA ENGEN;
STEPHEN BAUER; JEANNE TIPPETT; ROBIN TUBESING; NIKOLE SIMECEK;
MICHELLE MCOSKER; JACQUELINE GROFF; HEATHER HALL, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
GROCERY DELIVERY E-SERVICES USA INC., d/b/a HelloFresh,
Defendant-Appellee, SARAH MCDONALD, Objector-Appellant, Case No.
21-1931, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on November 17, 2021.[BN]

Objector-Appellant Sarah MacDonald is represented by:

          Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON
          6580 Avenida Mirola
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 263-9581
          Email: ericalanisaacson@icloud.com

               - and -

          Nakul Madhav Havnurkar, Esq.
          NMH LEGAL
          14 Earl Street
          Boston, MA 02127
          Telephone: (857) 500-9783


GRUBHUB INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a
class action for allegations that GrubHub, Inc. violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff alleged
that she received a series of robocalls from GrubHub, even though
she asked to be put on the do-not-call list more than once. The
plaintiff further alleges that GrubHub used a device "programmed to
sequentially or randomly access, dial, and call [. . .] stored
telephone numbers," and that Grubhub "effectively prevent[ed] her
from using her phone" and "clogg[ed] up" her voicemail.

In GrubHub's motion to dismiss, GrubHub argued that the TCPA
section at issue has since been declared unconstitutional during
the time period in which the plaintiff claims the calls were made;
therefore, it was unenforceable during that time period.

Specifically, the debate between the parties centered on the TCPA's
robocall provision's status between 2015, when the government debt
exception was enacted, and February 11, 2021, the date final
judgment was entered by the District Court on remand in Barr v.
American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. (AAPC). In
AAPC, the Supreme Court held that the government debt exception was
unconstitutional because it favored government-debt collection
speech over other types of speech. However, rather than finding the
entire TCPA unconstitutional, the Court severed the government debt
exception from the rest of the statute. Grubhub argues that
severability can only apply prospectively, not retrospectively, and
therefore, the entirety of the cell phone robocall prohibition was
unconstitutional during this time period. If that is correct, the
court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs'
action. The clear weight of authority, however, supports the view
that severability of the government debt extension amendment to the
TCPA operates retrospectively. The court denied the motion to
dismiss on these grounds.

The lesson here is that the TCPA is still being enforced and
litigated. If your company is using autodialers or pre-recorded
messages, be sure to stay on top of the requirements under this
statute. Otherwise, the penalties or claims for damages could be
substantial. [GN]

GSK CONSUMER: New York Court Issues Final Judgment in Swetz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a final judgment in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN SWETZ,
individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GSK Consumer Health, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 7:20-cv-04731-NSR (S.D.N.Y.).

Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court has entered these orders:

   (1) Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
       and Certifying Settlement Class; and

   (2) Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
       Costs, and Service Awards.

For the reasons stated in the Orders, judgment is entered
accordingly. This Litigation is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk will file the Final Judgment on the docket in the
Litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated Nov. 22, 2021,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckj7y39 from Leagle.com.


HENDERSON, NV: Loses Bid to Dismiss Woodburn Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly Woodburn, et al., v.
City of Henderson, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey entered an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for collective action, denying defendant's motion to compel
arbitration, and denying defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs are current and former corrections officers at the
Henderson Detention Center (HDC) who sue the City of Henderson for
unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They
move to conditionally certify their collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b). The City objects, claiming that current
officers cannot be part of the collective action because they are
required to arbitrate FLSA claims under their collective bargaining
agreement (CBA). It moves to compel arbitration for Joshua
Rodriguez, a current officer who recently was joined as a named
plaintiff. The City also moves to dismiss plaintiffs'
second-amended complaint in its entirety, contending that it
alleges "gap-time" claims that are not actionable under the FLSA.

Because I find that the CBA does not contain a clear and
unmistakable waiver of the officers' right to litigate statutory
claims, I deny the City's motion to compel arbitration. The
plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged claims for unpaid overtime
under the FLSA, so I deny the City's motion to dismiss. And because
they have adequately pled that the members of their collective
action are similarly situated, I grant their motion for collective
action and equitably toll the applicable statute of limitations
from May 29, 2021, until the City provides contact information for
potential class members to plaintiffs' counsel, Judge Dorsey says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DaERK6 at no extra charge.[CC]


HYP3R INC: Judge Certifies Instagram Users' Privacy Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a B.C. judge
has certified a class-action lawsuit against a company that
breached Instagram's privacy policies in connection with nearly 2.4
million Instagram users in Canada. The firm has been ordered to pay
more than $24 million in damages.

The allegation in the court case was that Hyp3r Inc., a U.S.-based
marketing platform that used social media profiles on Instagram as
a data source, collected, retained and exploited users' personal
information without their notice or consent.

Instagram, the social media giant owned by Facebook, permits users
to share posts, including texts, photos and videos, with other
members of the public and connect with other users.

It has been estimated that there are nearly 10 million Instagram
users in Canada, outside of Quebec, according to the class-action
ruling of B.C. Supreme Court Justice William Veenstra.

Hyp3r, which is registered in Delaware and provides services in
California, collects data on people, including such information as
user names, photos and post content, to permit advertisers to
target users with a connection to a particular location or event.

Instagram maintains relationships with other developers and
businesses and permits them, subject to certain terms, to develop
products or services to run on or in connection with their
platform.

It makes available tools that allow third-parties to interact with
Instagram, but requires those third-parties to respect certain
policies, including the prohibition of "scraping" or improper
collection and retention of users' personal information.

In April 2018, Instagram made changes such that it would not be
possible to access or collect all public posts from specific
locations or collect and retain users' Instagram stories through
those tools.

After the changes, Hyp3r carried out "scraping" of personal
information from users' profiles on Instagram up until about August
2019 when Instagram announced that Hyp3r's actions were not
sanctioned and it was removing the company from its platform,
according to the ruling.

The representative plaintiff in the class-action suit alleged that
Hyp3r's collection of personal information was a breach of their
privacy and that as a result of the breach, they were entitled to
damages.

The judge said that he was satisfied that the company's breach of
privacy of Canadian Instagram users was "invasive" and
"intentional" and added that each class member should be entitled
to $10 in damages.

The award applies only to people who had their Instagram account on
a public rather than a private setting, or about 2.4 million of the
nearly 10 million Instagram users.

The judge noted that the plaintiff served the defendant with notice
of the class-action application, but that the company had failed to
respond, resulting in the plaintiff obtaining a default judgment
for damages to be assessed.

He said the fact that the company did not defend itself in court
should not defeat or limit the ability of the court to deal with an
otherwise legitimate claim.

The judge said there was significant uncertainty as to whether the
class members can collect on the award, but noted that lawyers for
the plaintiff are planning to hire U.S. lawyers to go after the
company.

Due to the uncertainty around the extent of the recovery of funds,
the judge suspended notification to class members for a year. Hyp3r
could not be reached. [GN]

ISM VUZEM: Court Narrows Claims in Maslic's 1st Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SASA MASLIC, et al., Plaintiffs v. ISM VUZEM D.O.O.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-02556-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part
Defendants Eisenmann Corp. and Tesla, Inc.'s motion to dismiss five
claims in the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

Introduction

Plaintiffs Sasa Maslic, Ivan Drzaic, Robert Hernaus, Leopold Hubek,
Leon Hudoldetnjak, Elvis Koscak, Tomica Panic, Stjepan Papes,
Zeljko Puljko, Darko Stante, Nedeljko Zivani, Gogo Rebic, and Mitja
Pogorevc were employees of Defendants ISM Vuzem d.o.o.; ISM Vuzem
USA, Inc.; Vuzem USA, Inc.; HRID-MONT d.o.o.; Ivan Vuzem; and
Robert Vuzem (collectively, "Vuzem").

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Vuzem,
Defendant Eisenmann, and Defendant Tesla. They allege various
violations of federal and California labor law, all of which arise
from the Plaintiffs' time working at a facility owned by Tesla.

Background

The Plaintiffs are residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia,
or Croatia and were employees of Defendant Vuzem, which is a
Slovenian construction company. Vuzem has several subsidiaries in
the United States, including in San Pedro, California. Defendant
Eisenmann is a "manufacturer of specialized paint shop equipment."
It is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Illinois.

In 2014, Vuzem and Eisenmann contracted with Defendant Tesla, a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
California, to perform a construction project at Tesla's facility
in Fremont, California. Eisenmann was the general contractor for
the project and Vuzem was the subcontractor. According to the
Plaintiffs, Vuzem and Eisenmann "earned millions of dollars from
the contracts."

The Plaintiffs performed construction work at Tesla's facility from
November 2014 through June 2016. They allege that Vuzem, Eisenmann,
and Tesla failed to provide Plaintiffs with adequate compensation
and benefits. Specifically, as relevant to the instant motion, they
allege that they were not paid the minimum wage; that they were not
paid overtime wages when they worked more than eight hours a day,
more than 40 hours a week, or seven days in a row; that they were
not provided with rest periods; and that, when they were terminated
as employees, they were not provided with all unpaid compensation.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Vuzem used threats of violence and
economic reprisal to coerce Plaintiff Maslic into working under
dangerous conditions. According to the Plaintiffs, Vuzem "caused
their workers, including Plaintiff Maslic, to believe they had to
provide labor or they would be subject to serious harm, including
loss of visa status and civil and criminal prosecutions."
Additionally, Vuzem "threatened to withhold pay if any of their
employees became too sick to work or reported a job injury." As a
result, multiple employees, including Plaintiff Maslic, suffered
serious injuries.

On Aug. 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior
Court for the County of Alameda. They did not effectuate service of
the complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint.
The FAC asserts ten claims under California and federal labor law:
(1) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 203, et seq., against
Vuzem; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of FLSA against
Vuzem; (3) failure to pay minimum wage under California law against
all the Defendants; (4) failure to pay overtime wages under
California law against all the Defendants; (5) failure to provide
adequate rest periods under California law against all the
Defendants; (6) failure to provide the Plaintiffs with accurate
wage statements under California law against Vuzem; (7) failure to
pay waiting time penalties under California law against all the
Defendants; (8) failure to adhere to California labor laws for a
class of 177 employees against Vuzem; (9) violation of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18
U.S.C. Section 1595 et seq., and the California Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (CTVPA) against all the Defendants; and (10)
violation of California's workers' compensation laws under
California Labor Code Section 3706 against Vuzem.

On March 9, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla were served the FAC. On April
8, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed a notice of removal in the Court
stating that it has federal question jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' FLSA and TVPRA claims and supplemental jurisdiction
over their state law claims. As an alternative basis for removal,
Eisenman and Tesla stated that the Court has original jurisdiction
over all the Plaintiffs' claims under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1453.

On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand. On May 17,
2021, they filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Supplemental Motion to Remand. On May 19, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla
filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. On May 21,
2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Extension of Time. On May 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a
reply in support of their Motion to Remand. On June 2, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their Motion for Extension
of Time.

In the meantime, on May 17, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla filed a
motion to dismiss the five claims that the Plaintiffs bring against
Eisenmann and Tesla: (1) failure to pay minimum wage under
California law; (2) failure to pay overtime wages under California
law; (3) failure to provide adequate rest periods under California
law; (4) failure to pay waiting time penalties under California
law; and (5) violation of the TVPRA and CTVPA.

On June 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Eisenmann
and Tesla's motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2021, Eisenmann and Tesla
filed a reply.

On Oct. 26, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand. It held that it has federal question
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims under FLSA and TVPRA and
has supplemental jurisdiction over six of their state law claims.
However, the Court held that the Plaintiffs' claim under California
Labor Code Section 3706 is not subject to removal. Thus, the Court
severed and remanded that claim. It denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Extension of Time.

Discussion

Eisenmann and Tesla move to dismiss the five claims that the
Plaintiffs bring against Eisenmann and Tesla: (1) failure to pay
minimum wage under California law; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages under California law; (3) failure to provide adequate rest
periods under California law; (4) failure to pay waiting time
penalties under California law; and (5) violation of the TVPRA and
CTVPA. Eisenmann and Tesla contend that the first four claims,
i.e., the "wage and hour claims," must be dismissed as untimely and
because neither Eisenmann nor Tesla was the Plaintiffs' employer
under California law. They ontend that the fifth claim, i.e., the
"coerced labor" claim, must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs
fail to allege Eisenmann and Tesla benefited from or knew about
their coerced labor.

Judge Koh first addresses the wage and hour claims and concludes
that those claims are untimely. Accordingly, she need not address
whether Eisenmann and Tesla were the Plaintiffs' employers. She
then addresses the coerced labor claim and concludes that the
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged Eisenmann and Tesla benefited
from and knew about their coerced labor.

A. Plaintiffs' Wage and Hour Claims Are Untimely

Eisenmann and Tesla argue that the limitations period for each of
the Plaintiffs' "wage and hour claims" expired in July 2019 at the
latest and that these claims are untimely because they filed their
complaint in August 2020.

Judge Koh agrees. She holds that a limitations period of three
years applies to the Plaintiffs' claims that Eisenmann and Tesla
failed to provide minimum wages, overtime wages, and adequate rest
periods, all of which were compensation or benefits owed to the
Plaintiffs for their labor. In turn, a limitations period of one
year applies to the Plaintiffs' claim for waiting time penalties,
which are penalties imposed on employers who fail to pay wages in a
timely manner.

Judge Koh also holds that because the Plaintiffs' wage and hour
claims all accrued in June 2016, those claims are untimely. She
finds that the latest possible date that the Plaintiff could have
brought any claims for minimum wages, overtime wages, or adequate
rest periods was June 2019. Similarly, because the Plaintiffs'
employment ended by June 2016, the latest possible date that the
Plaintiff could have brought a claim for waiting time penalties was
June 2017.

Lastly, because the Plaintiffs have effectively failed to respond
to Eisenmann and Tesla's argument that the "wage and hour claims"
are untimely, it is unlikely that they will be able to cure this
defect. Accordingly, Judge Koh holds that because the Plaintiffs
have failed to offer a response to the time bar argument and
because their wage claims are the same claims that the Lesnik
plaintiffs (Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 374 F.Supp.3d 923, 933 (N.D.
Cal. 2019)) voluntarily dismissed almost three years ago, allowing
leave to amend would prejudice Eisenmann and Tesla, would cause
undue delay, and would be futile. Thus, she grants Eisenmann and
Tesla's motion to dismiss the four "wage and hour claims" with
prejudice.

B. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged that Eisenmann and Tesla
Violated the TVPRA

Eisenmann and Tesla argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to a
state a claim under the TVPRA because they have not adequately
alleged that Eisenmann and Tesla benefited from their coerced
labor, or that Eisenmann and Tesla had knowledge of the Plaintiffs'
coerced labor.

Judge Koh rejects these arguments. First, she concludes that the
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Eisenmann and Tesla
benefited from a venture that relied on their coerced labor.
Second, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Eisenmann and
Tesla knew or should have known about their coerced labor. Lastly,
because the Plaintiffs' TVPRA claim survives, their CTVPA claim
does as well. Thus, Judge Koh denies Eisenmann and Tesla's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CTVPA claim.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh grants with prejudice the
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' four wage and hour claims as
those claims relate to Eisenmann and Tesla. She denies the motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' TVPRA and CTVPA claim as that claim
relates to Eisenmann and Tesla.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8n9drx from Leagle.com.


JAGUAR LAND: New Jersey Court Tosses Flynn-Murphy's Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORETTA FLYNN-MURPHY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. JAGUAR LAND
ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-14464
(D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Background

The class action lawsuit is premised on the Plaintiffs' allegations
that the Defendant knew that a component of its motor vehicles
would eventually fail but did not disclose the purported defect to
consumers. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs owned a
sport utility vehicle manufactured by the Defendant. They did not
purchase their vehicles directly from it. Instead, the Plaintiffs
Flynn-Murphy, Cohn, McNew, Kabba, De La Torre, Darbenzio and Davies
purchased their vehicles from a Jaguar Land Rover North America
("JLRNA") authorized dealer.

Plaintiff Gonzalez purchased his vehicle from a federal credit
union, and Wilbur purchased his vehicle from an Audi dealership.
After a few years, each Plaintiff's vehicle experienced a
turbocharger failure and most Plaintiffs paid out of pocket to
replace or repair the turbocharger. Plaintiffs Gonzalez and
Darbenzio, however, could not afford to repair the defective
turbocharger so their vehicles are no longer fully functional. The
Plaintiffs contend the turbochargers in all Class Vehicles are
defective.

The Class Vehicles are all equipped with a 2.0 Liter 4-cylinder gas
engine with a turbocharger. The turbocharger is a component of the
engine that essentially allows smaller engines to perform like
bigger ones by forcing air into the engine. Turbochargers provide
power to the engine but also improve fuel economy and emissions.

The Plaintiffs allege that for the Class Vehicles, the Defendant
utilized lighter and less durable materials for the turbochargers
than it did for a previous engine assembly. Specifically, the
Defendant used a single piece for the allegedly defective
turbocharger rather than two. The Plaintiffs also allege that the
Defendant chose to place the turbocharger further into the engine
and powertrain than in previous models. Due to these changes, the
Defendant allegedly knew or should have known that the
turbochargers were not adequate, were "defective, and were subject
to premature and catastrophic failure." Ultimately, the Plaintiffs
maintain that the Defendant knew of and concealed this turbocharger
defect at the time of each Plaintiff's purchase and knew that the
defect would only manifest after the Defendant's express warranties
expired.

As to the relevant warranties, the "Defendant's basic New Vehicle
Limited Warranty provides bumper-to-bumper coverage for four years
or 50,000 miles during which time Defendant will repair or replace
components defective in materials or workmanship" (the "Limited
Warranty"). There are also two governmentally mandated express
warranties at issue: The Federal Emissions Control System
Warranties and the California Emissions Control Warranties. No
Plaintiff alleges that their turbocharger defect manifested within
the time or mileage limitations of the Limited Warranty or either
governmentally mandated warranty.

After their turbochargers failed, Plaintiffs Flynn-Murphy, Cohn and
McNew filed the initial class action Complaint on Oct. 14, 2020. On
behalf of a nationwide class and a New Jersey sub-class, the
Complaint asserted claims for fraud, breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the express and implied warranties, a
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), unjust
enrichment, and a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("NJCFA"). Plaintiff Cohn also asserted a claim on behalf of a
Michigan sub-class alleging a violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act; Plaintiff McNew asserted a claim on behalf of an
Oklahoma sub-class alleging a violation of the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act. The Defendant responded with a motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The
Amended Complaint includes six new Plaintiffs, new factual
allegations, and asserts consumer protection act claims on behalf
of sub-classes associated with residents of California, Colorado,
and Texas. In light of the Amended Complaint, the Court terminated
the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss, and the Defendant
subsequently filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Analysis

A. Choice of Law

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that New Jersey law
applies to their claims "regardless of the place of their purchase
or residence." The Defendant does not challenge this allegation for
purposes of the instant motion, and argues that under New Jersey
law, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed. In their opposition
brief, however, the Plaintiffs fail to provide a choice of law
analysis yet argue that they adequately plead claims under state
law other than New Jersey.

Judge Vazquez opines that the parties provide no choice of law
analysis. Accordingly, he does not decide any choice of law issues
at this time. Moreover, because the Plaintiffs alleged that New
Jersey law applies to all their claims in the Amended Complaint,
Judge Vazquez only applies New Jersey law to decide the instant
motion. It is not appropriate for the Plaintiffs to plead that New
Jersey law applies then, without providing any choice of law
analysis, use purported differences in state law to overcome
pleading deficiencies in their own pleading.

B. Breach of Warranty Claims

1. Express Warranty Claims (Count VI)

To state a claim for breach of an express warranty under New Jersey
law, a plaintiff must allege "(1) that Defendant made an
affirmation, promise or description about the product; (2) that
this affirmation, promise or description became part of the basis
of the bargain for the product; and (3) that the product ultimately
did not conform to the affirmation, promise or description."

In the case, the Defendant's Limited Warranty "provides
bumper-to-bumper coverage for four years or 50,000 miles during
which time Defendant will repair or replace components defective in
materials or workmanship." Under the Limited Warranty, the
Defendant agreed to correct, without charge, "defects in
factory-supplied materials or factory workmanship upon presentment
for service."

Certain Plaintiffs' vehicles were also covered under the two
governmentally mandated warranties; the Federal Emissions Control
System Warranties and the California Emissions Control Warranties.
The Plaintiffs, however, do not allege that their turbochargers
failed within the time or mileage limits of any of the express
warranties. Accordingly, on its face, the Plaintiffs do not
adequately plead a claim for breach of an express warranty in the
Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead that
Defendant knew of the purported turbocharger defect at the time of
sale. As a result, their unconscionability argument fails. The
Defendant's motion to dismiss the express warranty claim is
granted.

2. Implied Warranty (Count V)

Next, the Defendant seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' implied
warranty claim. New Jersey law provides for implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. However, "the
complete exclusion of implied warranties, including warranties of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, is
specifically permitted.

In the case, the Passport to Service provides that the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness are limited, to the
extent allowed by law, to the time period covered by the written
warranties, or to the applicable time period provided by state law,
whichever period is shorter. Thus, the Defendant expressly limited
these implied warranties. As discussed, the Plaintiffs do not
plausibly allege that their turbochargers failed within express
warranty limitations. Therefore, the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly
allege a breach of any implied warranties.

The Plaintiffs again argue that they state an implied warranty
claim because the warranty limitations are unconscionable, and that
Defendant had knowledge that the alleged defect existed when the
vehicles were purchased. For the reasons he discussed, Judge
Vazquez disagrees. Hence, the Plaintiffs' breach of implied
warranties claim is dismissed without prejudice.

3. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim (Count VI)

Finally, the Defendant contends that the MMWA claim fails because
the Plaintiffs do not state a breach of express or implied
warranties claim. The Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. Because
Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims are dismissed,
Judge Vazquez also dismissed their MMWA claim.

C. Breach of Contract

Next, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a
breach of contract claim because, among other things, the
Plaintiffs fail to allege that they were parties to a contract with
the Defendant or were in privity with each other. To state a claim
for breach of contract under New Jersey law, a party must allege,
among other things, that "the parties entered into a contract."

Judge Vazquez opines that the Plaintiffs fail to identify any
contract of which they are parties or have a legal authority to
enforce. First, because the Plaintiffs are not parties to a
contract with the Defendant, privity of contract does not exist.
Second, the Plaintiffs fail to provide legal authority
demonstrating that an agency relationship could create privity of
contract between them and the Defendant. Third, the Plaintiffs fail
to explain to which contract they were intended to be third-party
beneficiaries. In short, the Plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary
theory (or the contract on which it is based) is not entirely
clear. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is
dismissed.

D. Unjust Enrichment (Count VII)

The Defendant also seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim because they are indirect purchasers. The
Plaintiffs counter that they can pursue an unjust enrichment claim
because a direct relationship is not required where "the Defendant
can plausibly be deemed a wrongdoer."

Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs contend that they "provide
extensive allegations as to the relationship between the Defendant
and its agent-dealerships. But these allegations do not
sufficiently establish that the Defendant is a wrongdoer. In the
cases relied on by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs included
allegations demonstrating that the manufacturer was engaged in
fraudulent or wrongful conduct. Because he has already determined
that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead that the Defendant
knew of and failed to disclose the turbocharger defect at the time
of sale, Judge Vazquez holds that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly
plead that the Defendant is something other than an innocent
third-party. The Plaintiffs, therefore, fail to sufficiently plead
an unjust enrichment claim.

E. Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Based Claims (Counts I,
III, and VIII through XIV)

The Plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentations claims are
largely premised on an omission, that is, the Defendant's purported
failure to disclose that the turbocharger was defective and prone
to premature failure. The Defendant seeks to dismiss these counts
on numerous grounds, including because Defendant did not have a
duty to disclose.

As he discussed, Judge Vazquez opines that no Plaintiff pleads that
he or she relied on the relevant marketing materials or the fact
that their vehicle contained the 4-cylinder turbocharged engine as
a reason for purchasing their vehicle. In addition, the Plaintiffs
plead that they all purchased their vehicle "based on the
representation that the vehicle was safe and reliable, based on
representations made by the Defendant."

Again, the identified marketing materials tout the benefits of the
turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. The marketing materials highlighted
by the Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint, however, do not address
safety or reliability. Without allegations demonstrating that the
Plaintiffs relied on the specific misrepresentations discussed in
the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs do not satisfy the Rule 9(b)
pleading standards. The Plaintiffs' fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims, and their state consumer protection
claims, are also dismissed on these grounds.

F. Equitable Relief

The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief in the
form of a comprehensive program to repair or replace turbochargers
in the Class Vehicles, compensatory damages, and restitution. The
Defendant maintains that the Plaintiffs' claims for equitable
relief should be dismissed. It continues that the Plaintiffs also
fail to allege a sufficient likelihood of future injury, such that
injunctive relief is not appropriate.

Rule 8 provides that in a pleading, a party may demand different
types of relief, including relief in the alternative. Accordingly,
Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to seek
injunctive relief and restitution. As for the Defendant's argument
that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are entitled to
such relief, he is dismissing the Amended Complaint for the reasons
he stated. If the Plaintiffs file an amended pleading that
sufficiently states any claims, the Defendants are free to raise
their arguments at that time.

Conclusion

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
will have 30 days to file an amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies noted. If the Plaintiffs do not file an amended
pleading within that time, the claims dismissed herein will be
dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies Judge
Vazquez's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3pdf4ys4 from Leagle.com.


JELD-WEN INC: Court Approves $40MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Jeld-Wen Inc.
investors won final approval from a federal judge in Virginia for a
$40 million class action settlement of claims that the door
manufacturer kept them in the dark about its antitrust violations.

Judge John A. Gibney Jr. signed off Nov. 22 on the agreement, which
ends securities fraud litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against Jeld-Wen and its private
equity backers at Onex Corp.

The deal calls for payments of $39.5 million by Jeld-Wen and
$500,000 by Onex, according to court filings. It includes an award
of $10 million in legal fees to counsel for the investors.

"In light of the benefits to the class" and "the complexity and
expense of further litigation," the settlement "is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate," the judge wrote. "Class
counsel conducted the litigation and achieved the settlement with
skill, perseverance, and diligent advocacy."

The ruling comes about five months after Gibney approved the second
part of an $81 million agreement resolving the antitrust class
action that led to the shareholder lawsuit. Jeld-Wen and the
country's other top door maker, Masonite Corp., split the earlier
payment.

The lawsuits accused Jeld-Wen and Masonite of exploiting their 85%
control of the "interior molded door" market to raise prices nearly
in unison for years while concealing their conspiracy.

The consolidated class actions followed an antitrust suit by door
maker Steves & Sons Inc., a 150-year-old family-run business that
won a major jury verdict in a case challenging Jeld-Wen's
acquisition of the only independent manufacturer of the paneled
"skins" used as door exteriors.

The Steves litigation culminated in a novel ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which became the first
federal appeals court to unwind a merger at the request of a rival
rather than a regulator.

Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP are
co-lead counsel for the shareholders, with Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC as liaison counsel.

Jeld-Wen and its executives are represented by McGuireWoods LLP and
Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Onex is represented by Christian & Barton LLP
and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.

The case is In re Jeld-Wen Holding Inc. Sec. Litig., E.D. Va., No.
20-cv-112, 11/22/21. [GN]

JENKINS JOHNSON: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jenkins Johnson NY
LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Jenkins Johnson NY LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09763 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Jenkins Johnson Gallery -- https://www.jenkinsjohnsongallery.com/
-- is a contemporary art gallery with locations in Brooklyn, New
York and San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Salveson Seeks High Court Review in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Melvin Salveson, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Melvin Salveson, et al., Petitioners v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., et al., Respondents, Case No. 21-722.

Response is due December 16, 2021.

Mr. Salveson, et al., petitions for a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled MELVIN SALVESON, EDWARD LAWRENCE, DIANNA
LAWRENCE, WENDY M. ADAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK
OF AMERICA N.A., CAPITAL ONE, F.S.B., CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE BANK, HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION, HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-2658. The Second Circuit
affirmed, inter alia, a November 26, 2014 Decision's dismissal of
Plaintiffs' federal claims and a February 24, 2016 Decision's
denial of Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
of the federal claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge
Margo K. Brodie of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted Defendants' motion for reconsideration
and dismissed Plaintiffs' state law claim in the case captioned,
MARVIN SALVESON, EDWARD LAWRENCE, DIANNA LAWRENCE and WENDY M.
ADAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN BANK, N.A., BANK
OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., CAPITAL ONE F.S.B.,
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE BANK, HSBC FINANCE
CORPORATION, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC NORTH AMERICAN HOLDINGS,
INC. and HSBC HOLDINGS, PLC, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-3529 (MKB)
(E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Marvin Salveson, Edward Lawrence, Dianna Lawrence and
Wendy M. Adams commenced the putative antitrust class action on
December 16, 2013, against financial institutions that issued
general purpose payment cards consumers use to purchase goods and
services, and the affiliates of such institutions. On behalf of a
putative nationwide class of consumers using payment cards issued
by Defendants, Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to Sections 4 and
16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, and pursuant
to the Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code
Sec. 16750(a).

Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims, and by
Memorandum and Order filed on November 26, 2014, the Court granted
Defendants' motion and entered judgment on December 4, 2014,
finding that Plaintiffs are barred from asserting claims under Sec.
4 of the Clayton Act by the Illinois Brick doctrine.

Plaintiffs move to vacate the judgment and, pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 6.3, for reconsideration of the dismissal of their federal
claim arguing that the Court overlooked the standard applicable to
a motion to dismiss by failing to accept Plaintiffs' allegations as
true. Defendants cross-move for reconsideration pursuant to Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule
6.3, seeking reconsideration of the Court's refusal to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' California state law
claim.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Melvin Salveson, et al., are represented
by:

          Joseph M. Alioto Jr., Esq.
          ALIOTO LEGAL
          One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-8900
          E-mail: joseph@alioto.law

KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Junk SOPRA Study Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
securities class action suit related to the results from the Phase
2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, is pending.

The company was named as a defendant in a securities class action
litigation filed on July 23, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint was filed by the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, against the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors as well as the
underwriters of its public offerings of common stock conducted in
April 2017 and May 2018.

This complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 12, 2020.

A second complaint was filed by Heather Mehdi on September 17,
2019, in the same court and against the same defendants with the
exception of the underwriters.

In April 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, Myo Thant, who
filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2020. The amended complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws based on our
disclosures related to the results from the Phase 2 SOPRA study and
Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest; reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and expert fees; and such
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

The company reviewed the allegations and believes they are without
merit. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on July 31, 2020
and concluded related briefing in September 2020. Before the court
ruled on this motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
November 2, 2020.

On December 14, 2020, the company was named as a defendant in a
shareholder derivative suit based on allegations substantially
similar to those in the class action litigation.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, by Plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust,
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors.

On January 12, 2021, the shareholder derivative suit was stayed
pending the outcome of further proceedings in the securities class
action.

On July 21, 2021, the court issued a decision dismissing the
securities class action complaint, and an order of dismissal was
issued on the same date. On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff/Appellant filed
his opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. While we cannot predict the outcome of the appeal,
we believe the appeal is without merit and intend to defend
vigorously against this litigation. The shareholder derivative suit
remains stayed.

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., incorporated on December 22, 2008, is
an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The Company is focused
on the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs
directed against nuclear export and related targets for the
treatment of cancer and other diseases. The company is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Burnell Deal Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2021, that the objectors' appeal on the approval of the settlement
in the class action suit initiated by John Burnell, is pending.

On March 22, 2010, John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated filed a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against Swift Transportation Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.

In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In
January 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
Two objectors appealed the court's decision granting final approval
of the settlement.

Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of September 30, 2021."

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Rudsell Deal Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2021, that the objectors' appeal on the approval of the settlement
in the class action suit initiated by James R. Rudsell, is
pending.

On April 5, 2012, James R. Rudsell, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated instituted a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.

In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In
January 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement.

Two objectors appealed the court's decision granting final approval
of the settlement.

Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of September 30, 2021."

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.


KOHL'S CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Hennessey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILL HENNESSEY, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. KOHL'S CORPORATION and KOHL'S
DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19 CV 1866 DDN
(E.D. Mo.), Magistrate Judge David D. Noce of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division,
issued a Memorandum and Order:

   (1) sustaining the motion of Defendants Kohl's Corp. and
       Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., to deny class
       certification and strike class allegations; and

   (2) denying the motion of Plaintiff Hennessey for class
       certification.

Background

Plaintiff Hennessey has brought the action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, invoking diversity of
citizenship subject matter jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332. The Plaintiff alleges two claims under Missouri state
law: (1) unlawful practices in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 407.020(1)
("MMPA") and (2) unjust enrichment under Missouri common law.

In her Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the following
facts. Kohl's markets its merchandise to the public by making false
and misleading price comparisons in connection with the
advertisement and sale of its private brand merchandise that is
available "only at Kohl's" and its exclusive brands that are
developed and marketed through agreements with
nationally-recognized brands. The false and misleading price
comparisons appear on price tags affixed to items, on signs posted
in Kohl's retail stores, in print advertisements, in mailing
circulars, and on Kohl's website Kohls.com.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants represent that customers can
buy Kohl's private and exclusive brand products "on sale" at a
substantial discount from its advertised former prices, which
defendants refer to as the "regular" or "original" prices. In
reality, the "sale" discounts are illusory, fictitious, and in
violation of Missouri law, because the "regular" and "original"
prices are not actual bona fide recent former prices of the
products.

The Defendant actually sells less than 5% of its private and
exclusive branded products at regular or original prices.
Additionally, the Defendant has not sold substantial quantities at
the regular or original prices in the recent past, nor has it
offered to sell merchandise for a reasonable and substantial period
of time preceding the advertised "sale." At checkout, the Defendant
perpetuates the deception by providing customers with a receipt
that shows an item's original advertised item price, its lower sale
price, and "the total amount the customer purportedly saved in the
transaction."

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant offers a constant
array of promotions, such as storewide sales, "Kohl's Cash,"
coupons, and discounts associated with credit card sales, such that
the actual selling price and related market value of each item is
often less than the purported "sale price." She alleges that
customers who buy products at the advertised "sale price" are
"likely" paying more than the actual fair market value of the item
by more than what most people pay for the same item. Additionally,
through its use of fictitious regular and original former prices,
Kohl's intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose material information concerning the actual value
of its products.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant advertises former prices
that "materially overstate the actual market value and worth" of
the products. Because of this, customers like the Plaintiff and the
class suffer damages because they do not receive items that have
the value or worth that the Defendant represents the products have.
The Plaintiff alleges that by concealing the true information,
defendant intended to induce her and the members of the class to
purchase its products at prices they would not have otherwise
agreed to pay.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knew or should have known
that its price-comparison advertisements conveyed false information
to consumers about the value of the merchandise it sells. The
Defendant knew or should have known that as the discount sizes
increase, customers' perceptions of value and willingness to buy
increase, while their intention to seek lower prices decreases.

The Plaintiff alleges she has been a frequent Kohl's shopper, both
at its stores and online. She alleges that, after being exposed to
and influenced by the Defendants' "price-comparison advertising
scheme," she purchased numerous Kohl's private and exclusive
branded products. She alleges that she was misled as to the higher
value of the products that Kohl's advertised and "did not receive
products worth the amount that Kohl's represented she would receive
through its false and misleading price-comparison advertising
scheme."

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint provides examples of her
purchases with data that include location, dates, quantity, SKU
number, item description, advertised former price, advertised sale
price, additional discount, and price paid for these purchases.
These transactions occurred between Sept. 5, 2016, and May 27,
2019. The complaint also includes historical sales data, produced
by Kohl's, for each of the items the Plaintiff purchased, including
total number of units sold, advertised "regular" or "original"
price, number and percentage of units sold at "regular" or
"original" price, total number of days offered, and number and
percentage of days that units were sold at "regular" or "original"
price. The sales data also include the prevailing market price,
measured by the most common or "mode" price, the average or "mean"
price, and the 50th percentile or "median" price.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and the proposed class were exposed
to and were victims of the Defendant's false comparisons. As a
result of the alleged practices, the Plaintiff and the class have
not received the benefit-of-the-bargain, because the products they
purchased do not have the higher value and worth that defendant
represented through its false and misleading regular and original
price comparisons.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All
persons who, while in the state of Missouri, and any time between
the date that is five years immediately preceding the filing of the
lawsuit and the date of any judgment in the case (the Class
Period), purchased from Kohl's (either at a Kohl's retail store or
from its website) for personal, family or household purposes one or
more private or exclusive branded items advertised with a Sale
price of 20% or more below a stated Original or Regular price and
who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase(s)."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, as well as their
officers, directors, employees.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of this class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), because the number of class members is so
numerous that joinder would be impracticable; there are 12
questions of law and fact common to the members of the class; the
Plaintiff's claim is typical of the claims of the other class
members; she will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the
class; her counsel is experienced in this type of allegation; the
prosecution of the claims by the members individually would foster
inconsistent adjudication; and individual damages are insufficient
to justify the cost of litigation.

Discussion

In their motion to deny class certification, the Defendants argue
that the Plaintiff, by creating online shopping and loyalty program
accounts with the Defendants and accepting their terms and
conditions, voluntarily waived her right to pursue a class action.
They contend that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with them
and that her claims fall squarely within the scope of the contract.
The Defendants further argue that the contract is valid and
enforceable because the terms of the contract are neither
procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. They argue that, as
a result of her class action waiver, the Plaintiff cannot
adequately represent any putative class.

In response, the Plaintiff advances five arguments. First, she
argues that the Defendants' motion is untimely, as the Defendants
filed the instant motion six months after the scheduling order's
Feb. 28, 2020, deadline to file a motion for summary judgment
regarding the Plaintiff's ability to represent the class. The
Plaintiff also argues that the Defendants failed to disclose the
Legal Notices and witnesses in discovery. She contends that the
Terms are not a valid agreement because they lack consideration and
acceptance. Further, she argues that the Legal Notices are
unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Lastly, the Plaintiff
argues that Kohl's has waived the Legal Notices by not seeking to
enforce their provisions regarding venue and choice of law, as well
as by proposing and agreeing to class discovery and a class
certification briefing schedule.

A. Contract Formation

The Defendants contend, and the Plaintiff does not dispute, that
the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendants' Legal Notices when she
created an online account on the Defendants' website. However, the
Plaintiff argues that she did not agree to the Legal Notices when
she enrolled in the loyalty program. The disclosure in the loyalty
program portion of the site states, "By enrolling in Yes2You
Rewards, you are agreeing to the Terms and Conditions of the
program and certify that you are over 13 years old." The Plaintiff
contends that, in connection with her enrollment in the loyalty
program, she did not have constructive knowledge of the Legal
Notices because they were only viewable by clicking a hyperlink
within the Terms and Conditions.

Judge Noce holds that though the Plaintiff did not have
constructive knowledge of Legal Notices in connection with the
loyalty program, the Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the
Legal Notices when she created her online account. In creating an
online account, the Plaintiff received consideration. Creating an
online account on the Defendants' website benefited the Plaintiff
by giving her the ability to use express check-out, save billing
and shipping information, and review pending and past online
orders. The benefits that the Plaintiff received are sufficient to
establish consideration supporting her agreement to the Defendants'
Legal Notices. Therefore, a valid contract existed between the
parties.

B. Unconscionability

The Defendants contend that the class action waiver is neither
procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. They argue that the
waiver is procedurally conscionable because the Legal Notices were
conspicuously disclosed, and the Plaintiff's creation of an online
account was not mandatory. They contend that the waiver is
substantively conscionable because the Plaintiff's rights can still
be effectively vindicated by litigating her individual claims.

The Plaintiff argues that the Legal Notices are substantively
unconscionable because they require customers to agree exclusively
to the application of Wisconsin law, eliminating rights under the
MMPA. They also exculpate defendants for all claims based in tort,
contracts, or statutes; they limit aggregate remedies to $10,000;
and they require consumers to waive class actions. The Plaintiff
contends that the Legal Notices are oppressively one-sided, citing
the rights that defendants reserve while purporting to eliminate
the rights of consumers. She also argues that the Legal Notices are
procedurally unconscionable because they are an adhesion contract
offered by a large company in a superior bargaining position, and
the class waiver was buried in multiple pages of fine print.

First, Judge Noce finds that the Plaintiff is charged with inquiry
notice of the Legal Notices because the hyperlink was reasonably
conspicuous when she created her online account. Therefore, he
finds that the agreement is not procedurally unconscionable.
Second, the MMPA cannot be waived by contract, so the limitation of
liability is unenforceable as to the MMPA claim. Third, enforcing
the agreement as to the class action waiver does not lead to
economic infeasibility and an unconscionable result. Fourth, the
class action waiver at issue is not such an unfair agreement "as
one in which no man in his senses and not under delusion would
make, on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept
on the other. Lastly, the Plaintiff's argument that the contract is
oppressively one-sided fails because mutuality of contract is
present because both parties are bound by the contract. Therefore,
Judge Noce concludes that the Legal Notices are not
unconscionable.

C. Enforceability

The Defendants argue that class action waivers, within or without
an arbitration provision, are regularly enforced like any other
contracts. The Plaintiff argues that all of the cases enforcing a
class waiver outside of an arbitration clause are easily
distinguishable from a consumer case, as they were in the contexts
of maritime, employment, and commercial law.

Judge Noce holds that while "a vast majority of cases that address
class action waivers do appear within the context of arbitration
agreements, there is no logical reason to distinguish a waiver in
the context of an arbitration agreement from a waiver in the
context of any other contract." Rather, they are to be analyzed and
enforced like any other kind of contract provision. Additionally,
the argument that other courts have upheld class action waivers in
other contexts, though not yet in the consumer context, does not
persuade the Court that the waiver is unenforceable in the present
case. As discussed, the Plaintiff entered into a valid contract
with the Defendants, and the terms of the contract are not
unconscionable. Judge Noce therefore concludes that the class
action waiver is enforceable.

D. Timeliness of Defendants' Motion

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' motion is untimely
because the Dec. 4, 2019 Case Management Order (CMO) stated that
the Defendants "may file a motion for summary judgment regarding
the Plaintiff's ability to represent the Class, no later than Feb.
28, 2020." The Defendants filed their motion to deny class
certification and strike class allegations on Sept. 23, 2020.

The Plaintiff argues that she will suffer extreme prejudice if the
motion is heard now due to the substantial time and expense already
expended on the case. The Defendants argue that their motion is not
untimely because the CMO permitted, but did not require, them to
file a motion for summary judgment; that the Court's dismissal of
the complaint on February 21, 2020 (Doc. 50) meant that there was
not an operative complaint to challenge; and that the challenge to
the Plaintiff's fitness as class representative is procedural, not
substantive, so it could not be the subject of a motion for summary
judgment.

Judge Noce concludes that the Defendants established good cause for
the timeliness of the motion at bar. The Defendants were diligent
in meeting the deadlines in the CMO, and their motion is timely.
Judge Noce also concludes that the Plaintiff was not prejudiced by
the timing of the Defendants' filing. The Plaintiff also sought and
received extensions, including for her motion to certify the class.
The time and money that she has spent litigating the case will not
go to waste, as she may move forward as an individual litigant.

E. Discovery Disclosure

The Plaintiff argues that the Dfendants violated Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a) when it failed to disclose the Legal Notices
and witnesses in its initial disclosures. The Plaintiff contends
that the Defendants also violated Rule 34 by failing to produce the
Legal Notices and exhibits in response to her document requests,
and that the Defendants failed to designate its two witnesses in
response to her Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition regarding
affirmative defenses. The Defendants argue that they were not
required to identify witnesses and documents under Rule 26 because
the disclosure requirements focus on the merits of a party's
claim.

First, Judge Noce finds that the Defendants were required to
disclose the Legal Notices and witnesses thereof because it is
relevant to their Seventeenth Affirmative Defense. Their failure to
make the required disclosures makes them subject to sanctions.
Second, the Defendants' failure to provide the Legal Notices in
response to the Plaintiff's document request violates Rule 34 and
makes defendants subject to sanctions. Lastly, because the notice
of deposition was the subject of continuing meet and confer efforts
at the time the instant motion was being briefed, Judge Noce
concludes that the Defendants' alleged Rule 30(b)(6) violation was
not ripe for review at the time that their motion was filed.

F. Waiver of Legal Notices by Defendants

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have waived enforcement of
the Legal Notices by acquiescing to the venue and jurisdiction of
the Court; proposing and agreeing to class discovery and a class
certification schedule; and arguing that Missouri law, rather than
Wisconsin law, applies. The Defendants respond that they have
provided clear and repeated notice of their intent to enforce the
waiver.

Judge Noce finds that the Plaintiff's waiver argument unconvincing.
The Defendants can choose to enforce all, some, or none of their
rights under the contract. Failure to assert some of their rights
does not constitute a waiver of the entire agreement. Therefore,
Judge Noce concludes that the Defendants did not waive enforcement
of the Legal Notices.

G. Sanctions

Judge Noce concludes that the appropriate sanction for the
Defendants' failure to provide the Legal Notices in their initial
disclosures and in subsequent document requests does not include
exclusion of the class action waiver. He says, while the Defendants
offer no persuasive justification for their failure to provide the
Legal Notices, the other factors weigh against exclusion. As shown
by the Defendants' assertion of the class action waiver in this
case and previous cases, the waiver is an important affirmative
defense.

The Plaintiff cannot claim surprise and prejudice for the late
revelation, as their counsel has encountered the Defendants' class
action waiver in a past case when defendants similarly asserted it
as an affirmative defense. Additionally, the Defendants repeatedly
gave the Plaintiff notice of the class action waiver through both
correspondence between counsel and the Defendants' assertion of the
affirmative defense in its answer. Lastly, the late revelation of
the class action waiver will not affect the order and efficiency of
future proceedings, as the Court had not yet certified the class
and discovery is ongoing. Therefore, Judge Noce will not exclude
the class action waiver.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Noce sustained the motion of the
Defendants to deny class certification and to strike class
allegations; denied the motion of the Plaintiff for class
certification; and denied as moot the motion of the Defendants for
leave to submit supplemental authority.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfrsrv4 from Leagle.com.


LANCE CAMPER: Bid to Strike Drew's Class Claims Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COREY DREW, Plaintiff v. LANCE CAMPER MFG. CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05066-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A.
Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Southwestern Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike the
Plaintiff's class allegations.

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I,
III, and IV, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and to strike the Plaintiff's class
allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Background

The case arises from the Plaintiff's purchase of a Lance 1172
camper manufactured by the Defendant. The Plaintiff's petition was
originally filed in Missouri state circuit court. In the Petition,
Count I asserts a claim on behalf of the Plaintiff individually
under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); Count II
asserts a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade
Commission Improvement Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq.); Count
III asserts a claim on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of a putative class under the MMPA; and Count IV asserts a
claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The Defendant removed the action to the Court based on federal
question jurisdiction regarding the Plaintiff's claim in Count II
under the Magnuson-Moss Warrant Act. The Defendant now seeks
dismissal of Counts I, III, and IV.

The Plaintiff alleges he purchased a new Lance 1172 camper from an
RV dealer in Joplin, Missouri, for $60,400. Shortly after
purchasing the camper, he had to return the camper because of a
roof leak and to repair the "slide-out" and heater. The Plaintiff
alleges during the course of these repairs, the interior of the
camper was discovered to have significant moisture, mold, mildew,
and rust.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant "holds itself out as the
manufacturer and supplier of the '#1 truck camper in the USA,'" and
that one of its "primary selling points" is the size and quality of
its campers relative to their lighter "ultra-light-weight." In
particular, he states the model he purchased (the Lance 1172) is
advertised on the Defendant's website in the following manner: "But
what makes it a Lance? We were determined to build a no-compromise
double slide while saving as much weight as possible. And that's
the 1172." The Plaintiff agreed to purchase the 1172 model based on
these and other representations from the Defendant about the 1172
camper.

The Defendant represents to customers the "posted weight" (the
camper's weight including batteries, a full propane tank, and a
full freshwater tank) of the 2020-year 1172 model is 4,628 pounds.
The Plaintiff alleges the "data decal" affixed to the camper he
purchased shows that posted weight. Additionally, he alleges the
Defendant represents the "dry weight" of the camper (the camper's
weight without batteries or belongings and with empty tanks) is
4,174 pounds. The Plaintiff alleges, however, the Defendant's
representations of the posted and dry weights of the model 1172
camper he purchased are false.

Specifically, the Plaintiff states "according to CAT certified
scales, the 1172 camper possesses a posted weight of 4,940 pounds
and a dry weight of 5,480 pounds." He alleges he would either (1)
not have agreed to purchase the camper, or (2) not have agreed to
pay a price of $60,400 for the camper "if he had known" then what
he knows now about the camper. He alleges "Lance Camper was able to
charge more for the 1172 under the pretense that consumers receive
more 'bang for their weight' when, in actuality, this is false." He
alleges he suffered damages and an ascertainable loss of money due
to the Defendant's representations about the camper he purchased
that, it turns out, were not true.

In Count I, the Plaintiff asserts an individual claim under the
MMPA based on the Defendant having "concealed, suppressed, and/or
omitted material facts about the quality and condition of the
camper" and "misrepresented the quality and condition of the camper
to the Plaintiff." Similarly, in Count III, he asserts another
claim under the MMPA (both individually and on behalf of a putative
class) based on the Defendant having "misrepresented the posted and
dry weights of the travel trailers and campers."

Finally, in Count IV, the Plaintiff brings a cause of action for
negligent misrepresentation (individually and on behalf of a
putative class) because the Defendant (1) "made numerous
representations regarding the reliability, performance, and
operating costs," (2) "represented that its campers and travel
trailers possessed lighter weights than those actually possessed,"
and (3) represented "its campers and travel trailers possessed
certain posted and dry weights that were lighter than they actually
were" and were "ultra-lightweight."

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I,
III, and IV, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and to strike the Plaintiff's class
allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The motion
is fully briefed.

Discussion

I. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

The Defendant argues the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted as to Counts I, III, and IV. In Counts I and
III, the Plaintiff asserts claims under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.

To state a claim under the MMPA, the Plaintiff must show "(1) he
purchased a product or service from defendant; (2) primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes; and (3) he suffered an
ascertainable loss of money or property; (4) as a result of an act
declared unlawful by Section 407.020 RSMo."

As to Count IV, to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation,
the Plaintiff must allege facts supporting: (1) the speaker
supplied information in the course of his business; (2) because of
the speaker's failure to exercise reasonable care, the information
was false; (3) the information was intentionally provided by the
speaker for the guidance of limited persons in a particular
business transaction; (4) the hearer justifiably relied on the
information; and (5) due to the hearer's reliance on the
information, the hearer suffered a pecuniary loss.

1. Whether Plaintiff Adequately Pleads Claims Under the MMPA and
for Negligent Misrepresentation Based on the Camper's Weight

In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant construes the Plaintiff's
claims under the MMPA and for negligent misrepresentation as
"premised entirely on incomplete and misleading allegations
concerning statements on the Defendant's website, and on the data
decal affixed to the Plaintiff's camper." In his response to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff argues that he has
sufficiently pled a claim under the MMPA "alleging that the
Defendant misrepresented -- and charged a premium -- for the
purportedly light weight camper when, in fact the Defendant sold
the Plaintiff and the Class members a unit which was hundreds of
pounds heavier than the advertised and listed weights," and for
negligent misrepresentation based on the Defendant's
"representation that its campers and travel trailers possessed
lighter weights than those actually possessed.

Taking the pleaded facts as true as the Court is required to do at
this early stage, Judge Ketchmark does not find the Plaintiff fails
to state a claim that the Defendant misrepresented the posted and
dry weights of the camper. This early stage of litigation does not
require the Plaintiff to present evidence proving the posted and
dry weights of the 1172 camper he purchased are not the posted and
dry weights the Defendant represented (taking into account the
contours of the Defendant's representation as to the weights of the
camper). Judge Ketchmark finds the Plaintiff plausibly states a
claim for relief under the MMPA and for negligent misrepresentation
based on the Defendant's representations as to the weights of the
camper compared to the actual weights of the camper.

At the same time, however, to the extent the Plaintiff alleges a
claim under the MMPA based on the "Defendant's representations that
its campers and travel trailers possessed an ultra-light weight
were untrue," that the company was "determined to build a
no-compromise double slide while saving as much weight as
possible," and that the 1172 provides more "bang for their weight,"
these statements or representations are mere puffery that are not
actionable under the MMPA as a matter of law. The Plaintiff does
not argue to the contrary. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is
therefore granted to the extent the Plaintiff relies on these
statements in support of his MMPA claims.

2. Whether Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
standard

The Defendant also argues the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
because his allegations do not satisfy the heightened pleading
requirement applied to fraud claims. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading requirement for claims
involving allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or
intentional misrepresentation. Rule 9(b) provides that "a party
must state with particularity the circumstances constituting
fraud." The Defendant argues Plaintiff's allegations do not satisfy
this heightened pleading standard. The Plaintiff does not address
this argument in his opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiff alleges on Dec. 31, 2020, he purchased a Lance 1172
camper manufactured by the Defendant from Wheelen RV Center in
Joplin, Missouri. He alleges the "manufacturing specifications" and
the "data decal" represent the posted and dry weights at 4,628
pounds and 4,174 pounds, respectively, and that these
representations are false because the actual posted and dry weights
of the camper are more (4,940 pounds and 5,480 pounds,
respectively).

Judge Ketchmark finds these allegations satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
pleading requirement as to the Plaintiff's claims under the MMPA
and for negligent misrepresentation based on the posted and dry
weights of the campers. The "who" is the Defendant, the "what" are
the posted and dry weights of the camper, the "where" is the
manufacturing specifications and data decal, the "when" is on the
date the Plaintiff purchased the camper. These allegations support
the Plaintiff's claims under Count III and Count IV, to the extent
both claims rely on the posted and dry weights of the camper (both
as represented and the actual weights). The Defendant's motion to
dismiss Counts III and IV on this basis is denied.

On the other hand, in Count I, the Plaintiff alleges Defendant
"misrepresented the quality and condition of the camper" and
"concealed, suppressed, and/or omitted material fact about the
quality and condition of the camper." His allegations in Count I
fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, Judge
Ketchmark finds. She says, while the Plaintiff alleges the "who"
(the Defendant) and the "when" ("in connection with the sale of the
camper"), the Plaintiff does not allege the "what" or the "how."

The Plaintiff does not allege what, specifically, the Defendant
misrepresented, concealed, suppressed, or omitted about the quality
and condition of the camper and, more importantly, how it did so.
The same is true to the extent the Plaintiff's claim in Count IV
for negligent misrepresentation alleges that the "Defendant made
numerous representations regarding reliability, performance, and
operating costs directly and/or through its authorized dealer
network." The Plaintiff does not plead facts with the specificity
and particularity required under Rule 9(b) to state such a claim.
Specifically, the Plaintiff fails to plead with specificity what
the misrepresentations were and why the representations were
misleading. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I
is granted.

II. Defendant's Motion to Strike Putative Class Allegations under
Rule 12(f)

Next, Judge Ketchmark considers the Defendant's motion to strike
the Plaintiff's class allegations under Rule 12(f). Based on her
ruling as to the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, the relevant remaining claims involving putative class
allegations are: Count III (asserting a claim under the MMPA based
on Defendant's alleged misrepresentation of the posted and dry
weights of the campers) and Count IV (asserting a claim for
negligent misrepresentation based on the Defendant's representation
of the weight of its campers and that its campers and travel
trailers "possessed an ultra-lightweight").

As to the class allegations in Count III (MMPA claim), the
Plaintiff proposes the following putative class: "All persons Lance
Camper has on record (1) where such person purchased a new camper
or travel trailer manufactured by Lance Camper in the State of
Missouri, (2) during the five-year period prior to the filing of
Plaintiff's Petition, (3) where the actual posted and dry weights
of the camper or travel trailer are greater than the posted and dry
weights Lance Camper represented within its manufacturer's
specifications."

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant misrepresented the posted and dry
weights of the travel trailers and campers "in connection with the
same of the campers and travel trailers to Plaintiff and the MMPA
class."

As to the class allegations in Count IV (negligent
misrepresentation claim), the Plaintiff proposes the following
class: "All persons Lance Camper has on record (1) where such
person purchased a new camper or travel trailer manufactured by
Lance Camper, (2) during the five-year period prior to the filing
of Plaintiff's Petition, (3) where the actual posted and dry
weights of the camper or travel trailer are greater than the posted
and dry weights Lance Camper represented within its manufacturer's
specifications."

In Count IV, the Plaintiff alleges the "Defendant, along with its
authorized dealers, represented to him and the negligent
misrepresentation class that its campers and travel trailers
possessed certain posted and dry weights that were lighter than
they actually were."

First, the Defendant argues the claims based on the weight
discrepancy between the represented and actual posted and dry
weights is not reducible to common evidence because of the "bespoke
nature" of each camper with optional equipment. Based on the nature
of the Plaintiff's claim in this regard, Judge Ketchmark is not
convinced at this early stage the weight discrepancy is not
reducible to common evidence. It appears the posted and dry weights
of the camper exist outside the optional equipment a purchaser of
the camper may opt to install. Judge Ketchmark is not persuaded, at
this point, the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements for
certifying a class on this basis.

On the other hand, it appears the Plaintiff cannot certify a class
under his negligent misrepresentations claim. Because reliance on
the negligent misrepresentation (in addition to the negligent
misrepresentation itself) is a critical and necessary element of
this claim, individual issues would predominate over the common
questions of fact. For this reason, Judge Ketchmark exercises her
discretionary authority under Rule 12(f) to strike Plaintiff's
putative class allegations as to a claim for negligent
misrepresentation.

Finally, the Defendant argues the proposed class definition for the
MMPA class is overly broad because the Plaintiff does not have
standing to represent a putative class for a claim brought under
the MMPA for travel trailers and campers manufactured by Defendant
other than the Logan 1172 camper the Plaintiff actually purchased.
The Plaintiff does not present any argument in opposition in his
response.

Judge Ketchmark agrees with the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff
cannot represent a class, as set forth in his putative class action
petition, of persons within the past five years who have "purchased
a new camper or travel trailer manufactured by Lance Camper."
Instead, the Plaintiff may represent a class of persons who, within
the past five years, purchased a Lance 1172 camper.

Conclusion

Therefore, Judge Ketchmark granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

First, as to Count I, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim under the MMPA for its alleged misrepresentation
of "the quality and condition of the camper" is granted. Count I is
dismissed.

Second, as to Count III, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim under the MMPA for its alleged misrepresentation
of the posted and dry weights of the camper is denied. The
Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III is granted as to any claim
under the MMPA relying on the Plaintiff's allegations that its
campers possess an "ultra-light weight," that it was "determined to
build a no-compromise double slide while saving as much weight as
possible," and that the 1172 model camper provides more "bang for
their weight."

Third, as to Count IV, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation is granted as to
the Plaintiff's claim based on the allegations Defendant allegedly
misrepresented the reliability, performance, and operating costs
regarding the camper, and is denied in all other respects.

Finally, the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's remaining
putative class allegations under Rule 12(f) is granted as to the
Plaintiff's putative class allegations for negligent
misrepresentation and denied as to the Plaintiff's putative class
allegations for a claim under the MMPA, although he only has
standing to represent a class of purchasers in the putative class
action who purchased the same camper as the Plaintiff (that is, the
Lance 1172).

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdh6f8eh from Leagle.com.


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Zilinsky Class Status Bid Due May 23, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zilinsky, et al., v.
LeafFilter North, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-06229 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly A .Jolson entered an order setting/resetting
Columbus PPTO Deadlines as follows:

   -- Class Certification Motion due by May 23, 2022;

   -- Responses due by July 8, 2022;

   -- Replies due by July 29, 2022; and

   -- Plaintiff Primary Expert due by Feb. 28, 2022

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.

LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions.[CC]

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Dismissal of Veal Class Action Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of all claims
against the defendants in Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al.,
No. 5:18-cv-02599.

In 2016, the Company received a formal request for information from
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC commenced an
investigation concerning certain of the Company's policies and
practices and related legal compliance.

On April 25, 2018, the FTC filed a complaint in the Northern
District of California (FTC v. LendingClub Corporation, No.
3:18-cv-02454) alleging causes of action for violations of the FTC
Act, including claims of deception in connection with disclosures
related to the origination fee associated with loans available
through the Company's platform, and in connection with
communications relating to the likelihood of loan approval during
the application process, and a claim of unfairness relating to
certain unauthorized charges to borrowers' bank accounts.

In May 2018, following the announcement of litigation by the FTC
against the Company, putative shareholder class action litigation
was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of
California (Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No.
5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's description of
fees and compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings.


On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which asserted the same causes of
action as the original complaint and added additional allegations.
That complaint was subsequently dismissed by the District Court
with leave to amend.

The lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December
19, 2019, which modified and added certain allegations and dropped
one of the former officer defendants as a defendant in the case,
but otherwise advanced the same causes of action.

On June 12, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss by the defendants without leave to amend, in
part, and with leave to amend, in part. On July 27, 2020, the lead
plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court indicating their
intention not to file a Third Amended Complaint and requesting that
the District Court enter judgment. The District Court entered
judgment and dismissed all claims in the case the same day.

The lead plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Veal et al. v. LendingClub
Corporation, et al., No. 20-16603). The Court of Appeals held oral
arguments for the appeal on September 2, 2021.

On September 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of all claims against the defendants and, pending
expiration of the period for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant
certiorari in December 2021, this matter is now concluded.

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Erceg Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a tentative
settlement has been reached in Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation,
No. 4:20-cv-01153.

In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 4:20-cv-01153).

The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law
based on allegations that the Company recorded a call with
plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly
situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by the Company
without their knowledge and consent.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiff's
claims, strike nationwide class allegations, and, alternatively, to
stay the litigation. Rather than oppose that motion, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

The Company again filed a motion to stay, or alternatively to
dismiss certain of the claims in the amended complaint and to
strike nationwide class allegations. That motion was heard by the
Court on July 9, 2020.

On July 28, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Company's
motion to stay plaintiff's California claims pending a decision by
the California Supreme Court in a case involving the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.), dismissing with
prejudice plaintiff's claim under Massachusetts law, and denying
the Company's motion to strike plaintiff's nationwide class
allegations.

In April 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in
the LoanMe case in a manner that permits plaintiff's claims in the
Company's case to continue.

The Company then filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint and
discovery began.

The parties have since reached a tentative settlement, the terms of
which are not material to the Company.

No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or
consequences of this matter.

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Trial in Bradford Suit Set for September 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Court has
called the Bradford v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 4:21-cv-00588
matter to trial in September 2022.

In February 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Bradford v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 4:21-cv-00588).

The lawsuit asserts a cause of action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) based on allegations that the Company obtained
plaintiff's credit report without his consent or authorization and
without a permissible purpose under the FCRA.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly
situated persons in the case and seeks monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief, among other relief.

Plaintiff has amended the complaint to assert additional
allegations regarding the Company's purported requests for
plaintiff's credit report from another credit reporting agency. The
Company has since filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint and
discovery has begun.

The Court has scheduled this matter for trial in September 2022. No
assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences
of this matter.

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


LHOIST NORTH AMERICA: Rogers Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LHOIST NORTH AMERICA OF TEXAS LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-01182-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought to
recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Texas
common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members for the time they spent driving
their trucks back to the Defendant's yard after a delivery.
Moreover, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members non-discretionary bonuses but failed to include these
non-discretionary bonuses in Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members' regular rate of pay. The Defendant's illegal
corporate-wide policy(ies) has caused the Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not
compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek. Although the Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime
of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly
and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the
proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during the
relevant time period, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a Driver.

Lhoist is a major supplier of lime, limestone, and clay products in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com
                 cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com



LIVE OAK BANCSHARES: Initial OK of McAlear Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the plaintiff in
Joseph McAlear, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. et al., filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and that motion remains
pending before the court.

On March 12, 2021, a purported class action was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Joseph McAlear, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Live Oak Bancshares,
Inc. et al.  

The complaint alleges the existence of an agreement between the
Company, nCino, Inc. and Apiture, LLC in which those companies
purportedly sought to restrain the mobility of employees in
violation of antitrust laws by agreeing not to solicit or hire each
other's employees.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1) and violations of Sections 75-1
and 75-2 of the North Carolina General Statutes.  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including treble damages,
entitlement to restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and pre-
and post-judgment interest.

On October 12, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
case with a proposed class of all persons (with certain exclusions)
employed by the Company or its wholly-owned subsidiary, Live Oak
Banking Company, Apiture, Inc. or nCino, Inc. in North Carolina at
any time from January 27, 2017, through March 31, 2021.  In the
agreement, the Company agreed to pay $3.9 million.  

On October 13, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, and that motion remains pending before
the court.

Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company and a bank
holding company headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina
incorporated under the laws of the state of North Carolina in
December 2008. The Company conducts business operations primarily
through its commercial bank subsidiary, Live Oak Banking Company.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Fluharty Purported Class Suit in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company is facing a purported class action suit initiated by Larry
and Kathy Fluharty.

On September 9, 2021, Larry and Kathy Fluharty filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas alleging substantially the same
allegations as the Gold Litigation, for a class period beginning
March 16, 2019 to present.  

The Company is evaluating the Fluharty Litigation and is unable to
determine if a loss is reasonably possible or to estimate the
amount or range of possible loss, if any.  

The Company disputes the claims in the Fluharty Litigation and
intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Mason Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in the purported
class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll, and Osagie Ehigie.

In August  2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie
Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training,
and similarly situated current and former employees (collectively,
the "Mason Putative Class Employees") alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor
Law ("NYLL") by classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as
exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class
Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning
three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling
period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason
Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and
(ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior
to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the
disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class
Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in
connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all store managers and store managers
in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations
period.  

In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification. On January 6, 2021, the magistrate judge
ruled in favor of a motion by the Company to exclude from the Mason
Putative Class the claims of 55 opt-in plaintiffs who participated
in a prior California state class-action settlement that released
all claims arising from the same facts on which the Mason matter is
based.

In April 2021, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("Mason MOU") with counsel for the lead plaintiffs in
the Mason matter.  

Under the terms of the Mason MOU, the Company will pay up to $7.0
million to settle the claims asserted in the Mason matter on behalf
of all Mason Putative Class Employees who (i) opted-in to the
collective action ("Collective Members") and (ii) are currently or
were employed in New York and did not previously file an opt-in
notice to participate in the collective action (the "New York Non
Opt-Ins").  

The New York Non Opt-Ins will have an opportunity to file an opt-in
notice to participate in the settlement. To the extent that a New
York Non Opt-In does not subsequently file such a notice, then the
amount apportioned to that claim shall revert to the Company.  In
addition, any checks issued to the Collective Members and the New
York Non Opt-Ins which are not cashed within one hundred eighty
days will revert to the Company.  

The Mason MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including court
approval of the definitive settlement agreement.  

There can be no assurance that a settlement will be approved or as
to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a final,
court-approved settlement is not reached, the Company will defend
the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses
and legal standards that must be met for success on the merits.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "If the parties are unable to finalize the
settlement, the Mason matter could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition and results of operations. As
a result of these developments, the Company determined that a
probable loss has been incurred and has accrued within SG&A a $7.0
million liability during the first quarter of 2021.  As of
September 30, 2021, the remaining accrual related to this matter is
$7.0 million, which has been included in the caption “Accrual for
Legal Matters and Settlements” on its condensed consolidated
balance sheet."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Savidis Purported Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in the purported
class action suit initiated by Tanya Savidis.

On April 9, 2020, Lumber Liquidators was served with a lawsuit
filed by Tanya Savidis, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  

Ms. Savidis filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda on March 6, 2020, on behalf
of all current and former Lumber Liquidators employees employed as
non-exempt employees.  

The complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code
including, among other items, failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation within the required time, and engaging in unfair
business practices.

On or about May 22, 2020, the Savidis Plaintiffs provided notice to
the California Department of Industrial Relations requesting they
be permitted to seek penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged violations
asserted in the Complaint.

The Savidis Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action
covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the
complaint to the date of class certification (the "California
Employee Class"), as well as a subclass of class members who
separated their employment within three years of the filing of the
suit to the date of class certification (the "Waiting Time
Subclass").

The Savidis Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, seek statutory penalties,
unspecified amounts for unpaid wages, benefits, and penalties,
interest, and other damages.

In December 2020, the Company began contacting individuals who
constitute the Savidis Plaintiffs and offered individual
settlements in satisfaction of their claims.  

In April 2021, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("Savidis MOU") with counsel for the lead plaintiffs
in the Savidis matter.  

Under the terms of the Savidis MOU, the Company will pay $0.9
million reduced by a credit of $0.1 million for amounts already
paid to the individuals who accepted the Company's prior settlement
offer.  

The Company accrued an additional $675 thousand related to this
matter in the first quarter 2021. The Savidis MOU is subject to
certain contingencies, including court approval of the definitive
settlement agreement.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "There can be no assurance that a
settlement will be approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation. If a final, court-approved settlement is not reached,
the Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there
are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for
success on the merits. If the parties are unable to finalize the
settlement, the Savidis matter could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition and results of operations."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Canada
initiated by Sarah Steele.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice
against the Company.

In the complaint, Steele's allegations include strict liability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by
concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing relating
to the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products.

Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but
seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.

Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a further
loss associated with the Steele litigation is reasonably possible,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
possible loss."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Visnack Purported Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated
by Michael Visnack.

On June 29, 2020, Michael Visnack, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
all current and former store managers, and others similarly
situated.  

The Complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code
including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime,
wage statement violations, meal and rest break violations, unpaid
reimbursements and waiting time, and engaging in unfair business
practices.

The Visnack Plaintiffs seek certification of a class period
beginning September 20, 2019, through the date of Notice of Class
Certification, if granted.

The Visnack Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek unspecified
amounts for each of the causes of action such as unpaid wages and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks,
payroll record and wage statement violations, failure to reimburse
expenses and waiting time, liquidated and/or punitive damages,
declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive
relief and other damages.

On December 14, 2020, the court ruled in favor of a motion by the
Company to compel arbitration for Michael Visnack under the
existing agreement between the Company and Mr. Visnack. The court
declined to outright dismiss the putative class claims but stayed
the putative class claims and Private Attorneys General Act claims
pending arbitration.  

The court denied plaintiff's request to conduct discovery.  In the
first quarter of 2021, the Company received notice that Mr. Visnack
has filed an arbitration claim, which the Company intends to
defend.  

Mr. Visnack is a Collective Member of the Mason Putative Class and
will have the opportunity to decide whether to participate in the
Mason settlement and release his claims against the Company, in
which case he would be removed as the lead Plaintiff in the Visnack
matter.  

In December 2020, the Company began contacting individuals who
constitute the purported class in the Visnack matter and has
offered individual settlements in satisfaction of their claims. To
the extent individuals accepted these settlement offers, they have
released the Company from the claims and been removed from the
purported class.

As of March 31, 2021, the Company had reached agreement with a
portion of the purported class incurring less than $50 thousand in
fees, taxes, and other costs. The Company included those amounts in
“Other Matters” in the chart above.


Lumber Liquidators said, "The Company is evaluating the Visnack
Putative Class Employees' claims and intends to defend itself
vigorously in this matter. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


M2 MANAGEMENT: Laborers Slam Misclassification, Claim Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight McDonald, Christopher Atkins and Timothy Provost,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M2
Management, Inc. and Michael P. Trainor, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-06260, (N.D. Ill., November 22, 2021) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs and a
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of failure to sufficient
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and overtime
provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants own and operate an industrial and commercial project
management and consulting corporation where it employed McDonald as
a foreman and Atkins and Provost as an industrial painters. They
claim to have been allegedly misclassified as exempt from overtime,
despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week. They also
claim to be unpaid for their final weeks of work prior to
termination. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Colby Qualls, 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
             colby@sanfordlawfirm.com


MAGIC MONEY: Class Action Suit Seeks Astroworld Festival Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed seeking refunds of
prepaid charges for merchandise, concessions, rides and games
incurred by attendees of the Astroworld Festival.

According to the lawsuit filed in 11th District Court in Harris
County, festivalgoers were encouraged to pay in advance for such
items online through the Magic Money app, and those payments were
automatically deducted from their accounts. Festival organizers
advertised that the use of Magic Money would result in "significant
savings" and would help avoid long lines at the event.

"We believe it's likely that the more than 50,000 concert attendees
have lost tens of millions of dollars in payments and service fees
through Magic Money, with as yet no prospects of reimbursement,"
says attorney Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in Houston. "The
tragic events and cancellation, and the failure of organizers to
respond to requests for refunds have resulted in violations of
state laws designed to protect the public, leaving litigation as
the only option. In addition to the terrible loss of life and
injuries, the economic losses to the concertgoers and Houston
community are going to be very large as well."

According to the lawsuit, lead plaintiff and Plano, Texas, resident
Brenda Wong bought prepaid credits through the Magic Money app
before arriving at the festival. Ms. Wong was caught up in the
deadly crowd surge but was able to make her way to safety outside
the festival grounds. Her attempts to contact Magic Money and gain
a refund have been unsuccessful.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Florida-based Magic Money
LLC and festival organizers that include Scoremore LLC and its
subsidiaries; Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiaries; and
Houston-based Cactus Jack Records LLC.

The case is Brenda Wong v. Magic Money LLC et al. NO. 2021-73898 in
the 11th District Court in Harris County.

Media Availability:

Ms. Wong and her attorneys are available for telephone or Zoom
interviews.

Media Contact:  

Barry Pound   
800-559-4534   
barry@androvett.com

URL: http://androvett.com

Contact Information:
Barry Pound   
800-559-4534   
barry@androvett.com [GN]

MATCH GROUP: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) ("Match") against certain of its
officers and directors. Specifically, a class-action lawsuit
pending in the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss in the pending securities class action against
Match.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company used fake love interest ads to convince customers
to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) the Company made it difficult
and confusing for consumers to cancel their subscriptions; (3) as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to be subject to
regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company lacked adequate disclosure
controls and procedures; and (5) as a result, Match's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Match holding shares
before August 6, 2019, you may have standing to hold Match harmless
from the alleged harm caused by the Company's officers and
directors by making them personally responsible. You may also be
able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, if you have owned Match's shares since before August
6, 2019, you can join this action]. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

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

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com

If you have owned Match's shares since before August 6, 2019, you
can [Click here to join this action]. There is no cost or
obligation to you. [GN]

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid for Review in Harris FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ISAAC HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-1371 (APM) (D.D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia denies Medical Transportation
Management, Inc. ("MTM")'s motion for interlocutory review of an
order.

Defendant MTM seeks interlocutory review of the Court's refusal to
decertify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). MTM also requests a stay of discovery pending a decision
from the D.C. Circuit on whether to review a separate but related
decision by this Court to certify an issue class. The D.C. Circuit
has deferred its decision pending a ruling by the Court on MTM's
motion for interlocutory review.

I.

MTM is a private company that contracts with the District of
Columbia to manage and administer non-emergency medical
transportation services for the District's Medicaid recipients. MTM
does not provide the transportation services itself; rather, it
contracts with dozens of transportation service providers ("TSPs")
that, in turn, employ drivers who take Medicaid recipients to and
from medical appointments.

Plaintiffs Isaac Harris, Darnell Frye, and Leo Franklin have worked
at various times as drivers for different TSPs contracting with
MTM. They filed the action four years ago, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), against MTM to recover unpaid wages under (1) the
FLSA; (2) the D.C. Minimum Wage Act; (3) the D.C. Living Wage Act;
and (4) the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiffs
allege that because MTM is both their joint employer and the
general contractor of the TSPs, MTM is liable for their unpaid
wages under federal and District of Columbia wage laws.

In August 2021, the Court issued an order (1) denying MTM's motion
to decertify the FLSA collective action the Court conditionally
certified in July 2018, and (2) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify an issue class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(4).

As relevant here, the Court concluded that (1) the Plaintiffs were
"similarly situated" for purposes of the FLSA on the question
whether MTM qualifies as their joint employer; (2) the case could
proceed as a collective action on the joint-employer question; and
(3) the question whether MTM is a joint employer or a general
contractor would "materially advance the litigation" and so could
proceed on an issue-class basis under Rule 23(c)(4).

II.

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), certifying an order for
interlocutory appeal is appropriate when (1) the order involves a
controlling question of law; (2) a substantial ground for
difference of opinion concerning the ruling exists; and (3) an
immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation. Here,
none of the four ostensibly controlling questions of law identified
by MTM satisfies all three elements, Judge Mehta holds.

MTM offers three additional controlling questions of law that
warrant interlocutory review, including "Whether a group of
plaintiffs can be 'similarly situated' for purposes of an FLSA
collective action if they were not subject to any common
FLSA-violating policy or practice."

Judge Mehta opines that these essentially boil down to one
overarching question: Can the question of joint-employer status be
the basis for a collective action under the FLSA? In its August
2021 opinion, the Court concluded that it could. The Court reasoned
that MTM's role in devising each driver's terms of employment is
likely to be defined by policies and practices that are broadly
applicable to all TSPs, and that MTM is likely to be a joint
employer for all drivers or for none at all based on common
evidence.

MTM, by contrast, has consistently argued that there must be
evidence of a common FLSA-violating policy or practice to satisfy
the similarly situated standard, and it now contends that the
question of joint-employer status as the basis for a collective
action warrants interlocutory review.

The Court disagrees. Even if this is a "controlling question of
law," MTM has failed to demonstrate that it satisfies the remaining
elements justifying interlocutory review. The Court is not
convinced that there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion as to this question. MTM also has not demonstrated that
interlocutory review will materially advance the disposition of the
litigation.

III.

The Defendants also have moved to stay trial-court proceedings
pending the outcome of the Rule 23(f) motion before the D.C.
Circuit.

Under the circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that a stay is
required in the short term. By taking three months to consider the
motions before the Court, the Court already effectively stayed
discovery for that period. Additionally, MTM is free to come back
to the Court to seek a stay if the D.C. Circuit decides to grant
the Rule 23(f) motion. A stay until such decision is made is not
warranted.

This case has been pending since 2017 and has reached only the
certification stage, Judge Mehta notes. He points out that it will
continue to move forward unless the D.C. Circuit signals
otherwise.

IV.

For these reasons, MTM's Motion to Amend and Certify, and Motion to
Stay Proceedings During Pendency of Rule 23(f) Appeal are denied.
The parties will (1) file a Joint Status Report by Dec. 6, 2021,
that proposes a schedule for further proceedings and (2) appear for
a status conference on Dec. 10, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. via
videoconference to discuss the proposed schedule.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Nov. 22, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2es6rcmw from
Leagle.com.


META PLATFORMS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion no later than December 27, 2021 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the securities of Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook,
Inc. ("Facebook" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FB) from April 29, 2021
through October 21, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

According to the complaint, Facebook was materially false and
misleading and omitted to state: (1) Facebook misrepresented its
user growth; (2) Facebook knew, or should have known, that
duplicate accounts represented a greater portion of its growth than
stated, and it should have provided more detailed disclosures as to
the implication of duplicate accounts to Facebook's user base and
growth; (3) Facebook did not provide a fair platform for speech,
and regularly protected high profile users via its Cross
Check/XCheck system; (4) despite being aware of their use of
Facebook's platforms, the Company failed to respond meaningfully to
drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent organizations; (5)
Facebook has been working to attract preteens to its platform and
services; and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 13, 2021, during trading hours, The Wall Street
Journal ("WSJ") published an article titled "Facebook Says Its
Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That's
Exempt." It would be the first of nine articles published by the
WSJ based on documents provided by a then-unknown whistleblower
(the "Whistleblower").

On this news, Facebook shares dropped by $5.17 to close at $376.51
on September13, 2021.

On September 28, 2021, during market hours, the WSJ published an
article titled, "Facebook's Effort to Attract Preteens Goes Beyond
Instagram Kids, Documents Show."

On this news, Facebook share prices dropped $7.32 to close at
$340.65 on September 28, 2021.

On October 3, 2021, CBS News aired a television segment on 60
Minutes interviewing the Whistleblower, revealed to be Frances
Haugen, on her findings during her time at Facebook. On October 4,
2021, CBS News published an article titled, "Whistleblower's SEC
Complaint: Facebook Knew Platform Was Used to ‘Promote Human
Trafficking and Domestic Servitude'", containing the whistleblower
complaints against Facebook filed with the SEC. There were eight
complaints shared in the CBS article.

As a result of the October 3 and 4 revelations, Facebook's share
price dropped $16.78 per share, or approximately 4.9%, from closing
at $343.01 on October 1, 2021, the prior trading day, to close at
$326.23 on October 4, 2021.

From the first WSJ article published on September 13, 2021, to the
final disclosure on October 4, 2021, Facebook share prices fell by
$55.45, or over 14%, damaging investors.

As a result of Facebook's wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Facebook securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/facebookinc-fb-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-449/
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.

Contact Information:

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

META PLATFORMS: Limits Facial Recognition Use Following BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
news-journal.com reports that that check from Facebook for
violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by cataloging
faces without permission isn't in the mail yet. It could still be a
while. Despite that, the case appears to be having other impacts.

Facebook users located in Illinois after June of 2011 were eligible
to file a claim in a class-action lawsuit against the social media
giant for violating the state's BIPA law.

Illinoisans had a deadline of Nov. 23, 2020, to join the class
action settlement. The website for the case notes final approval
was granted in April. However, two class members appealed,
preventing payments from being made.

"This appeal prevents payments from being made to any class
members," according to the website. "Class Counsel remains
committed to using every possible legal means to expedite this
timeframe."

Abe Scarr with Illinois Public Interest Research Group said such
appeals can take time.

"That can take up to one or two years on average," Scarr said. "I
know there have been efforts to expedite the appeal but so far no
success there. Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait another
year if not two to hopefully finally have some settlement here."

Payments are expected to be up to $400 per person, but a fact sheet
says an exact amount can't be given. That depends on how many
claims are filed and the cost of fees and other attorney expenses.

While the delay may be frustrating, Meta announced earlier this
month Facebook will no longer use facial recognition "as part of a
company-wide move to limit the use of facial recognition in our
products."

"This change will represent one of the largest shifts in facial
recognition usage in the technology's history," a statement from
Meta said Nov. 2. "More than a third of Facebook's daily active
users have opted in to our Face Recognition setting and are able to
be recognized, and its removal will result in the deletion of more
than a billion people's individual facial recognition templates."

Scarr said that's a positive development, though he remains
guarded.

"Knowing Facebook and Meta, I wouldn't count on them completely
stopping using facial recognition technology," Scarr said. "But
there seems to be some progress on that and across the country,
growing recognition of some of the privacy harms that have to do
with facial recognition technology."

"Looking ahead, we still see facial recognition technology as a
powerful tool," Meta said. "Facial recognition can be particularly
valuable when the technology operates privately on a person's own
devices." [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Perez Hits Share Drop, Questions Corporate Ethics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg and
David M. Wehner, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09041, (N.D. Cal.,
November 22, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Meta Platforms, Inc. is the world's largest online social network
operating under the name "Facebook," with 3.3 billion monthly
active users. Mark Zuckerberg has been the Chief Executive Officer
while David M. Wehner has been the Chief Financial Officer.
Facebook's family of products encompasses the platforms and
applications called Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and
Facebook Reality Labs.

Perez alleges that Facebook conducted detailed in-house research
that indicated that it exacerbated negative body image issues for
one in three teenage girl users on Instagram's platform and that
teens in Facebook's research blamed Instagram for increased rates
of anxiety and depression. Facebook allegedly collected up to than
a billion individual facial recognition templates. It touted its
AI's ability to identify and address hate speech, excessive
violence and underage users by implementing an algorithm designed
to heighten "meaningful social interaction" in a manner that stoked
division and discord, allowing known drug cartels, human
traffickers and armed groups to utilize Facebook's platforms to
encourage their violent and illegal activities.

Facebook was trading at approximately $376 per share in September
2021 prior to the publication of thus information. By October 27,
2021, Facebook traded at $312, representing a drop of at least $64
a share, equating to a total drop in excess of hundreds of billions
of dollars. Perez owns Facebook stocks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, California 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
              achang@bottinilaw.com


MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Lead-Contaminated Water Pipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that residents
of Benton Harbor, Michigan have filed a class action lawsuit
against state and local officials, after recent sampling of the
public's tap water identified extremely high levels of lead, some
of which reaching more than 59 times the allowable limit.

The complaint was brought by a group of Benton Harbor residents in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on
November 20, accusing the city and state of failing to replace
known lead-contaminated water pipes, which have exposed more than
10,000 residents to dangerously high levels of lead in their
drinking water for at least three years.

The lawsuit was filed after a report was released by Benton Harbor
Community Water Council in October, which found extremely high
levels of lead in routine water samples dating back to 2018,
leaving thousands of residents exposed to lead levels in the
drinking water exceeding 889 parts per billion.

After the report was released, Benton Harbor officials declared a
state of emergency and have been providing free bottled water for
residents to use for drinking, cooking, bathing and personal
hygiene care. The City has publicly announced it will expedite the
replacement of lead-tainted water supply lines with the hopes of
completing the repair by early 2023.

However, in one of two recently filed lead poisoning class action
seeking lawsuits, residents claim the City of Benton Harbor and its
regulatory officials knew lead levels in the public drinking water
exceeded the acceptable limit set forth under the Safe Water
Drinking Act (SDWA) since October 2018, yet failed to implement any
of the statutorily mandatory actions.

The lawsuit claims the city intentionally abandoned its obligations
to provide residents safe drinking water, failed to send out any
type of adequate public notice and then charged residents for the
toxic and lead-contaminated water for three years.

Plaintiff's claim Benton Harbor residents have suffered from being
exposed to toxic lead exposure in drinking water for three years,
causing a myriad of irreversible and lifelong health issues.

Several plaintiff's describe how they and their children have
developed medical conditions including chronic headaches,
hypertension, learning disabilities, high blood pressure, balding,
joint pain, hearing issues, memory loss and other irreversible
physical and mental injuries; all alleged to have been caused by
constant exposure to lead contaminated drinking water supplied by
the city.

Actions brought against the city and its officials include claims
of gross negligence, assault, negligent failure to warn, unjust
enrichment, mental anguish and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, among others.

EPA Violations
Earlier in November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a 23-page document finding multiple federal code violations
at the city's water plant, which included the lack of basic
maintenance records and monitoring water quality.

As a result of the violations, the EPA issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order instructing the Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) to repair filters at the
city's water treatment plant within 15 days, bring the system's
nonoperable continuous monitoring devices to federal standards in
seven days, and conduct an independent third party study to
identify administrative and operational changes needed. Failure to
comply with the EPA's order would result in fines of nearly $60,000
per day.

In the United States, the most common exposures to lead are from
lead-based paint that was used in pre-1978 housing, lead
contaminated soil or lead-containing pollutants from industrial
sources, and water from old lead pipes and fixtures. Lead-tainted
water was the major health concern in Flint, Michigan, in 2016,
leading to hundreds of illnesses and other side effects.

Lead exposure during childhood can affect a child's ability to
learn and develop. While routine testing can detect elevated blood
lead levels in children, health experts have consistently
emphasized there is no safe blood level of lead exposure, and more
than half a million children have blood levels considered unsafe.

Lead exposure can lead to neurological, cardiovascular, and
endocrine side effects in the body. Exposure to even low levels of
lead may play a larger role in heart disease and deaths in the
United States. [GN]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Seeks to Decertify Class in Schultz Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR.,
and DONNA L. SCHULTZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, Case No. 2:16-cv-04415-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order decertifying the Plaintiff's class and
granting such other and further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ec8Pia at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166

MIKE WALKER LUMBER: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike Walker Lumber
Co., et al. The case is styled as Shannon Roy Scott, and all others
similarly situated v. Mike Walker Lumber Co., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00311259-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
16, 2021).

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

Mike Walker Lumber Co. -- https://walker-lumber.com/ -- is a lumber
store in North Highlands, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan Ross Hutchins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL L. TRACY
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 260-9171
          Fax: (866) 365-3051
          Email: mhutchins@michaeltracylaw.com


MISTRAS GROUP: $2.3 Million Settlement Reached in Price Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a settlement
whereby the Company will pay $2.3 million has been reached in
Justin Price v. Mistras Group, Inc.

Two proceedings have been filed in California Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles regarding alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.

Both cases are captioned Justin Price v. Mistras Group, Inc., one
being a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of current and
former Mistras employees in California and the other was filed on
behalf of the State of California under the California Private
Attorney General Act on the basis of the same alleged violations.

Both cases are requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid
wages, and various fines and penalties available under California
law.

On May 4, 2021, the Company agreed to a settlement of all claims in
the cases, which was more formally documented pursuant to a
settlement agreement completed October 5, 2021.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $2.3 million to
resolve the allegations in these proceedings and will be
responsible for the employer portion of payroll taxes on the amount
of the settlement allocated to wages. The settlement is subject to
court approval and will cover claims for the period from June 2016
through July 31, 2021.

The Company recorded expense of approximately $1.6 million during
the three months ended March 31, 2021 related to this settlement,
which is in addition to expense of $0.8 million the Company
recorded during the three months ended December 31, 2020.

Mistras Group, Inc. develops asset protection solutions. The
Company provides acoustic, ultrasonic, thermography, radiography,
and non-destructive testing platforms used to evaluate the
structural and mechanical integrity of critical energy, industrial,
and public infrastructure. Mistras Group serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Princeton Junction, New Jersey.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Drop Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
nationwide class action against the NCAA by student athletes who
allege they were sexually abused by a coach while participating in
collegiate sports won't be reinstated after the named plaintiffs on
Nov. 23 voluntarily dismissed their appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

The NCAA and named plaintiffs Erin Aldrich, Jessica Johnson, Londa
Bevins, and Beata Corcoran filed the stipulation of voluntary
dismissal with prejudice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The filing provided no explanation for the dismissal and counsel
didn't respond to requests for comment. [GN]



NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Player Denied Concussion Settlement Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that former NFL
player Amon Gordon won't receive payments from the league's
concussion class action settlement fund, after the Third Circuit on
Nov. 24 affirmed a finding that he failed to show the cognitive
decline required for a diagnosis of early dementia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Gordon's
argument that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania abused its discretion by failing to explain its
reasoning for upholding a special master's determination.

The trial court gave a "well-reasoned and detailed analysis" in
denying the claims, the court said. [GN]

NATROL LLC: Faces Class Action Over Cognimum Memory Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Natrol, LLC's claims that its Cognium Memory
and Cognium Memory Extra Strength supplements help improve memory
and recall are false and likely to deceive the public, in
particular given the products have no effect "beyond that of a
placebo pill."

The 17-page case says that despite Natrol's representations of the
Cognium products' supposed efficacy, the active ingredient in the
supplements, silk protein hydrolysate, is no more effective than a
placebo at improving memory. The lawsuit contends that although
Natrol touts its Cognium supplements as containing the "#1 most
clinically studied ingredient for memory," it is scientifically
impossible for silk protein hydrolysate to provide the promised
brain health and memory benefits once it is digested in the human
gastrointestinal tract.

"Because the Cognium Products are digested they cannot have the
effect on brain function claimed beyond that of a placebo pill --
in fact, a sugar pill likely has more protein than the Cognium
Product, which have [sic] less protein than a slice of bread," the
filing says, alleging consumers have ultimately spent money on a
"worthless product."

According to the complaint, the studies on which Natrol's Cognium
efficacy claims are based are flawed due to issues with their
sample sizes. None of the studies cited by Natrol provide any
scientific support for the claim that Cognium is "clinically shown
to improve memory and recall in healthy adults," the lawsuit
alleges, calling the studies "an attempt to apply a deceiving
scientific sheen" onto baseless ad claims.

Per the suit, "Cognium" refers to silk protein hydrolysate, and
packages of the Natrol supplements state that Cognium Memory is
"powered by natural protein from silkworm cocoons." In addition to
claiming that the Cognium supplements are "Clinically Shown to
Improve Memory and Recall," Natrol states on product packaging that
the items are for "Brain Health," and uses the word "Memory" in a
large typeface, the case says.

The lawsuit argues that Natrol repeats and reinforces the false and
deceptive brain and memory improvement claim on the front and side
panels of product packaging. On the side panels, Natrol states that
"Cognium Memory keeps your mind sharp and your memory strong," and
that the natural protein from silkworm cocoons has been "shown to
be effective in healthy adults in multiple clinical trials,"
according to the filing. Product packaging also includes a bar
chart purporting to show the results of a "published study" in
which Cognium users allegedly experienced increased "memory recall
efficiency" in just 21 days, the lawsuit adds.

Despite Natrol's label claims, the one active ingredient in
Cognium, silk protein hydrolysate, is broken down by stomach acid
after it is consumed, the suit repeats. The lawsuit, citing an
expert witness retained by the plaintiff, states that even if some
of the Cognium persists through the digestion process and is
absorbed into the blood, a person's liver would further break it
down before the blood-brain barrier would "keep out anything left
of the substance."

"Ultimately, Plaintiff's expert concludes, Cognium cannot impact
the brain because it does not absorb into the blood stream or cross
the blood-brain barrier," the complaint states. "Only if the active
ingredient crossed the blood-brain barrier could it potentially
cause any improvement whatsoever to brain performance."

Put another way, the case continues, silk protein hydrolysate, like
any other protein, is subjected to digestion in the human
gastrointestinal tract, where it is broken down into its amino acid
constituent parts. By the time it reaches the bloodstream, it is
"no different than any other protein" found in ordinary foods, the
suit says.

With regard to the blood-brain barrier, the case relays that the
only molecules able to pass through are those under 0.04-0.06
kilodaltons.

"Silk protein hydrolysate does not have a molecular mass that
small," the complaint says.

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who bought Cognium
Memory or Cognium Memory Extra Strength for personal or household
use in California within the applicable statute of limitations
period and through the date a class is certified. [GN]

NEO TECHNOLOGY: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIS PORTIER, EDWARD
SNELGROVE, ANTONIO BATHALA, JOHN TANSIL, JOSE RIVAS, REINALDO
PEREZ, RICHARD PEASE, STEWART SCOLES, and MILTON MANZANO, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEO TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS dba ONCORE HOLDINGS LLC, ONCORE MANUFACTURING, LLC, NATEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., NEO TECH, INC., NEO TECH, NORTH AMERICA,
and all other names used by NEO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, Case No.
3:17-cv-30111-TSH (D. Mass.), the Parties stipulate and
respectfully request that the Court enter an order amending the
briefing schedule as follows:

                Event             Current        Proposed
                                  Date           Date

  -- Plaintiffs file reply in     Dec. 6, 2021   Jan. 14, 2022
     support of Certification
     Motion:

  -- Plaintiffs file opposition   Dec. 6, 2021   Jan. 14, 2022
     to Expert Motion:

  -- Defendants file reply in     Dec. 20, 2021  Jan. 28, 2022
     support of Expert Motion:

  -- Hearing on Certification     Jan. 6, 2022   March 1, 2022
     Motion:

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ocxq0S at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          Francesca Kester, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          210 N. Franklin St., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                  fkester@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Kelly Hyman, Esq.
          THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          2881 East Oakland Park Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (954) 315-1780
          E-mail: kellyhyman@thehymanlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P. Bueker, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7951
          Facsimile: (617) 235-0609
          E-mail: john.bueker@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  jramsey@sheppardmullin.com

NEWELL BRANDS: Must Face Class Action Over Mislabeled Nuk Pacifiers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has refused to put to bed a class action lawsuit
accusing the makers of Nuk pacifiers of falsely labeling them as
"orthodontic."

U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzmán issued an opinion Nov. 16
granting a certification motion from named plaintiffs Shelly Benson
and Lisa Caparelli, who sued Newell Brands and subsidiary NUK USA
with allegations of false and misleading advertising.

According to Guzmán's opinion, the plaintiffs bought pacifiers at
Walmart stores in Illinois in the three marketed age ranges: 0-6
months, 6-18 months and 18-36 months. Labels for each, they said,
refer to the products as "orthodontic," which they say falsely
implies the pacifiers benefit oral development and tooth alignment.
They further allege the age groupings indicate pacifiers benefit
dental health of 2- and 3-year-olds while omitting "the material
fact that prolonged pacifier use by children over the age of 24
months significantly increases the risk of developing dental
malocclusions (misalignments)," according to Guzmán.

Newell argued the term "orthodontic" refers only to the shape of a
Nuk nipple, differentiating it from round pacifiers. They said
their market research says consumers "broadly understood those
things as well."

The plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment.
The class would include hundreds of thousands pacifier buyers in
Illinois and nine other states -- California, Florida,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York
and Washington -- as well as a subclass for those who used a
contested pacifier for a child at least 24 months old.

Guzmán established the plaintiffs' lawyers, Melissa Weiner of
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, and Edwin Kilpela Jr. of Carlson Lynch,
are suitable class counsel and rejected Newell's contention the
plaintiffs missed their chance to declare an expert witness,
clarifying his earlier remarks about discovery timetables.

In order to establish the financial damages common to class
members, the plaintiffs tapped University of Chicago economics and
marketing professor Jean-Pierre Dubé. He provided a report
explaining how he'd calculate the extra costs consumers incurred if
they believed the Nuk products were superior to competing brands
because of the challenged language. Guzmán accepted that
methodology, as well as the argument that a class action is the
best way to litigate this dispute.

"Proving plaintiffs' allegations of consumer fraud will be complex
and costly; it will require expert testimony on the effect of
pacifier use on children's oral development," Guzmán wrote. "That
proof, of which no rational individual plaintiff would be willing
to bear the cost, can be offered on a class-wide basis."

The plaintiffs used another University of Chicago expert, Michal
Dennis, the senior vice president of the school's National Opinion
Research Center. Dennis conducted a survey through which he
concluded more than 90% of consumers had a perception of the word
"orthodontic" that aligns with the class allegations and influenced
purchasing choices.

Guzmán further took a bite out of Newell's objections to Dennis'
survey, saying those objections amounted to "undeveloped criticism"
that didn't change his mind about the plaintiffs' ability to prove
the prudence of allowing the case to proceed as a class action. He
further rejected Newell's attempts to undercut the class based on
questions of how many people who bought the pacifiers did so
because of the word "orthodontic" or whether they even saw the word
while shopping, restating that the primary question is whether a
reasonable consumer would be deceived and noting the plaintiffs'
adequately alleged the word appeared on every pacifier package.

Finally, Guzmán said the inclusion of consumers from nine other
states passes muster because the identified states have consumer
laws sufficiently similar to Illinois. He set a status hearing for
Dec. 8.

Newell Brands is represented in the action by attorneys Joseph K.
Krasovec III, David C. Scott, Mir Y. Ali and Jeffery M. Heckendorn,
of Schiff Hardin, of Chicago. [GN]

NFP RETIREMENT: Lauderdale Seeks Certification of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LAUDERDALE, et al.,
v. NFP RETIREMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00301-JVS-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying this case as a class action and appointing Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:

   "All participants and beneficiaries of the Wood 401(k) Plan
   from February 16, 2015 through the date of judgment,
   excluding Defendants and members of the Committee of the Wood
   401(k) Plan."

The Plaintiffs Robert Lauderdale, Aubin Ntela, Joshua Carrell,
Leonard Dickhaut, Robert Crow, Rodney Riggins, and Ting Shen Wang
are or were during the time in suit participants in the Wood 401(k)
Plan (the "Plan"), a defined contribution plan governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan, who owe ERISA-imposed
duties to the Plan and all participants.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and caused prohibited transactions by causing the Plan to
include imprudent investment options and to incur unreasonable and
excessive fees.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants under 29
U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) and seek to recover all losses to the
Plan resulting from the Defendants' ERISA violations.

NFP Retirement offers investment advisory services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p9hUC4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          jschlichter@uselaws.com
          E-mail: tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com

               - and -

          William H. Edmonson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILL EDMONSON
          9157 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 213
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (424) 248-9581
          E-mail: will@whelawfirm.com

NORTH CAROLINA: Crittington Suit May Proceed W/o Prepaying Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division,
allowed the Plaintiff to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in
the lawsuit styled OMAR DUPRAZ CRITTINGTON, Plaintiff v. GARRY L.
McFADDEN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00314-MR
(W.D.N.C.).

The matter is before the Court on initial review of the Complaint.
Also pending are the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and Motion to Appoint
Counsel.

Background

The pro se Plaintiff filed the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
19831 addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the
Mecklenburg County Detention Center while the Plaintiff was a
pretrial detainee. He also appears to assert claims under North
Carolina law for negligence and medical malpractice. He names as
Defendants in their individual and official capacities: Eric L.
Byrum Jr., A. Durrah, and FNU Jarreal, sergeants; K. Jhonson, a
D.A.R.T. detention officer; and D. Davis, a detention officer. The
Plaintiff names as Defendants in their official capacities: Garry
L. McFadden, the Mecklenburg County sheriff; FNU Santos, an
administrative officer; D.W. Wallace, a hearing officer; FNU
Graveley, a classification officer; Z. Parker, a major; FNU Savory,
C. Pearson, M. Sawyer, FNU Mack, captains; J. Moore, an
administrative captain; D. Byers, A. Currin, FNU Hill, sergeants;
FNU Nepay, FNU Starling, FNU Horten, B. Jackson, FNU Davis, FNU
Lunceford, FNU Hicks, FNU Lyons, FNU McKoy, FNU Cavanar, FNU
Herrin, FNU De'Long, FNU Clemons, and FNU Hollow, detention
officers; T. Snell, a D.A.R.T. detention officer; FNU Lawrnce, a
deputy; FNU Grimes, and FNU Black, nurses; and Sheryl Drakeford,
the finance supervisor.

As injury, the Plaintiff alleges that he sustained physical
injuries in two separate incidents, and that he has experienced
anxiety, depression, mental anguish, pain and suffering, economic
deprivation, mental duress, anxiety, and panic attacks as a result
of the Defendants' actions or failure to act. The Plaintiff seeks a
total of $60 million in damages.

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Federal courts can allow a litigant to prosecute or defend a civil
action without paying the usual required fees if the litigant
submits an affidavit containing a statement of the litigant's
assets and demonstrating that he cannot afford to pay the required
fees.

Upon review of the Application, the Court is satisfied that the
Plaintiff has demonstrated his inability to pay the costs of the
proceedings, and his Application will be granted.

Discussion

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that
he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed
under color of state law (Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526
U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999)).

A. Parties

The body of the Complaint contains allegations against individuals,
who are not named as defendants in the caption as required by Rule
10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This failure renders
the Plaintiff's allegations against them nullities. The allegations
directed at individuals not named as Defendants are, therefore,
dismissed without prejudice.

Further, the Plaintiff makes allegations regarding incidents
involving other inmates. As a pro se inmate, the Plaintiff is not
qualified to prosecute a class action or assert a claim on behalf
of others. Therefore, to the extent that the Plaintiff attempts to
assert claims on behalf of others, they are dismissed with
prejudice.

The Plaintiff names Sheriff McFadden and the other Defendants, all
of whom are Sheriff's Office employees, in their official
capacities. The claims against the Defendant sheriff's office
employees in their official capacities are duplicative of the
claims against Sheriff McFadden. Accordingly, the official capacity
claims against the Defendant sheriff's office employees are
dismissed.

As for the official capacity claims against Sheriff McFadden, suits
against sheriffs in their official capacity are in substance claims
against the office of the sheriff itself. To succeed on such a
claim, a plaintiff must allege that a Sheriff's Office policy or
custom resulted in the violation of federal law.

Judge Reidinger notes, the Plaintiff appears to allege that the
following resulted from Sheriff's Office custom and policy: an
unfair disciplinary hearing; inhumane conditions of confinement;
failure to keep dangerous inmates away from each other; and threats
and due process violations to cover up staff misconduct.

The claims against Defendant McFadden in his official capacity, and
the Plaintiff's individual capacity claims against the Sheriff's
Office employee Defendants, will be discussed in the sections that
follow.

B. Excessive Force

The Plaintiff alleges that: Defendants Byrum, Jhonson and D. Davis
used excessive force against him; Defendants Durrah and Jarreal
threatened to beat him when he refused to enter a contaminated
cell; and Defendant Durrah threatened him so that he would sign an
amended use of force statement regarding the excessive force
incident. He further appears to allege that the threats resulted
from a Sheriff's Office custom or policy.

Taking the allegations as true for the purposes of initial review,
and construing the inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff has stated an excessive force claim
sufficient to pass initial review against Defendants Byrum,
Jhonson, and D. Davis; and against Durrah and Jarreal for
threatening him. The Monell claim regarding threats is also
minimally sufficient to pass initial review against Defendant
McFadden. Accordingly, these claims will be allowed to proceed at
this time.

C. Failure to Protect

The Plaintiff alleges that he was repeated placed in proximity to
inmates, who posed a danger to him as a result of Sheriff's Office
custom or policy. He also appears to allege that several Defendants
were negligent for housing him with an inmate with whom the
Plaintiff had a prior altercation, and who threatened the
Plaintiff, which led to the Plaintiff's injury.

Taking the allegations as true for the purposes of initial review,
and construing the inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a Monell
claim against Defendant McFadden for failure to protect to pass
initial review.

Accordingly, this claim will be allowed to proceed. The Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
related negligence claims, as a failure to protect claim has not
passed initial review against any Sheriff's Office employee
Defendant whose alleged negligence injured the Plaintiff.

D. Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need

The Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical
treatment, which rose to the level of malpractice after he was
beaten by another inmate.

Claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on an alleged lack of or
inappropriate medical treatment fall within the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Reidinger holds that the Plaintiff has failed to assert a
claim against any Defendant in his or her individual capacity for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and he does not
appear to allege that such resulted from a Sheriff's Office custom
or policy. Therefore, his claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need is dismissed without prejudice.

Because the Plaintiff's Section 1983 deliberate indifference claim
is being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim.

E. Conditions of Confinement

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Durrah and Jarreal exposed
him to unsanitary living conditions; and that Defendant Byrum
imposed, and Defendant Durrah enforced, punitive solitary
confinement without due process. He further alleges that his
exposure to these unconstitutional conditions of confinement
resulted from Sheriff's Office custom or policy.

Taking the allegations as true for the purposes of initial review,
and construing all inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a claim
against Defendants Byrum, Durrah, and Jarreal for exposing him to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, as well as a Monell
claim against Defendant McFadden to pass initial review.

F. Use of Force Statement

The Plaintiff appears to allege that he was denied due process when
he was threatened so as to force him to sign a second, inaccurate,
use of force statement regarding the excessive force incident, and
that this resulted from a Sheriff's Office custom or policy.

Because the Plaintiff did not have any right to have the excessive
force incident investigated, he had no due process rights
associated with the use of force statement. Therefore, he has
failed to state a due process claim or a Monell claim regarding the
use of force statement and this claim is dismissed with prejudice.

G. Inmate Trust Account

The Plaintiff alleges that $2,074.45 was improperly deducted from
his inmate trust account for expenses he incurred during a prior
incarceration, without due process; the finance department
fraudulently cashed his stimulus check; and Defendant Byrum failed
to prevent and correct these issues.

The Plaintiff appears to allege that the deduction from his inmate
account and the cashing of his stimulus check resulted from random,
unauthorized acts rather than an established procedure. Adequate
post-deprivation remedies exist for these alleged losses, so there
is no legal theory which would support a due process claim for
these issues.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims for the trust account deduction
and the cashing of his stimulus check are dismissed without
prejudice.

H. Grievances

The Plaintiff appears to allege that he was denied due process with
regard to the Detention Center's grievance procedures.

The Plaintiff's allegations that he submitted grievances that went
unanswered fail to rise to the level of a constitutional
violation.

The Plaintiff's allegations that he was denied the Detention
Center's grievance procedure fail to rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. Therefore, this claim will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I. Disciplinary Proceeding

The Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive a fair, just, and
impartial disciplinary proceeding regarding his altercation with
another inmate. He appears to allege that this was the result of
unfair Sheriff's Office custom or policy.

Judge Reidinger finds that the Plaintiff has failed to name any
Defendant in his or her individual capacity with regard to this
claim. Moreover, the allegations are too vague and conclusory to
plausibly allege that any procedural due process violation
occurred, or that such was the result of Monell liability. The
Plaintiff merely states that the proceeding was unfair and
expresses his disagreement with its outcome. Accordingly, this
claim is dismissed without prejudice.

J. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Finally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel to
represent him in this case. He argues that it is an abuse of
discretion to decline to appoint counsel where an indigent
plaintiff presents exceptional circumstances.

There is no absolute right to the appointment of counsel in civil
actions such as this one. Therefore, a plaintiff must present
"exceptional circumstances" in order to require the Court to seek
the assistance of a private attorney for a plaintiff who is unable
to afford counsel.

Judge Reidinger holds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
the existence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the
appointment of counsel and this Motion is denied.

Conclusion

In sum, the Complaint has passed initial review: against Defendants
Byrum, Jhonson, D. Davis, Durrah, and Jarreal in their individual
capacities for the use of excessive force and threats; against
Defendants Byrum, Durrah, and Jarreal in their individual
capacities for unconstitutional conditions of confinement; and
against Defendant McFadden in his official capacity for threats,
failure to protect, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement
on a theory of Monell liability. The Plaintiff's claims asserted on
behalf of others, against the Sheriff's Office employees in their
official capacities, and for due process violations with regards to
the use of force statement and grievance procedure are dismissed
with prejudice; the remaining claims are dismissed without
prejudice.

The Court will allow the Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint,
if he so chooses, to correct the deficiencies identified in this
Order and to otherwise properly state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Any Amended Complaint will be subject to all timeliness
and procedural requirements and will supersede the Complaint.
Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted. Should the Plaintiff
fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order,
the matter will proceed only on the claims set forth.

Order

It is, therefore, ordered that the Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is
granted. The Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied.

The Complaint has passed initial review: against Defendants Byrum,
Jhonson, D. Davis, Durrah, and Jarreal in their individual
capacities for the use of excessive force and threats; against
Defendants Byrum, Durrah, and Jarreal in their individual
capacities for unconstitutional conditions of confinement; and
against Defendant McFadden in his official capacity for threats,
failure to protect the Plaintiff, and unconstitutional conditions
of confinement.

The claims that the Plaintiff asserts: on behalf of others; and for
due process violations with regards to the use of force statement
and grievances are dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims
are dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiff will have 30 days in which to amend his Complaint in
accordance with the terms of this Order. If the Plaintiff fails to
amend the Complaint in accordance with this Order and within the
time limit set by the Court, this action will proceed only as set
forth in this Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p93ms8s from Leagle.com.


NOVAVAX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Novavax, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVAX)
between March 2, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important January 11, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Novavax 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 Novavax class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2181.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 11, 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: (1) Novavax overstated its manufacturing
capabilities and downplayed manufacturing issues that would impact
its approval timeline for NVX-CoV2373 (the Company's product
candidate as a vaccine for COVID-19); (2) as a result, Novavax was
unlikely to meet its anticipated Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
regulatory timelines for NVX-CoV2373; (3) accordingly, the Company
overstated the regulatory and commercial prospects for NVX-CoV2373;
and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Novavax class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2181.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.

Contacts:
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]

NSW HEALTH: Faces Two Court Suits Over Junior Doctor Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Carroll and Mary Ward, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald,
reports that junior doctors are set to launch legal proceedings
against the state government on Nov. 24 over unpaid wages as
pressure mounts on NSW Health over its alleged treatment of trainee
medics.

The Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (ASMOF) will
begin legal action over alleged breaches of the medical officers
award and failures to pay overtime and other allowances, warning
more needs to be done to protect an exhausted medical workforce.

It is the second action being brought against NSW Health for
underpayment of junior doctors. Law firms Maurice Blackburn and
Hayden Stephens & Associates last year launched a class action to
recoup tens of millions of dollars in allegedly unpaid wages on
behalf of junior doctors. Roughly 24,000 doctors are expected to be
part of that class action which is set to go to trial in 2022.

The Herald revealed almost 40 per cent of junior doctors working in
Sydney's major hospitals say they made an error this year, with
half of roughly 1800 trainees surveyed in the AMA (NSW) Hospital
Health Check reporting they have been bullied or harassed while at
work.

Junior doctors seek tens of millions in claimed unpaid wages
Junior doctor Amireh Fakhouri is leading the first action which
covers almost the whole junior doctor workforce.

"This issue of underpaying junior doctors is not going to go away.
It cannot continue to be accepted as part of the public health
system in NSW," Rebecca Gilsenan, a principal at Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers, said.

The Supreme Court recently sent information to over 24,000 junior
doctors about the class action, notifying them they could opt out.

At the same time, ASMOF sent material to some junior doctors,
campaigning on the issue and asking them to opt out. The union was
criticised in the Supreme Court for its statement to doctors and
subsequently the Court ordered that new information had to be
re-issued to those that had opted out.

ASMOF president Dr Tony Sara said the action launched on Nov. 24
was a "once in a generation chance to change the way doctors are
treated by changing the medical officers' award".

"The aim of our action is not just to ensure junior doctors are
paid for the hours they work but to ensure the award is modernised
so doctors are actually protected in the workplace," noting the
importance of mandatory breaks between shifts and caps on shift
lengths.

"It could also include guaranteed safe staffing levels. We are
often overworked because we are short-staffed."

President of the Australian Medical Association's NSW branch
Danielle McMullen said doctors' awards in NSW were archaic and
needed review.

"Our junior doctors are among the lowest paid in the country and
access to study leave is limited. While significant award changes
would be ideal, shift length and breaks can be improved outside of
award changes," Dr McMullen said.

During the peak of Sydney's Delta wave, junior doctors were pulled
off their expected rotations to staff COVID-19 wards, with some
hospitals, including Campbelltown, Westmead and Liverpool, opening
several additional wards to meet demand.

Dr Raj Ubeja, junior vice-president of the union and a junior
doctor in Sydney, said the impact of working non-rostered overtime
and increasingly demanding on-call periods on the wellbeing of
newer doctors was "extremely apparent", and had only been
exacerbated by the demands of the pandemic.

"If someone is called three times an hour, is that 'time worked' or
is it 'time on-call'?" he said.

He said there was particular concern about overtime, which was not
logged or paid at some hospitals, meaning they resulted in an
ongoing cycle of under-staffing because the problem does not exist
on paper.

"If doctors wanted to sue someone they would have taken up a
different profession -- but this is what it has come to," he said.

Labor health spokesperson Ryan Park said the doctors should not be
used as "cannon fodder for a health system in crisis".

"Not only do excessive work hours impact on the welfare of
individual doctors, it also puts patients' lives at risk," he
said."Our health professionals have been instrumental in keeping
communities safe and they deserve better."

In 2017, the state government launched its $3 million Junior
Medical Officer Wellbeing and Support Plan, including a dedicated
support line offering specialised counselling, and a "performing
under pressure" course.

"NSW Health takes seriously the wellbeing and appropriate
remuneration of all NSW Health staff including junior medical
officers," a NSW Health spokesperson said.

"In early 2021 the Ministry of Health met with ASMOF to discuss
options for award reform. The Ministry of Health provided ASMOF
with a draft process for undertaking award reform in June 2021."

The spokesperson said progress had been made on the 10 initiatives
contained in the wellbeing and support plan, including new safe
work hours standards, which states there is a 14-hour maximum for
consecutive rostered hours and 10-hour minimum break between shift
periods. [GN]

OAK STREET: Rosen Law Investigates Firm for Possible Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH) resulting from
allegations that Oak Street may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2210.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: In Oak Street's Q3 update on November 8, 2021,
Oak Street revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is
investigating whether the Company may have violated the False
Claims Act and said the DOJ has requested documents and information
related to Oak Street providing free transportation to federal
healthcare beneficiaries and related to its relationships with
third-party marketing agents.

On this news, Oak Street's stock price fell $9.75 per share, or
20%, to close at $37.14 on November 9, 2021, damaging investors.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.[GN]

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Bid to Certify Class Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA C. DESELMS, et al.,
v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00243-NDF (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal
entered an order denying without prejudice plaintiffs' motion to
certify class.

The Court's request for a reply from Plaintiffs was not an
invitation for a "do-over" to correct the earlier class action
certification attempt. Fairness dictates that if, or when the
Plaintiffs have a class certification request, that it be the
subject of a motion and memorandum with attached exhibits, rather
than an evolving set of docket filings which require reconciling a
variety of requests, arguments, declarations, reports, supplemental
declarations and supplemental reports.

By their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs bring an antitrust
case which seeks to establish a class to compensate all similarly
situated persons for injury caused by Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; Section 4 of
the Clayton Act; the Wyoming Constitution; and Wyoming common law
of unfair competition, monopolization and monopsonization.

More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege Anadarko is the single
largest lessee of minerals in Laramie County, Wyoming.

Following the successful completion of many horizontal wells in
eastern Laramie County (primarily in the Codell formation), that
area became the subject of intense focus by the oil and gas
industry. The Plaintiffs allege Anadarko devised a strategy to give
itself maximum economic benefit in this area, to the
anti-competitive disadvantage of neighboring mineral owners and
competitors who, because of the scheme, could not lease their
minerals.

On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23.
The Plaintiff's motion seeks to establish the following class:

   "All Owners of Class Minerals during the "Class Period" but
   excluding any Owner who, during the Class Period, (i) was a
   lessee of Class Minerals or (ii) had a Working Interest in
   any of the Class Minerals other than those costs that might
   be imposed under the provisions of Wyo. Stat. Section 30-5-
   109 as it existed at the beginning of the Impacted Period or
   as later amended to Union Pacific, while Plaintiffs own
   interests in the neighboring even-numbered and certain odd-
   numbered sections."

   "Class Period" is defined by Plaintiffs as the time between
   approximately July 1, 2016 and continuing through October 19,
   2020.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xNwgMj at no extra charge.[CC]

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: 6th Cir. Asked to Revive Sex Abuse Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Alf, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL ALF, GARY TILL, CHRIS
ARMSTRONG, ALLAN NOVAKOWSKI, AND JOHN DOES 93-101, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE OHIO
STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02542-EAS-CMV, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 21, 2021, the
lawsuit alleges violations of Title IX of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to perform its
duties under Title IX to investigate and take corrective action, or
make appropriate recommendations following complaints of sexual
assault. Despite the complaints and concerns conveyed by athletes
and coaches to the Defendant and its agents and/or representatives,
concerning the sexual abuse and misconduct of Dr. Richard Strauss,
the university's sports team doctor, and other student health
services physician, the Defendant acted with deliberate
indifference by failing to respond to the allegations of sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation in light of the known
circumstances. The Defendant's failure to implement any policies or
procedures for reporting or investigating sexual abuse until at
least 2000 resulted in the Plaintiffs being subject to further
sexual assault, battery, molestation, harassment and a sexually
hostile environment, the suit asserts.

On July 15, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.  On October 25, 2021, Judge Michael H.
Watson entered an order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case.  The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Alf, et al. v. The Ohio
State University, Case No. 21-4070, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Nov. 16, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL ALF, GARY TILL, ALLEN NOVAKOWSKI,
CHRIS ARMSTRONG, and JOHN DOES, 93-99 individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sarah Bradshaw, Esq.
          SHARP LAW
          4820 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          E-mail: sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Simina Vourlis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMINA VOURLIS
          1689 W. Third Avenue
          Columbus, OH 43212-6710
          Telephone: (614) 487-5900
          E-mail: svourlis@vourlislaw.com

Defendant-Appellee THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by:

          Michael Hiram Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER, LIPPS & LELAND
          280 N. High Street, Suite 1300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com


OWLET INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until January 18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Owlet,
Inc. f/k/a Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation (NYSE: OWLT; OWLT WS;
SBG; SBG WS), if they purchased the Company's securities between
March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
and/or held Sandbridge common stock held as of June 1, 2021 and
were eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting on July 14,
2021. This action is pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Owlet or held Sandbridge as above
and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might
affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you
may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing
Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-owlt/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by January 18, 2022.

About the Lawsuit

Owlet and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 4, 2021, the Company disclosed the receipt of a warning
letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") stating
that "the Company's marketing of its Owlet Smart Sock product . . .
renders [it] a medical device requiring premarket clearance or
approval from FDA," which requirement the Company had not obtained,
and also requesting that "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, shares of Owlet fell $1.29, or 23%, to close at $4.19
per share on October 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The case is Butala v. Owlet, Inc. f/k/a Sandbridge Acquisition
Corporation, 21-cv-09016.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

OWLET INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Owlet, Inc. ("Owlet") (NYSE:OWLT) f/k/a
Sandbridge Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:SBG) ("Sandbridge"). The action
charges Owlet with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Owlet's materially misleading statements to the public, Owlet
investors have suffered significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 18, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: March 31, 2021 through October 4, 2021

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

OWLET'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Owlet, headquartered in Lehi, Utah, operates as a digital parenting
platform, focusing on giving real-time data and insights to
parents. Its products include: Owlet Monitor Duo that gets the
snapshot of baby's wellbeing; Owlet Smart Sock that tracks baby's
heart rate and oxygen while sleeping and gets notifications if baby
needs to be checked on; Owlet Cam, a smart HD video baby monitor;
and Dream Lab, an online and personalized infant sleep solution.

On July 15, 2021, Sandbridge combined with the company Owlet Baby
Care Inc., and the combined company was renamed Owlet. Then, on
October 4, 2021, Owlet disclosed that it received a warning letter
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The FDA's
letter informed Owlet that its marketing for the Owlet Smart Sock
in the United States "renders the Smart Sock a medical device
requiring premarket clearance or approval from FDA, and that
[Owlet] has not obtained such clearance or approval in violation of
the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." In the letter, the FDA
requested that Owlet take "prompt action" to remedy the alleged
violations and that Owlet "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."

Following this news, Owlet's stock price fell $1.29, or 23%, to
close at $4.19 per share on October 4, 2021.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Owlet investors may, no later than January 18, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Owlet investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE

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

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

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

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Asks High Court to Settle Split on Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Petitioner v. BARBARA KNAPKE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Respondent, Case No. 21-725.

Response is due December 16, 2021.

PeopleConnect asks the High Court to review the judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case
titled BARBARA KNAPKE, Plaintiff v. PEOPLECONNECT INC., Defendant,
Case No. 21-35690.

The question presented is: Does a non-frivolous appeal of a denial
of a motion to compel arbitration divest district courts of
jurisdiction, causing proceedings to be stayed automatically, as
the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held,
or does the appealing party have to satisfy the traditional
discretionary test for a stay, as the Second, Fifth, and Ninth
Circuits have held?

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 11, 2021, Judge
Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Defendant's Motion to
Stay.  The Court denied PeopleConnect Inc.'s (Classmates) motion to
dismiss, finding, in part, that the Plaintiff was not bound by
Classmates terms of service that might require arbitration. It
rejected Classmates' strained theory that the Plaintiff's counsel's
pre-suit investigation to confirm the accuracy of the allegations
as required by Rule 11 bound his client to Classmates' terms of
service. The Court found no evidence of actual or apparent
authority that might bind the Plaintiff to her counsel's agreement
to Classmates' terms of service under Ohio law. Classmates has now
appealed that portion of the Court's Order and asks the Court to
stay the proceedings until the Ninth Circuit resolves the appeal.

Judge Pechman concluded that Classmates fails to demonstrate the
necessity of a stay of the proceedings pending its appeal of the
Court's order on its motion to dismiss. She holds that the relevant
factors disfavor Classmates' position and Classmates has not
convinced the Court to stay the matter pending the appeal. Judge
Pechman denied the Motion to Stay and orders Classmates to file its
answer within 14 days of entry of the Order, as previously required
by the Order in Docket Entry 31.

On October 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied PeopleConnect's
motion for stay pending appeal. The Circuit Court also denied
PeopleConnect's request for an administrative stay to permit en
banc reconsideration of Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d
1405 (9th Cir. 1990).

PeopleConnect now asks the High Court to resolve the circuit split
over whether a district court is ousted of jurisdiction pending
appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner PeopleConnect, Inc. is represented by:

          Adam G. Unikowsky, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001
          E-mail: AUnikowsky@jenner.com

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Cypress Asks 5th Cir. to Transfer "Newman"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, L.L.C. filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH
NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., Case No.
7:19-CV-244, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Midland Odessa.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Newman and the other workers like him regularly worked for
Plains in excess of 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff contends that
these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek and were, instead, paid a day rate.
This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed to these workers, says the complaint.

On March 25, 2021, Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, LLC filed
a motion to transfer case, or alternatively, compel arbitration.

On October 29, 2021, Judge David Counts entered an order adopting a
Report and Recommendations that denied the motion to transfer.

The Intervenor now seeks a review of that order.

The appellate case is captioned as Newman v. Plains All American
Pipeline, Case No. 21-51089, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 16, 2021.[BN]

Intervenor-Appellant Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, L.L.C.
is represented by:

          Rachel Cowen, Counsel, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P.
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 372-2000

Plaintiff-Appellee Kenneth Newman, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com

PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion no later than January 24, 2022 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired ordinary shares of Playtika Holding Corp. ("Playtika" or
the "Company") (NASADQ:PLTK) in connection with Playtika's January
15, 2021 initial public offering; and/or (ii) Playtika securities
between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 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 Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
§§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased or acquired (a) Playtika ordinary shares in
connection with the IPO; and/or (b) Playtika securities during the
Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and
options please visit Playtika Holding Corp. Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414
or seidman@bernlieb.com.

On or about January 15, 2021, Playtika conducted its IPO, offering
18,518,500 shares of its common stock to the public at a price of
$27 per share for anticipated proceeds of approximately
$479,999,520.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that (i) the Company's
year-over-year total costs and costs related to sales & marketing
and research & development were on track to rise significantly by
the third quarter of 2021; (ii) the success of the Company's game
portfolio was less sustainable than the Company had represented;
(iii) the foregoing issues were likely to negatively impact the
Company's revenue and earnings; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 11, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results for the
first quarter of 2021. While the Company's revenue beat
expectations by $57.97 million, its GAAP earnings per share of
$0.09 missed consensus estimates by $0.04.

On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $.93 per share, or 3.47%,
to close at $25.89 per share on May 11, 2021.

Then, on November 3, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2021. Among other items, Playtika reported
revenue of $635.9 million, missing consensus estimates by $26.07
million, and GAAP EPS of $0.20, missing consensus estimates by
$0.05.

That same day, on an earnings call with investors and analysts
discussing the Company's Q3 2021 results, Defendant Robert Antokol
("Antokol"), Playtika's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), and
Defendant Craig Abrahams ("Abrahams"), Playtika's Chief Financial
Officer, revealed that two of the games in Playtika's portfolio
yielded disappointing revenues for the quarter.

On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $6.80 per share, or
23.3%, to close at $22.72 on November 3, 2021. As of the time this
Complaint was filed, Playtika ordinary shares continue to trade
below the Offering price, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 24, 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 or acquired Playtika Holding Corp. securities,
and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please
visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/playtikaholdingcorp-pltk-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-463/
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.

Contact Information:

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

PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Schall Law Reminds of January 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Playtika
Holding Corp. ("Playtika" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PLTK)
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on
January 15, 2021 (the "IPO"), or between January 15, 2021 and
November 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before January 24, 2022.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, visit
https://bit.ly/3y2clcR to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Playtika's year-over-year R&D and sales &
marketing costs were on track to increase materially by the third
quarter of 2021. The Company's game portfolio did not have the
sustainability that it portrayed to investors. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Playtika, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

PRAIRIE FARMS: Court Dismisses Tropp Class Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STACEY TROPP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1035-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted Prairie Farms' motion to dismiss Tropp's amended
complaint.

The matter is a case about the flavor of ice cream. Plaintiff Tropp
alleges that she purchased Defendant Prairie Farms' "Premium
Vanilla Bean Ice Cream" every week for a year. Although she "liked
the product," she contends that the label is "deceptive" because
she believed that the product was flavored with vanilla beans when
in fact it is artificially flavored and its vanilla bean specks are
merely decorative. She says that she "would not have paid as much"
for the product had she known the truth, but she will purchase the
product again "when she can do so with the assurance that the
Product's labels are consistent with the Product's components." She
is suing Prairie Farms under several state-law theories, all of
which are based on her contention that the product's label is
deceptive.

Prairie Farms moves to dismiss Tropp's amended complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

All of Tropp's claims are based on the label for Prairie Farms'
"Premium Vanilla Bean Ice Cream." She contends that the label
violates multiple regulations promulgated under Wis. Stat. Section
100.20. She also assert common-law claims for fraud, breach of
warranty, and unjust enrichment. Tropp contends that Prairie Farms
is violating department orders issued under Section 100.20(2) that
regulate a product's "declaration of identity" on a label, Wis.
Admin. Code Section ATCP 90.02, and require the label to comply
with certain federal regulations.

Ms. Tropp contends that Prairie Farms is violating two provisions
in Wis. Admin. Code. Section ATCP 90.02 that relate to a product's
"declaration of identity." First, she says that Prairie Farms is
violating Section ATCP 90.02(1) because the product's label
misstates its "common or usual name." Second, Tropp says that
Prairie Farms is violating Section ATCP 90.02(3) because its
declaration of identity is false, deceptive, and misleading.

Moreover, under Wis. Admin. Code Section ATCP 90.10(1), "food sold
or distributed for sale in the state will be labeled in compliance
with applicable rules adopted by the United States food and drug
administration under 21 CFR 101, 102, 104, 105, and 130."

Judge Peterson concludes that Tropp's complaint doesn't plausibly
allege that Prairie Farms' label is false, deceptive, or
misleading, so Tropp has failed to state a claim under Wis. Stat.
Section 100.20. Tropp also asserts common-law claims for fraud,
breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. But all of these claims
are based on the view that Prairie Farms represented or promised
that the product was flavored with vanilla beans. Judge Peterson
holds that the Court has rejected that view, so these claims fail
as well.

Prairie Farms asks that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Tropp has already amended her complaint once, and she doesn't ask
for leave to amend again. So Judge Peterson will enter judgment and
close the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Peterson granted defendant Prairie
Farms' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. He dismissed
the case with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to enter
judgment in favor of Prairie Farms and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p86ujwe from Leagle.com.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Delcid Sues Over Harmful, Unsafe Deodorants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Otto Delcid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-09454-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2021), is brought regarding the Defendant's
manufacturing, distribution, and sale of Old Spice deodorant and
antiperspirant aerosol and spray products (the "Products") that
contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity
that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers.

Old Spice is a brand of deodorants and antiperspirants
manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendant. The Old Spice
Products discussed herein contain benzene, a carcinogenic chemical
impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The
Products are not designed to contain benzene, and in fact no amount
of benzene is acceptable in antiperspirant sprays such as the
Products manufactured by Defendant. The presence of benzene in the
Products renders them adulterated and misbranded, and therefore
illegal to sell under both federal and state law. As a result, the
Products are unsafe and illegal to sell under federal law, and
therefore worthless.

The FDA does state that if the use of benzene is "unavoidable in
order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic
advance," then the drug product may contain up to 2 ppm of benzene.
However, many of Defendant's Products that were tested contain
levels of benzene above this amount. Accordingly, any level of
benzene in Defendant's Products is unacceptable and therefore
renders the Products adulterated, misbranded, unsafe, and
worthless. The Defendant did not disclose the actual or potential
presence of benzene in its antiperspirant and deodorant products on
the Products' labeling, or in any advertising or website promoting
the Products. The Defendant did not disclose the presence of
benzene in the Products to the Plaintiff or Class members at the
point of sale or at any time before the point of sale.

If the Defendant had not routinely disregarded the FDA's cGMPs, or
had fulfilled their quality assurance obligations, Defendant would
have identified the presence of the benzene contaminant almost
immediately. Further, had the Defendant adequately tested its
Products for benzene and other carcinogens, reproductive toxins,
and impurities, it would have discovered that its Products
contained benzene at levels above the FDA's limit (to the extent
even applicable), making those products ineligible for
distribution, marketing, and sale. Accordingly, the Defendant
knowingly, or at least negligently, introduced contaminated,
adulterated, and/or misbranded Products containing dangerous
amounts of benzene into the U.S. market.

When the Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Products, the
Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that Defendant's
Products were adulterated and misbranded and thus unlawful to sell
or purchase. Not only would the Plaintiff not have purchased the
Defendant's Products at all had he known the Products contained
benzene, he would not have been capable of purchasing them if the
Defendant had done as the law required and tested those products
for benzene and other carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and
impurities. Thus, if the Plaintiff and Class members had been
informed that Defendant's Products contained or may contain
benzene, they would not have purchased or used the Products at all,
or would have paid significantly less for the Products, making such
omitted facts material to them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a canister of Defendant's Old Spice Pure
Sport from a Rite Aid in Manhattan.

The Defendant is a manufacturer, distributor, and seller of the
Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: aobergfell@bursor.com
                 mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Fax: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


QSUPER LTD: Overcharges Mandatory Insurance Premiums, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Roddan at afr.com reports that not-for-profit industry fund
giant QSuper allegedly rorted savings by overcharging for mandatory
life insurance premiums it forced on its members through a
for-profit business it created in 2016, according to a new class
action against the $120 billion fund.

The Federal Court case, lodged on behalf of up to 140,000 members,
comes just weeks after QSuper became the first
union-and-employee-backed fund to win the right to charge its
members a new fee to pay for court imposed penalties and fines.

While the Queensland-based fund, that manages the savings of the
state's public servants, is staring down a potential penalty
stemming from an Australian Taxation Office probe into a suspected
$200 million dividend stripping scheme, the class action lodged by
Shine Lawyers may represent the first test of the government's new
Section 56 amendments that banned the use of member savings to pay
for financial penalties.

Shine Lawyers has piggybacked off a recent determination by the
Australian Financial Complaints Authority that found QSuper
overcharged one of its members, medical doctor Tommy Lam, for life
insurance coverage by classing him as a blue-collar worker and not
a professional employee, who would be entitled to a cheaper
premium.

Shine Lawyers is seeking damages, a refund or compensation to up to
140,000 members. Getty Images

QSuper appealed that AFCA decision in the Federal Court last year,
but its case was dismissed, leaving it vulnerable to attempts by
other members to gain the same compensation from the fund.

The issue stemmed from a decision by QSuper to set up a wholly
owned life insurance business, QInsure Limited, in late 2015, which
according to documents was "established as a for-profit entity" and
into which QSuper was forced to inject $90 million last year after
an actuarial review warned on its capital position.

From July 2016, with the approval of the Australian Prudential
Regulation Authority, QSuper transferred its members to QInsure
policies, which charged standard or occupational-based rates and
premiums based on other factors such as age.

Members were told in letters at the time that they "don't have to
do anything". However, many were eligible for lower rates if they
were employed in a white-collar job and clarified that to the fund,
which forms the basis of Shine Lawyer's estimated 140,000 class
action members.

In superannuation, insurance has historically been provided on an
opt-out basis.

Shine Lawyers said it was unaware if there had been a remediation
program or involvement by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission into the matter.

A spokesman for the fund said: "QSuper has no comment on a matter
before the courts."

Shine Lawyers is seeking damages, a refund or compensation for up
to 140,000 members.

QSuper had appealed the previous AFCA determination on the basis
the complaints agency had overstepped its legal remit and exercised
power it should not have under the constitution. After its appeal
was dismissed by the Federal Court, QSuper considered appealing to
the High Court, but ultimately decided against doing so.

When announcing that it would not pursue High Court action, QSuper
said it was "concerned that the decision creates further
obligations on superannuation trustees already compliant with laws
regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission
and the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority".

Shine Lawyers said QSuper had breached the Corporations Act and the
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act by failing to notify its
members of changes to premiums.

Shine class actions practice leader Joshua Aylward said it was
"incredibly disappointing that essential workers serving our
community at all hours are those taken advantage of by this super
fund".

It's the latest headache for QSuper, which serves 600,000 members -
mainly Queensland public servants. The Australian Financial Review
last month revealed the fund was the subject of an Australian
Taxation Office audit related to a suspected $200 million franking
credit stripping scheme that could result in members footing the
bill for a record penalty.

QInsure racked in $619 million worth of premiums last financial
year, almost 20 per cent up from the prior year's $522 million.
However, at the same time, the fund had to inject $90 million to
increase QInsure's total equity.

That injection came a year after QInsure struck a deal for a
"capital support mechanism" with QSuper that would inject new share
capital into QInsure if its "capital position fell below the normal
operating zone".

This deal was triggered due to an actuarial review in November last
year that found life insurance claims were likely to rise, due to a
range of post-pandemic causes. Total share capital in QInsure now
stands at $281 million.

While QSuper is in the process of merging with a rival Queensland
fund giant, the $80 billion Sunsuper, it recently gained court
approval to amend its trust deed to charge its members a new fee to
build up a rainy day kitty to pay court-imposed penalties,
following on from the Morrison government's Section 56 reforms that
prevent super funds from accessing member savings to pay for fines.
[GN]

RALPH MILLER: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in NEB Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as New England Biolabs, Inc.
(NEB) v. Ralph T. Miller, Case No. 1:20-cv-11234 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order denying the motion
to certify class without prejudice.

This case was filed close to 18 months ago and is now scheduled for
mediation in two weeks. It is this court's practice to refrain from
making material and substantial changes to the parties' status quo
when mediation is pending, the Court says.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving employee benefits.

NEB has filed this lawsuit against Ralph T. Miller seeking
equitable relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(3)(B) in
connection with Miller's receipt and retention of an overpayment
from NEB's Employees' Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"). NEB has also
asserted claims against Miller for breach of fiduciary duty.

NEB produces and supplies recombinant and native enzyme reagents
for the life science research, as well as providing solutions
supporting genome editing, synthetic biology and next-generation
sequencing.[CC]

RESTIGOUCHE HOSPITAL: Decision on Class Certification Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that New Brunswick's Court of Appeal won't hear a
challenge of a judge's decision allowing a class action lawsuit
alleging decades of negligence and mistreatment at the Restigouche
Hospital Centre to proceed.

The lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of all patients who have
resided or been treated at the 140-bed forensic psychiatry centre
in Campbellton since 1954.

The lawsuit alleges the province and Vitalite Health Network, which
operates the hospital, were negligent and breached the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against people
with mental disabilities.

Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare certified the
class action in a ruling last month.

Decision on certification challenged
Certification is a procedural step in class action cases to decide
whether there is a cause of action, an identifiable class of
affected people and common issues to be considered, among other
factors.

The provincial government and Vitalite sought leave to appeal that
ruling, arguing DeWare erred in her decision. They allege DeWare
improperly determined a legal test to use in the case and in
determining the Charter is applicable to management and oversight
of the hospital.

The province and Vitalite wanted the appeal court to stay, or
pause, the class-action case while an appeal of her ruling was
considered. The court first had to decide whether it would hear
that appeal.

In a 10-page decision released, Justice Raymond French denied leave
to appeal. French wrote DeWare was "alive" to issues the province
and Vitalite sought to challenge.

James Sayce, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision means
there was nothing wrong with DeWare's certification decision.

"We're pleased because any time you get into appeals of
certification and other types of litigation steps, there is always
delay," Sayce said in an interview.

He said an appeal likely could have added a year or so to the
process.

"We're very happy that we'll be able to move forward with the case,
provide notice to class members, engage in documentary and oral
discovery and really get to the bottom of the merits of this class
action. It's a very serious class action — a very serious
allegation — that we think need to be addressed as quickly as
possible."

The allegations in the lawsuit haven't been proven.

The health network and province didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment about the appeal court ruling.

The province and health authority were ordered to each pay the
plaintiffs $1,000.

A hearing in the case is scheduled to take place in Moncton's Court
of Queen's Bench. That hearing will be to discuss costs related to
the case and next steps, Sayce said.

The two named plaintiffs in the case are Darrell Tidd and Reid
Smith, litigants on behalf of their sons Devan Tidd and Aaron
Smith, respectively, who are or were patients at the hospital.

Tidd alleges his son, who has autism, was over-medicated and
complained of assault at the hands of other residents.

Smith alleges his son, who has autism and obsessive-compulsive
disorder, was also over-medicated at the centre.

DeWare ruled a class-action would be the right way for a vulnerable
person such as those with mental illnesses to seek justice. [GN]

RITE AID: Martelli Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rite Aid Corporation.
The case is styled as Jamie Martelli, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No.
7:21-cv-10079 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 25, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is an American
drugstore chain based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania near the Navy
Yard.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


SALLY BEAUTY: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sally Beauty Supply,
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Sally Beauty Supply,
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-06607 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2021).

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

Sally Beauty -- https://www.sallybeauty.com/ -- is the world's
largest retailer of salon-quality hair color, hair care, nails,
salon, and beauty supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


SBK DELIVERY: Miller Suit Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY M. MILLER II, for
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SBK DELIVERY, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04744-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying his proposed collective FLSA
      class defined as:

      "All current and former delivery drivers who performed
      work for the Defendant between September 22, 2018 1 and
      the present who worked over 40 hours per workweek and who
      were classified as Independent Contractors;"

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent to the Plaintiff's
      proposed class; and

   3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the name, last known address, work and personal e-mail
      address(es), and dates of employment of all potential opt-
      in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant in the timeframe
      specified by the Plaintiff.

This is a collective action to recover overtime wage payments
brought pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff Miller II, is a former
Delivery Driver that performed delivery work for Defendant SBK
Delivery, LLC.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and
other delivery drivers as independent contractors in an effort to
avoid paying overtime compensation. This resulted in the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess
of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver between
October 2020 and July 9, 2021. The Plaintiff and his similarly
situated colleagues -- the Putative FLSA Class -- were all subject
to the same pay policies and procedures, the lawsuit says.

SBK is in the parcel delivery business.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G3nLzO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 796-4325
          Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com


SEER INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Seer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SEER) resulting from
allegations that Seer may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2193.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 4, 2021, market analyst the Bear
Cave published a report entitled "Problems at Seer Inc (SEER)"
which alleges that Seer appears to have misled investors about its
recent Chinese distribution partnership, customer base, and
management's past track record.

On this news, Seer's stock price fell during intraday trading on
November 4, 2021, damaging investors.

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

SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Carpenter, writing for Polygon, reports that a former
security analyst for Sony Interactive Entertainment is suing the
PlayStation maker for gender discrimination and wrongful
termination, according to a lawsuit filed Nov. 22. Axios first
reported the news on Nov. 23.

The lawsuit, filed in a California court, is seeking class action
status to include any women impacted by alleged gender
discrimination at Sony. In the lawsuit, the former IT security
analyst, Emma Majo, said women at the company were not paid equally
to male employees with similar titles and roles, and were denied
promotions and equal compensation. She alleged that Sony "tolerates
and cultivates a work environment that discriminates against female
employees."

Majo's suit says she told Sony of the discrimination with a signed
statement in 2021. Her lawsuit alleges that "soon after," the
company fired her. The company attributed her dismissal to the
elimination of a department, but Majo said she was not even a part
of that department.

Majo detailed these and other allegations from a Sony career dating
to 2015. She says that she saw bias against women regarding
promotions; that she remained in the same position without a
promotion for six years, despite frequently asking for one; and
that some male supervisors, including security director Yuu Sugita,
would not speak to women with the door closed. If another male
colleague was present, Sugita would speak only to him,

Majo added that she frequently made requests through her male
co-workers, feeling that they would be ignored if she made them.
Likewise, Majo said she has "personally heard managers make
gender-based comments about female workers." Majo also said the
company had a 60-40 split, men to women, when she started in 2015,
and the company hired more men than women thereafter. As of a 2020
study, Sony's executive committee was exclusively male.

Majo's suit said she believes gender bias, and because she spoke up
about it, caused her dismissal.

Majo filed a complaint with the California's Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH), and received a "notice of right to
sue" in November. The DFEH is the state authority that filed a
gender discrimination lawsuit against Activision Blizzard in July.
Activision Blizzard workers walked out of work following another
report describing CEO Bobby Kotick's knowledge of and alleged
interference in sexual harassment cases at the company. These
lawsuits also follow a gender-based discrimination lawsuit filed
against Riot Games; the company settled for $10 million in 2019.

The video game industry is in the middle of a larger reckoning with
bias, discrimination, and harassment in the workplace. Major
companies like Ubisoft, as well as Riot and Activision Blizzard,
have been forced to acknowledge the toxic work environment women
have dealt with inside their companies, while their employees fight
for safer workplaces.

PlayStation boss Jim Ryan notably called out Activision Blizzard
and CEO Kotick in an email to staff; he told workers he was
"disheartened" and "stunned" that Activision Blizzard has not
addressed its "deep-seated culture of discrimination and
harassment."

Polygon has reached out to Sony for more information. [GN]

SONY INTERACTIVE: Majo Slams Gender Discrimination in Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Majo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09054 (N.D Cal., November 22, 2021),
seeks declaratory judgment that Sony has engaged in systemic gender
discrimination against female employees, permanent injunction
against such continuing discriminatory conduct,  injunctive relief
that effects a restructuring of Sony's policies, practices and
procedures for promoting and awarding compensation to female
employees, equitable relief that effects a restructuring of Sony's
compensation system so female employees receive the compensation
they would have been paid in the absence of Sony's alleged
discrimination, back pay, front pay, reinstatement and other
equitable remedies necessary, compensatory and punitive damages to
deter similar discriminatory practices in the future and attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (denial of equal
pay for equal work), the California Equal Pay Act and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Sony is in the consumer technology industry, formerly known as Sony
Computer Entertainment, headquartered in Tokyo. Majo was an
employee of Sony Computer Entertainment America, the Americas
regional office, regional HQ in San Mateo. Global offices and Sony
companies merged to become Sony Interactive Entertainment in April
2016, with global headquarters in San Mateo.

Majo claims that she lost her job and was terminated because she is
female and because she spoke up about discrimination against
females. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
      George L. Lin, Esq.
      ILG Legal Office, P.C.
      156 South Spruce Ave., Unit 206A
      South San Francisco, CA 94080
      Tel: (415)580-2574
      Fax: (415)735-3454
      Email: silg@ilglegal.com
             glin@ilglegal.com


SOUTHERN FARM: 8th Circuit Revives Breach of Contract Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Parry, writing for Westlaw Today, reports that an Arkansas
man who took issue with the "actual cash value" payment he received
for his totaled pickup truck can move forward with a
breach-of-contract claim against Southern Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Co. [GN]

SOVEREIGN LENDING: Mannacio Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sovereign Lending
Group Incorporated. The case is styled as Eugene Mannacio,
individually and behalf on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Sovereign Lending Group Incorporated, Case No. 3:21-cv-09158 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 26, 2021).

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

Sovereign Lending Group Incorporated --
https://www.slgmortgage.com/ -- is a financial services company
that provides consolidation loans, home loans, and mortgage
services.[BN]


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Accounting Review Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action suit
related to accounting review, remains pending.

On February 10, 2020, February 24, 2020, and March 24, 2020, three
separate private securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III,
former Chief Financial Officer, Jose Garcia, and former Controller
(principal accounting officer), John Gilson.

On April 20, 2020, the Class Actions were consolidated by the
court, and on July 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint which added Shawn Campbell, the Company's
former Vice President for the 737NG and B737 Max program, as a
defendant.

Allegations in the Consolidated Class Action include (i) violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and
Messrs. Gentile, Garcia and Gilson, (ii) violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, and
(iii) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder against all defendants.

On June 11, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit (the "Derivative
Action 1") was filed against the Company (as nominal defendant),
all members of the Company's Board of Directors, and Messrs. Garcia
and Gilson in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma. Allegations in the Derivative Action 1 include (i) breach
of fiduciary duty, (ii) abuse of control, and (iii) gross
mismanagement.

On October 5, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit (the
"Derivative Action 2" and, together with Derivative Action 1, the
"Derivative Actions") was filed against the Company (as nominal
defendant), all members of the Company's Board of Directors, and
Messrs. Garcia and Gilson in the Eighteenth Judicial District,
District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. Allegations in the
Derivative Action 2 include (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii)
waste of corporate assets, and (iii) unjust enrichment.

The facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and Derivative
Actions relate to the accounting process compliance independent
review (the "Accounting Review") discussed in the Company's January
30, 2020 press release and described under Management's Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -
Accounting Review in Part II, Item 7 of the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, and its resulting
conclusions.

The Company voluntarily reported to the SEC the determination that,
with respect to the third quarter of 2019, the Company did not
comply with its established accounting processes related to
potential third quarter contingent liabilities received after the
quarter-end.

On March 24, 2020, the Staff of the SEC Enforcement Division
informed the Company that it had determined to close its inquiry
without recommending any enforcement action against the Company. In
addition, the facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and
Derivative Actions relate to the Company's disclosures regarding
the B737 MAX grounding and Spirit's production rate (and related
matters) after the grounding.

On September 18, 2020, the Company and individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action. That motion is
pending.

The Derivative Actions have been stayed pending a decision on the
Consolidated Class Action. The Company and the individual
defendants deny the allegations in the Consolidated Class Action
and the Derivative Actions.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


STATE FARM: Opposition to Class Certification Due December 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Earl L. McClure, v. State
Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01389-SMB (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order granting the
parties' stipulation, which amends the Court's November 10, 2020
Case Management Order, as modified by the Court's March 29, 2021
Order and August 20, 2021 Order, as follows:

   -- The deadline for Defendant's Opposition to Class
      Certification and Class Expert Disclosure is December 9,
      2021.

   -- The deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion
      for Class Certification and Rebuttal Class Expert
      Disclosure is December 23, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IlqM0n at no extra charge.[CC]

STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Seeks Dec. 3 Extension to Oppose Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zambrano, et al. v.
Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-08410-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order extending to December 13, 2021, their deadline to file an
opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.

The Defendants' counsel says that the Defendants' opposition is due
on December 3, 2021. "This is the first request for an extension of
this deadline. We seek this extension for two reasons. First,
Defendants are in the process of providing Defense Counsel certain
information necessary to Defendants' opposition in this matter."

"However, Thanksgiving-related vacations of certain individuals key
to the information gathering process have resulted in a delay.
Second, our office has been short-staffed due to pre-arranged
vacations planned around our office's closure on November 25 and
November 26 for the Thanksgiving holiday. The Plaintiffs' Counsel,
Hugh Baran, Esq. consents to this request. Should the Court
determine to grant the instant request, we would also ask that the
deadline for Plaintiffs reply be extended to Wednesday, December
22, 2021," the counsel adds.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rty386 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David F. Jasinski, Esq.
          JASINSKI, P.C.
          2 Hance Avenue, 3 rd floor
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Telephone: (973) 824-9700
          Facsimile: (732) 842-1805

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Must Face Ranbaxy Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd has lost a bid to avoid facing a trial over
allegations that an Indian drugmaker it acquired engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to delay the launch of generic drugs by
rivals.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Boston on Nov. 22 ruled Sun
failed to compellingly rebut claims by generic drug buyers that
they were overcharged for medications as a result of a fraud
Ranbaxy Laboratories perpetrated on U.S. regulators.

The ruling clears the way for a Jan. 10 jury trial in class action
lawsuits by direct purchasers of the drugs, including drug
wholesalers, and indirect purchasers, such as health plans,
accusing the company of racketeering and antitrust violations.

"We look forward to trying the classes' racketeering and antitrust
claims to a jury," Kristen Johnson, a lawyer for the direct
purchasers at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, said in a statement.

Neither Sun, which acquired Ranbaxy in 2014, nor its lead attorney,
Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, responded to requests for
comment.

In lawsuits consolidated before Gorton in 2019, drug buyers accused
Ranbaxy of wrongly obtaining tentative approvals from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration in 2007 and 2008 to produce generic
versions of Novartis AG's blood pressure drug Diovan, Pfizer Inc's
acid reflux medication Nexium and Genentech Inc's antiviral drug
Valcyte.

Under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act, the first company to apply to
make a generic drug enjoys a 180-day period of marketing
exclusivity.

But the plaintiffs said Ranbaxy locked in those exclusive periods
by misleading the FDA about its compliance with current good
manufacturing practices, when its processes were grossly
inadequate.

The FDA granted final approval to the Diovan generic in 2014. But
following regulatory scrutiny, the FDA revoked its tentative
approval for the generic Nexium and Valcyte.

Ranbaxy's lawyers argued the plaintiffs failed to show the FDA was
induced to tentatively approve the drugs through fraud.

But Gorton, in denying Ranbaxy summary judgment, said the
plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence showing the FDA had
not assessed all the evidence of the company's wrongdoing for a
jury to assess the fraud question.

He also rejected Ranbaxy's contention that because it never sold
Valcyte and Nexium, it lacked monopoly power over those
medications. Gorton cited the effect of its first-filer status as
an issue a jury could assess in determining whether it had monopoly
power.

The case is In re Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
No. 19-md-02878.

For direct purchasers: Thomas Sobol, Gregory Arnold and Kristen
Johnson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Steve Shadowen, of Hilliard
& Shadowen; John Radice of Radice Law Firm; Paul Slater of Sperling
& Slater; Joseph Meltzerof Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check; Kenneth
Wexler of Wexler Wallace; Sharon Robertson of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll; and Linda Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group.

For indirect purchasers: Gerald Lawrence of Lowey Dannenber and
James Dugan of The Dugan Law Firm

For Ranbaxy: Jay Lefkowitz, Devora Allon, Robert Allen, and Kyla
Jackson of Kirkland & Ellis [GN]

TANDEM DIABETES: Continues to Defend Deluna Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled,
Joseph Deluna et al v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

In May 2020 the company was named as a defendant in three
California state court class action lawsuits arising from the same
data breach.

Collectively, these lawsuits seek statutory, compensatory, actual,
and punitive damages; equitable relief, including restitution; pre-
and post-judgment interest; injunctive relief; and attorney fees,
costs, and expenses from the company.

On July 24, 2020, these three pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a single case in the Superior Court of the State of California
in the County of San Bernardino entitled Joseph Deluna et al v.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

The consolidated case alleges violations of the Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act (CMIA), California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of
contract.

The company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of all claims, which
was heard by the Court on October 27, 2020, and which resulted in
the following outcome: (i) the demurrer of the CMIA claim was
denied; (ii) the demurrer of the CCPA claim was sustained; and
(iii) the demurrer of the UCL and contract claims were sustained
with leave to amend the pending complaint.

A second demurrer was heard by the Court on March 29, 2021 with the
following outcome: (i) the demurrer of the CMIA claim was denied;
and (ii) the demurrer of the UCL and contract claims were narrowed
in scope to dismiss three plaintiffs for failing to allege
cognizable damages or injuries-in-fact, resulting in two remaining
plaintiffs.

Tandem said, "Although we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims, there is no guarantee that we will prevail. We are
presently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits or determine the amount (or range) of possible losses
associated with the lawsuits."

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is a public US medical device
manufacturer based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical
technologies for the treatment of diabetes and specifically insulin
infusion therapy.


TANDEM DIABETES: Settlement in Walsh Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a settlement of the
class action related claims in Buck Walsh, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.,
was preliminarily approved by an independent arbitrator mutually
acceptable to both parties.

In September 2020, the company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit entitled Buck Walsh, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., which was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
San Diego.

The alleged violations include business and professions code and
labor code violations for failure to compensate wages, unpaid meal
and rest periods, and failure to reimburse for necessary
business-related expenses.

The case was brought as a class action and was later amended to
also include a representative action under the California Private
Attorney General Act, or PAGA.

The class of plaintiffs includes hourly paid or non-exempt
employees of the Company who were employed from April 6, 2016
through the date of adjudication. The parties recently agreed to
resolve all claims in the lawsuit.

The settlement of claims covered by the PAGA matter were approved
by the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
San Diego on September 21, 2021 and settlement amounts were
disbursed in October 2021.

Also in October 2021, a settlement of the class action related
claims was preliminarily approved by an independent arbitrator
mutually acceptable to both parties. The class action settlement is
intended to resolve the claims of the individual plaintiff, as well
as the remaining members of the class, unless an individual class
member submits a timely request for exclusion.

The material terms of the settlement are set forth in a binding
Memorandum of Agreement dated as of July 1, 2021, which is subject
to the completion of a number of conditions, as well as final
approval by the independent arbitrator.

Tandem said, "There is no guarantee that the conditions will be met
or that final approval will be obtained. If the final class
settlement is not approved, or if other conditions to approval of
the settlement are not met, the case will continue and the Company
will continue to vigorously defend against the claims."

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is a public US medical device
manufacturer based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical
technologies for the treatment of diabetes and specifically insulin
infusion therapy.


TD AMERITRADE: Seeks 30-Day Extension to File Class Cert. Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK FORD, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, Case No.
8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Defendants asks the Court to
enter an order granting a 30-day extension of time, up to and
including Friday, January 14, 2022, to file their brief in
opposition to Plaintiff Roderick Ford's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment
of Class Counsel.

On June 3, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings. The Motion to Compel was fully
briefed as of July 15, 2021.

On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment
of Class Counsel.

On July 9, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Class
Certification Briefing and any other Case Proceedings Pending Final
Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Motion
to Stay was fully briefed as of July 26, 2021.

On July 14, 2021, Defendants filed an Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time for Defendants to File an Opposition to
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion, stating that "good cause exist[ed] for
[their] request given that, absent the requested extension,
Defendants would be required to submit their Opposition Brief prior
to resolution of their Motion to Stay.

On July 15, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Unopposed Motion to
Extend, extending the deadline for Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to August 16, 2021.

On August 4, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Unopposed Motion
to Further Extend, extending the deadline for Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to September 30, 2021.

On September 15, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Unopposed
Motion to Further Extend, extending the deadline for Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to November 15, 2021.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xIw6Wl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation,
TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Fredric Tomczyk, are:

          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          Thomas H. Dahlk, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com
                  vicki.buter@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Eamon P. Joyce, Esq.
          Jon W. Muenz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
                  ejoyce@sidley.com
                  jmuenz@sidley.com

TENET FINTECH: Schall Law Reminds of January 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Tenet Fintech
Group Inc. f/k/a Peak Fintech Group Inc. ("Tenet" or "the Company")
(OTC: PKKFF) (NASDAQ: TNT) for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
2, 2021 and October 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 18, 2022.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, visit
https://bit.ly/3ohzbty to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tenet did not own a majority stake in
Asia Synergy Financial Capital Ltd. ("ASFC") through Wuxi Aorong.
The Company failed to disclose its actual ownership in ASFC, a
nominee shareholder agreement that could cause problems in the
future. ASFC was likely created through a related-party
transaction. The Company faced delisting from NASDAQ due to
non-compliance with regulations. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Tenet, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

THAILAND: Performance Artists File Class Suit Over COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
thaipbsworld.com reports that a group of musicians and performance
artists filed a class action lawsuit, against Thailand's Finance
and Public Health ministries and the Bangkok Metropolitan
Administration (BMA), demanding compensation for losses incurred
due to lockdown restrictions imposed in the past two years to
contain the spread of COVID-19.

The group is supported by three MPs from the opposition Move
Forward Party, namely Sirikanya Tansakul, Taopiphop Limjittrakorn
and Pakornwut Udompipatskul.

Sirikanya told the media that the Move Forward party has previously
helped operators of massage parlours affected by lockdown
restrictions.

A similar case was filed, with the help of the party, by operators
of eateries, pubs and bars, said Sirikanya. She says she is
optimistic that the Civil Court will accept the case.

Pakorn Poseangda, a member of the "IHEAR" band, said that musicians
have been without work for the past two years, since the pandemic
broke out, and the situation is not improving despite Thailand
reopening for foreign arrivals.

"We have tried to look for other odd jobs, but the income is not
sufficient for our families," he said.

Sirikanya said that the compensation being sought from the state is
based on the revenues of the affected artists and musicians in
2019, adding that people in the entertainment business are hoping
that the Centre for COVID-19 Situation Administration (CCSA) will
ease the lockdown measures quickly, to allow the sector to resume
normal business. [GN]

TRAVEL STAFF: Arbitration Ruling in Schwendeman Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CONNIE SCHWENDEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant
v. TRAVEL STAFF, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No.
A159147 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division One, affirms an order granting motion to compel
arbitration.

As part of Appellant Connie Schwendeman's employment as a traveling
nurse, she signed an arbitration agreement with Respondent Travel
Staff LLC. She later sued Travel Staff and Respondents Cross
Country Healthcare, Inc., and Cross Country Staffing, Inc., which
were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. Cross Country
filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court
granted. Schwendeman argues that she should not be forced to
arbitrate with nonparties to the arbitration agreement.

Factual and Procedural Background

Travel Staff provides healthcare staffing and workforce management
solutions by offering temporary placement of travel nurses. Ms.
Schwendeman is a registered nurse and worked as a "Traveler" from
December 2016 to April 2017 in Los Angeles and then from April to
July 2017 in Walnut Creek. The operative complaint alleges that
Travel Staff does not actually employ Travelers, and that Travel
Staff has no supervisors or managers. Instead, according to the
complaint, Travel Staff is designated as the nominal employer, but
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., and Cross Country Staffing, Inc.,
are the actual employers of Travelers because they exercise control
over Travelers' wages, hours, and working conditions.

On March 23, 2017, while Schwendeman was working as a travel nurse,
she electronically executed (using a program called "DocuSign") an
acknowledgement of receipt of a 2017 Cross Country Staffing
document titled "Employment Terms & Conditions" (Terms and
Conditions Booklet). The booklet contained a section titled "XXVI.
Miscellaneous," providing in part that "[a]ny and all disputes
arising under this Agreement or in any way related to the
relationship between the Company and you shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Florida regardless of where your services are
performed. The jurisdiction and venue of such disputes shall reside
exclusively in the Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida without regard to its principles of conflicts of law."
Although the record contains later versions of the booklet with the
same section, Schwendeman did not sign acknowledgements of any of
these later versions.

Also on March 23, 2017, shortly after she signed the acknowledgment
of having received the Terms and Conditions Booklet, Schwendeman
electronically executed an arbitration agreement with Travel Staff.
Travel Staff is identified in the agreement as "A Cross Country
Staffing Company." The agreement provides in relevant part that
Travel Staff and Schwendeman "agree that binding arbitration shall
be the exclusive remedy for all claims between them, including
employment-related or other disputes involving Travel Staff clients
and vendors. Final and binding arbitration before a single, neutral
arbitrator shall be the exclusive remedy for any covered claim."
Schwendeman does not in this appeal challenge the agreement's
validity or enforceability, and it is undisputed that Cross Country
was not a signatory to the agreement.

Ms. Schwendeman stopped working as a Traveler a few months after
having signed the arbitration agreement. A little over a year
later, in June 2018, she sued Travel Staff. The complaint does not
appear in the record on appeal, but Schwendeman apparently alleged
individual causes of action for wage-and-hour violations (Labor
Code, Sections 558, 1197.1), as well as claims under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Section 2698, et seq.,
PAGA). Travel Staff filed a petition to compel arbitration, and the
trial court ordered Schwendeman to arbitrate her individual claim
for unpaid wages. Schwendeman apparently abandoned that claim.

In August 2019, Schwendeman filed a first amended complaint, adding
both Cross Country entities as Defendants. The complaint purported
to be a class action lawsuit against Cross Country, which was
alleged to have implemented the policies that gave rise to the
Labor Code violations listed in the complaint. Schwendeman alleged
that Cross Country failed to pay overtime, failed to furnish
accurate wage statements, willfully failed to pay wages owed to a
discharged employee, and engaged in unfair business practices. She
also again alleged a PAGA cause of action against Travel Staff.

Cross Country filed a petition to compel arbitration and to dismiss
or stay proceedings. It argued both that (1) Schwendeman was
estopped from avoiding arbitration because her class claims against
Cross Country arose out of her employment with Travel Staff, and
that (2) Cross Country could enforce the Travel Staff arbitration
agreement as a result of agency principles. She opposed the
petition.

The trial court agreed with Cross Country and granted the petition.
It, thus, ordered Schwendeman to arbitrate her individual claims
against Cross Country, and it dismissed all of her putative class
action claims against Cross Country. Because that left only
Schwendeman's claim against Travel Staff, the court dismissed all
claims against Cross Country and stayed the remaining claim against
Travel Staff. She appealed.

Discussion

Ms. Schwendeman contends that she cannot be compelled to arbitrate
her claims against Cross Country because the Cross Country entities
were not parties to the arbitration agreement with Travel Staff.
She is mistaken, Justice Jim Humes, writing for the Panel, states.

Judge Humes explains that Schwendeman is correct that the general
rule is one must be a party to an arbitration agreement to be bound
by it or invoke it (Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782,
785). But, as the trial court found, two exceptions to that rule
apply here, one arising under equitable-estoppel principles and the
other arising under agency principles.

Schwendeman's arbitration agreement with Travel Staff provides that
it will cover all claims between them, including employment-related
or other disputes involving Travel Staff clients and vendors, Judge
Humes notes. Because Schwendeman's employment relationship with
Cross Country arose because of her relationship with Travel Staff,
her causes of action against Cross Country could not be more
founded in and intertwined with her employment relationship with
Travel Staff, Judge Humes opines.

Under these circumstances, Judge Humes holds that the trial court
properly found that the equitable-estoppel exception to the rule
that one must ordinarily be a party to an arbitration agreement to
be bound by it applies.

The trial court also properly found that a second exception to the
general rule, one based on agency principles, applies, Judge Humes
holds. The exception applies, and a defendant may enforce the
arbitration agreement, when a plaintiff alleges a defendant acted
as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement.

Ms. Schwendeman relies on Hogan v. SPAR Group, Inc. (1st Cir. 2019)
914 F.3d 34, but that case actually supports the trial court's
order compelling arbitration, Judge Humes finds.

While the defendant companies in Hogan chose to conduct their
business as separate corporate structures, here the principal-agent
relationship between Cross Country and Travel Staff was conceded by
Schwendeman who alleged that Cross Country designated Travel Staff
as "the nominal employer" of travel nurses and, thus, controlled
the Labor Code violations that allegedly occurred. The trial court
here, thus, did not disregard the Respondents' corporate forms or
deem them to be one and the same under the arbitration agreement,"
as Schwendeman argues, but followed the law as it applies to the
corporate relationship Schwendeman alleged, Judge Humes opines.

Judge Humes adds, among other things, that Schwendeman's other
attempts to avoid arbitration likewise fail. Finally, the Court of
Appeals rejects her argument that the trial court's conclusion
conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act. It is of course true,
as Schwendeman notes, that one of the FAA's foundational principles
is that arbitration is a matter of consent and that courts must
enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. But the
United States Supreme Court has held that a litigant who is not a
party to an arbitration agreement may invoke arbitration under the
FAA if the relevant state contract law allows the litigant to
enforce the agreement (Franklin v. Community Regional Medical
Center, supra, 998 F.3d at p. 870.).

State law contemplates arbitration for nonsignatories under certain
circumstances that were met here, Judge Humes points out. This case
is, thus, distinguishable from Lamps Plus, where the court held
that California's doctrine of contra proferentem (where ambiguity
in a contract should be construed against the drafter) should not
be used to interpret an ambiguous contract term as requiring class
arbitration.

Judge Humes notes that the Panel recognizes that if the facts
alleged in Schwendeman's complaint are true, compelling her to
arbitrate without resort to a class remedy in court may deprive her
of any meaningful recovery. This may be what motivated lawmakers to
enact section 432.6, which bars employers from requiring employees
to consent to arbitration as a condition of employment. The statute
applies only to employment contracts entered into, modified, or
extended on or after Jan. 1, 2020 (Section 432.6, subd. (h)), and
thus does not apply to Schwendeman's circumstances. And even if it
did, the executed arbitration agreement would still be valid.

Disposition

The trial court's order is affirmed. The Respondents will recover
their costs on appeal.

Margulies, J. and Sanchez, J., concurs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ekp23n8f from Leagle.com.


TRI HARBOR: Bonine Appeals Disallowance of Class Claim
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BONINE filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
bankruptcy case entitled In re: Tri Harbor Holdings Corporation
(f/k/a Aceto Corporation), et al., Liquidating Debtors, Case No.
19-13448 (VFP), in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The Liquidating Debtors asked the Bankruptcy Court to enter an
order, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502 and Fed. R. Bankr. P.
3007, 7023, and 9014, disallowing and expunging the subordinated
Putative Class Claim filed by Michael Bonine, purportedly on behalf
of himself individually and on behalf of an uncertified Putative
Class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto's
securities during the period from August 25, 2017 through and
including April 18, 2018.

Following review, the Court ruled that the Objection is sustained.
The Putative Class Claim is in its entirety as a Class Proof of
Claim; provided, however, that the individual claim of Michael
Bonine, on behalf of himself only, remains in effect, without
prejudice and subject to the rights of the Liquidating Debtors to
object to such individual claim on any and all appropriate grounds.
The Liquidating Debtors, their claims and noticing agent (Prime
Clerk LLC), and the Clerk of this Court are authorized to take any
and all actions that are necessary or appropriate to give effect to
this Order.  This Court shall retain jurisdiction over all matters
arising from or related to the interpretation or implementation of
this Order.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as BONINE v. TRI HARBOR HOLDINGS
CORPORATION et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-20034-JMV, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed on November
17, 2021.[BN]

Appellant MICHAEL BONINE is represented by:

          Gonen Haklay, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com

Appellees TRI HARBOR HOLDINGS CORPORATION, (f/k/a Aceto
Corporation), et al., are represented by:

          Michael S. Etkin, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC
          65 Livingston Ave.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597-2500
          E-mail: metkin@lowenstein.com
                  
               - and -

          Michael Thomas Papandrea, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Gross, Esq.
          Wojciech Jung, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, LLP
          One Lowenstein Drive
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          E-mail: mpapandrea@lowenstein.com
                  pgross@lowenstein.com
                  wjung@lowenstein.com


UNITED STATES: Court of Federal Claims OK's Class Notice in Smith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETRINA SMITH, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1348 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Eleni M. Roumel of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims entered an Order:

   a. approving the "Legal Notice of Collective Action and
      Opportunity to Join" to potential Plaintiff; and

   b. denying the Plaintiff's request for a class administrator
      to oversee mailing of the Court-approved notice.

Background

On Oct. 15, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Status Report  (JSR or
Report) consistent with the Court's Sept. 28, 2021 Order directing
the parties to meet and confer and provide a status report
including: "a revised proposed notice limited to the Palo Alto and
Menlo Park canteen locations, a schedule for future proceedings,
and an indication of whether this case is suitable for resolution
through the procedures for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) set
forth in Addendum H of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims."

Discussion

I. Appointment of Class Administrator

The Plaintiff requests the appointment of a class administrator to
handle the notice mailing process, while the Defendant opposes such
appointment. Currently, there are estimated to be eight potential
opt-in plaintiffs in the Menlo Park and Palo Alto, California
Canteens who may be eligible to receive a notice via mail. A class
administrator is typically unnecessary where a case involves small
pools of potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Given the small number of potential plaintiffs from the Menlo Park
and Palo Alto, California Canteens, Judge Roumel, exercising her
"broad discretion" over the issuing of notices to potential opt-in
plaintiffs, finds that a class administrator is unnecessary. She
appreciates the Plaintiff's willingness to confer "with the
Defendant regarding completing the notice mailing without engaging
a settlement administrator."

II. Form of Notice

The Court may "supervise the collective action notice process
through approval of the notice and notice procedures." The parties'
proposed notices are identical aside from five discrete
distinctions:

      a. The Plaintiff's proposed notice would include the
following second paragraph appended to section two: On Sept. 28,
2021, the Court conditionally certified the Plaintiff's FLSA claim
as to the Palo Alto/Mento Park Canteens;

      b. The Plaintiff's proposed notice would include an
additional sentence at the end of section six: "Please note, under
the FLSA, the statute of limitations continues to run until you
file with the court a written consent to join the lawsuit, or
initiate your own lawsuit";

      c. The Plaintiff's proposed notice would include a clause on
the consent form indicating that the signee consents to the
Plaintiff and her counsel representing the added party's interests
in the case and consents to be bound by the Plaintiff's signed
retainer agreement;

      d. The Plaintiff's proposed notice would require potential
opt-in plaintiffs to return the notice within 90 days, rather than
the 60 days proposed by the Defendant; and

      e. The Defendant's proposed notice would include language in
section two indicating that the allegedly misclassified Assistant
Canteen Chiefs (ACCs) work or worked at the Palo Alto/Menlo Park
Canteen.

i. "Conditionally Certifies" & "Statute of Limitations" Language

Judge Roumel declines to adopt the Plaintiff's suggested addition
to the notice concerning conditional certification and her request
to include language concerning a "statute of limitations" (i.e.,
the Plaintiff's first and second distinctions). She says, the
Plaintiff's proposed language poses several problems.

First, any language in the notice that the Court is "conditionally
certifying" the Plaintiff's claim could be misconstrued by
potential plaintiffs as the Court taking a position on the merits
of the litigation, which the Court must avoid. Second, potential
plaintiffs could misinterpret the Plaintiff's proposed language
concerning a statute of limitations as legal advice from the Court
concerning whether a potential plaintiff could or should proceed
with a claim. Accordingly, as reflected in the approved notice,
Judge Roumel declines to include in the notice legal terms of art,
such as "conditionally certifying" and "statute of limitations."

ii. Consent to Representation

Judge Roumel further declines to adopt the Plaintiff's proposed
third distinction requesting potential opt-in plaintiffs to (i)
consent to the Plaintiff and her counsel representing their
interests in the case and (ii) agree to be bound by the Plaintiff's
signed retainer agreement. Unlike in Rule 23 class actions, where
"the representative plaintiff(s) and class counsel act for the
class," in FLSA collective actions, the Plaintiffs "may have
different counsel, make different pre-trial decisions, may settle
on different terms or some may settle and others go to trial.

She declines to adopt any language in the parties' proposed notices
indicating that an opt-in plaintiff is bound by Ms. Smith's
retainer agreement with her lawyers or that such plaintiffs must
designate Ms. Smith as their agent in the litigation. While opt-in
plaintiffs may choose to hire Ms. Smith's attorneys and designate
Ms. Smith as their agent, they are not required to do so.

iii. Timing of Notices

Judge Roumel adopts the Plaintiff's suggestion that provides
potential plaintiffs 90 days from the date of mailing to file an
opt-in notice. The Defendant notes that the case Plaintiff cites
for the proposition that a longer deadline is appropriate, involved
35 potential opt-in plaintiffs while the potential pool in the case
is far fewer. However, the Defendant cannot articulate how it would
be harmed by providing potential opt-in plaintiffs an additional 30
days in which to respond to the notice. Accordingly, without a
showing of prejudice, Judge Roumel adopts to exercise its "broad
discretion" in this arena and grants the Plaintiff's request for a
90-day deadline.

iv. ACCs "at the Palo Alto/Menlo Park Canteen" Language

Judge Roumel declines to adopt the Defendant's proposed language
indicating that the lawsuit alleges that Veterans Canteen Services
misclassified its Assistant Canteen Chiefs (ACCs) "at the Palo
Alto/Menlo Park Canteen." The Plaintiff's lawsuit in fact alleges
misclassification of a far greater pool of ACCs. Judge Roumel is
satisfied that the Plaintiff's lawsuit is adequately described in
paragraph two of the notice without the need for Defendant's
proposed additional language. However, as the Court's Oct. 15, 2021
Order limited the pool of employees eligible to opt into the
collective action at this time to the Palo Alto and Menlo park
canteens, the Court will add the requested "Palo Alto or Menlo
Park, California" language to the "Consent to Join Form."   
III. Scheduling Order

The parties will adhere to the following Scheduling Order:

     a. The Defendant will provide the Plaintiff's counsel the
names and postal addresses of potential plaintiffs - 20 days after
the Court enters an Order approving the notice

     b. The Plaintiff's counsel will send the notice to potential
plaintiffs addresses of potential plaintiffs by first-class mail -
Seven days after the Defendant provides the Plaintiff's counsel
with the names and addresses of potential plaintiffs with an
enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.

     c. The potential plaintiffs must submit all Consent to Join
forms to the Plaintiff's counsel - 90 days from notice mailing

     d. Any motion to decertify the conditionally certified
collective action - 60 days from the date of the expiration of the
opt-in period

     e. The Plaintiff's response to any motion to decertify - 45
days from the filing of a motion to decertify

     f. The Defendant's reply in support of any motion to decertify
- 30 days from the filing of Plaintiff's response to a motion to
decertify

     g. Joint Status Report on potential merits discovery,
including a proposed schedule for Order on a motion to decertify -
14 days after the issuance of the Court's future proceedings.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Roumel approves the notice
appended to his Order as Exhibit 1. The Plaintiff's request for a
class administrator to oversee mailing of the Court-approved notice
is denied. The parties are ordered to meet and confer about mailing
the Court approved notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs. They
are further ordered to comply with the schedule set forth in
Section III of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8wfwb2 from Leagle.com.

Walt Pennington -- calbar@pennfirm.com - Pennington Law Firm, San
Diego, California. With him on the briefs are David R. Markham --
dmarkham@markham-law.com -- Maggie Realin --
mrealin@markham-law.com -- and Lisa Brevard, The Markham Law Firm,
San Diego, California; Stephen B. Morris, The Law Offices of
Stephen B. Morris, in San Diego, California.

Rafique O. Anderson, United States Department of Justice, Civil
Division, Washington, D.C. for Defendant. With him on the briefs
are Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division; Martin A. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, Commercial
Litigation; Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial
Litigation, in Washington, D.C.


W.G. YATES & SONS: Cadena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.G. Yates & Sons
Construction Company, et al. The case is styled as Juan Pablo
Rivera Cadena, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company, a Mississippi
corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00311197-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 15, 2021).

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

W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company -- https://www.wgyates.com/
-- operates in the construction industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 W Olympic Blvd
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: 310-553-3600
          Fax: 310-553-3603
          Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com



WELSPUN PIPES: Vines Appeals Atty. Fee Ruling to 8th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anthony Vines, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY VINES and DOMINIQUE
LEWIS, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WELSPUN PIPES, INC.; WELSPUN TUBULAR
LLC; and WELSPUN USA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00509-SWW,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas -
Central.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.  

On June 9, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Attorney Fees, and ruled that
Plaintiffs' lawyers are entitled to $1.00 in lawyers' fees and
$2,790.87 in costs from Defendant.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 31, 2021, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the district
court's $1.00 award of attorneys' fees and remanded for further
proceedings.

On September 8, 2021, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs' lawyers are
entitled to $500.00 in lawyers' fees and $2,790.87 in costs from
Defendants.

On October 12, 2021, the Court denied a motion for recusal or
disqualification filed by Dominique Lewis and Anthony Vine. The
Court also denied a motion to alter judgment under Rule 59(e) and
for leave to file supplemental petition for costs and fees filed by
Mssrs. Lewis and Vines on October 18, 2021.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated Oct.
18, 2021, denying their motion to alter judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e); Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2021,
denying their motion to recuse; and Court's Order dated Sept. 8,
2021, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
approve attorney fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Vines, et al. v. Welspun
Pipes Inc., et al., Case No. 21-3537, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on Nov. 10, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Anthony Vines, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; and Dominique Lewis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel D. Ford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          Suite 411, One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          Kirkpatrick Plaza, Suite 510
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Defendants - Appellees Welspun Pipes Inc., Welspun Tubular LLC, and
Welspun USA, Inc. are represented by:

          J. Bruce Cross, Esq.
          Gregory J. Northen, Esq.
          CROSS & GUNTER
          500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-9999
          E-mail: bcross@cgwg.com

WEST ADA: Idaho Sup. Ct. Partly Flips Dismissal of Gifford's Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, reversed in part and affirmed in
part the dismissal of the Parents' claims in the lawsuit entitled
PEYTON GIFFORD and MOLLIE GABALDON, individually, as Patrons of
West Ada Joint School District #2 and on behalf of and as Guardians
Ad Litem of their minor child, John Doe G, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated Parents, Patrons of, and children enrolled
(past, present, and future) in Kindergarten in West Ada School
District, Idaho's 114 other School Districts, and 54 Charter
Schools, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WEST ADA JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT
#2, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 48291 (Idaho).

Plaintiffs Peyton Gifford and Mollie Gabaldon ("Parents") filed a
complaint as individuals, guardians ad litem for their son, and
putative class representatives, alleging that the West Ada Joint
School District #2 illegally charged tuition fees for the second
half-day of kindergarten instruction. The district court dismissed
Parents' complaint for lack of standing because Parents did not pay
the allegedly illegal fees.

On appeal, the Supreme Court holds that although the district court
properly concluded that Parents lack standing to pursue a claim
based solely on an economic injury, it failed to consider whether
Parents had standing to assert a second, discrete injury--loss of
educational opportunity for their son. For the reasons set forth in
this Opinion, the Supreme Court concludes Parents have standing to
pursue their educational claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Parents reside in the West Ada School District. They enrolled their
son in kindergarten for the 2019-2020 academic year at Chief Joseph
Elementary School of the Arts, a school within the West Ada School
District. Parents desired to have their son enrolled in full-day
kindergarten, but they learned on the day of registration that
Chief Joseph Elementary offered only half-day kindergarten. While
other schools in the district did offer full-day kindergarten,
Parents did not attempt to transfer their son to one of these
schools, at least in part, because they could not afford the $260
per month in tuition that West Ada charged for the optional, second
half-day of instruction. Parents have not personally paid any
kindergarten fees but allege that West Ada has collected more than
$8 million in second half-day kindergarten fees from other patrons
between 2014 and 2020.

Parents filed a class action complaint in July 2019 alleging that
West Ada's assessment of second half-day tuition fees violates the
free public education provision in Article IX, section 1 of the
Idaho Constitution. Parents' initial complaint sought the following
relief:

   1. Certification of both the Plaintiffs and Defendants class
      actions for [sic] pursuant to Rule 77 of the Idaho Rules of
      Civil Procedure;

   2. Declaratory Judgment that school fees assessed and
      collected by the Defendants for Kindergarten constitute a
      Constitutional violation, deprivation of property without
      due process and/or taking of private property without just
      compensation, in violation of Article IX, Section 1 and
      Article I, Section 14 of the Idaho Constitution as well as
      the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
      Constitution;

   3. Restitution, rebate, or reimbursement of fees
      unconstitutionally assessed and collected; and

   4. An Order appointing a claims administrator to supervise the
      restitution of and payment of damages to each class member
      who makes a claim under a protocol and notice procedure to
      be proposed by counsel and approved by the Court.

Parents' complaint also stated that West Ada's conduct violated
every anti-discrimination law and standard by providing important
educational enrichment to the children of patrons wealthy enough to
afford second half-day fees, while denying the same to children of
poorer patrons. However, Parents did not allege an equal protection
claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution or Article I, section 13 of the Idaho Constitution.

In August 2019, Parents amended their complaint by adding a
paragraph requesting that the district court enter an order
providing prospective relief for their son and similarly situated
schoolchildren: "An Order of this Court should be entered providing
that following entry of Judgment the Defendant West Ada School
District and Putative Defendant Schools shall immediately, and in
future years, place the Plaintiff child and putative Plaintiff
children in line to enroll in the second half-day of kindergarten
tuition free."

Though it is not apparent from their complaint, Parents clarified
in the district court that they did not seek an order compelling
Chief Joseph Elementary to begin offering full-day kindergarten;
they only sought an order compelling the schools already offering
full-day programs to stop collecting tuition fees for the second
half-day, and to have their son placed "in line" for kindergarten
at one of those schools.

In October 2019, Parents filed a motion for partial summary
judgment and class certification. Following a hearing on that
motion in January 2020, the district court issued an order denying
Parents' motion. The district court explained it denied the motion
because Parents lacked standing.

In March 2020, Parents moved for reconsideration and for leave to
amend their complaint a second time. Parents sought to amend their
complaint to state they were ready and willing to enroll their son
in any of 27 elementary schools in the school district offering
full-day kindergarten if the district court were to order West Ada
to stop assessing second half-day fees. The district court denied
reconsideration because it found Parents still lacked standing.
Further, it denied leave to amend the complaint because it
concluded the amendment would be futile.

In May 2020, West Ada moved to dismiss. The district court granted
the motion in July 2020, again for lack of standing. Parents timely
appealed.

Analysis

A. The district court erred, in part, in dismissing Parents'
complaint for lack of standing.

Standing law in Idaho substantially mirrors federal standing law.
Idaho has adopted the constitutionally based federal justiciability
standard. As a sub-category of justiciability, standing is a
threshold determination that must be addressed before reaching the
merits (Zeyen v. Pocatello/Chubbuck Sch. Dist. No. 25, 165 Idaho
690, 697-98, 451 P.3d 25, 32-33 (2019)).

Justice Gregory W. Moeller, writing for the Panel, states that
although the Supreme Court will relax standing requirements in
certain circumstances, the typical standing analysis requires a
plaintiff to demonstrate these: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a fairly
traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the
challenged conduct, and (3) a substantial likelihood the relief
requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury, citing Young
v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 104, 44 P.3d 1157, 1159 (2002).

While injury in fact, causation, and redressability must each be
established, the analysis in this case hinges on injury in fact,
Judge Moeller says. Without a concretely identified injury, there
can be no sensible analysis of the injury's cause or whether it
will be redressed by a favorable decision. With that in mind, Judge
Moeller notes that Parents' complaint raised claims based on two
distinct injuries. First, Parents alleged that an economic injury
was suffered by those patrons, who paid allegedly unconstitutional
fees to enroll their children in second half-day kindergarten.
Parents sought reimbursement of the fees collected as a remedy.

Second, as guardians ad litem for their son, Parents alleged an
educational injury because, as a direct result of West Ada's policy
coupled with their inability to pay fees, their son was denied the
full education they believe he was entitled to receive under
Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution. As a remedy,
Parents sought an injunction placing their son (along with all
similarly situated schoolchildren) "in line" for free full-day
kindergarten. The crux of Parents' argument on appeal is that the
district court erred in its standing analysis because it solely
focused on the alleged economic injury to the exclusion of the
alleged educational injury.

The Supreme Court agrees that the district court's standing
analysis was flawed because it evidently commingled its standing
analysis as to both claims, while failing to provide a clear
analysis of either. For example, although the district court took
note of Parents' argument that their son stood to suffer an injury
from the permanent diminishment of his educational enhancement, it
did not analyze whether this was a palpable injury in fact adequate
to confer standing.

Instead, Judge Moeller points out, the district court ended its
inquiry into injury in fact by merely observing that Parents did
not pay kindergarten fees. Similarly, in its orders denying summary
judgment, reconsideration, and leave to amend the complaint, the
district court emphasized that Parents did not pay kindergarten
fees amid its discussion of whether Parents' proposed order would
provide the prospective relief they desired and whether an
amendment would prove futile. Clearly, while these facts would be
relevant to the redressability analysis of an economic injury, they
have no relevance in an analysis of Parents' alleged educational
injury.

Nevertheless, standing is an issue reviewed de novo and the Supreme
Court may affirm the district court's dismissal if the Supreme
Court independently determine that Parents lack standing to pursue
both their economic and educational claims. Therefore, the Supreme
Court will undertake such an analysis of both claims. For the
reasons stated, the Supreme Court concludes that Parents have
standing to pursue their educational claim, but not their economic
claim.

1. Parents have standing to pursue a claim related to their son's
alleged educational injury.

Judge Moeller opines that Parents have: sufficiently alleged an
educational injury, alleged an injury in fact, adequately alleged
causation, and adequately alleged a redressable claim.

2. Parents lack standing to pursue a claim for an economic injury.

Judge Moeller also opines that the district court correctly
dismissed Parents' complaint as to their economic claim due to lack
of standing. Here, Parents did not pay kindergarten fees. Thus,
they do not have standing to seek redress--on their own behalf or
on behalf of others--for an economic injury they have not
suffered.

Further, Judge Moeller holds, Parents cannot establish standing to
pursue their economic claim under the Supreme Court's "relaxed"
standing analysis. Under this standard, the Court may choose to
entertain a matter which a party would otherwise not have standing
to bring where: (1) the matter concerns a significant and distinct
constitutional violation, and (2) no party could otherwise have
standing to bring a claim. Parents make the conclusory assertion
that if they do not have standing, no one could; therefore, a
relaxed standing analysis should apply. Parents' argument is
without merit, Judge Moeller holds.

Parents' complaint identified a whole class of people who could
challenge the constitutionality of second half-day kindergarten
tuition fees: namely, the other patrons who have collectively paid
West Ada $8 million dollars in such fees. Thus, relaxed standing is
clearly not warranted. Therefore, because Parents cannot establish
standing to pursue a claim for an economic injury, the district
court did not err in dismissing their claim for reimbursement,
Judge Moeller rules.

B. The Supreme Court does not award attorney fees on appeal to
either party.

West Ada asserts that it is entitled to attorney fees on appeal
under three statutes: Idaho Code sections 6-918A, 12-117, and
12-121. Section 6-918A only applies in actions under the Idaho Tort
Claims Act (ITCA), Idaho Code Section 6-901, et seq. This case was
not brought under the ITCA, so it is inapplicable. The other two
statutes cited by West Ada provide for the award of attorney fees
to a prevailing party. West Ada is not the prevailing party in this
appeal. Therefore, West Ada is not entitled to attorney fees on
appeal.

To the extent that Parents' mere statement warrants immediate
consideration of the issue by the Supreme Court, Judge Moeller
declines to do so because Parents mentioned fees only in passing
and without any argument. Judge Moeller holds that the Supreme
Court can reconsider appellate attorney fees if this matter returns
to the Supreme Court after it is fully adjudicated below.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the decision of the district court on
standing is reversed as to the dismissal of Parents' educational
claim and affirmed as to the dismissal of Parents' economic claim.
This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion. Pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 40(a), costs on
appeal are awarded to Parents as a matter of course.

Chief Justice BEVAN, Justice STEGNER, and Justices Pro Tem TROUT
and HORTON concur.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8zn6r4 from Leagle.com.

The Huntley Law Firm, PLLC, in Boise; and Wood Law Group, PC, in
Idaho Falls, for the Appellants. Jason Wood argued.

Anderson Julian & Hull, in Boise, for the Respondent. Brian Julian
-- bjulian@ajhlaw.com -- argued.


WEST ADA: Suit Over Kindergarten Fees Remanded to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Devin Bodkin, writing for Idaho Ed News, reports that the Idaho
Supreme Court wants a district court to reconsider questions of
fairness in a lawsuit challenging full-day kindergarten fees in the
West Ada School District.

The state's highest court announced that it returned, or
"remanded," the case to district court for further consideration of
"important constitutional questions," a summary statement released
by Supreme Court staff on Nov. 22 reads.

The constitutional questions revolve largely around whether or not
the parents who sued the district over the fees have standing to
pursue a claim alleging "educational injury" to their son —
something the Supreme Court determined was the case, according to
the opinion.

The parents filed a class-action lawsuit in district court in 2019,
seeking to overturn kindergarten fees and force Idaho districts and
charters to return fees paid since 2014-15. In July 2020, the
district court dismissed the complaint because the parents who sued
did not pay kindergarten fees or attempt to enroll their child in a
school offering full-day kindergarten.

The parents appealed, arguing that they would have enrolled their
child in a school with full-day kindergarten if West Ada offered it
for free.

While the Supreme Court reversed the prior decision about
educational injury to the student, it affirmed the lower court's
dismissal of an "economic injury" claim from the parents.

"Parents did not pay kindergarten fees," the ruling reads. "Thus,
they do not have standing to seek redress -- on their own behalf or
on behalf of others -- for an economic injury they have not
suffered."

The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings
"consistent" with opinions from the ruling in the Nov. 22
announcement.

State funding for full-day kindergarten has been a thorny issue in
Idaho over the years. Kindergarten remains optional under state
law.  And while the state funds half-day kindergarten, those
providing full-day options must cover the additional costs on their
own. Fees for families often play a role. [GN]

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: Averts Data Breach Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Mitchell, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
a class certification order in a lawsuit against Morgantown-based
West Virginia University Health Systems has been lifted because the
plaintiff lacked standing, according to Nov. 19 documents filed in
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Four things to know:

1. Eugene Roman, who was a patient of the health system, filed a
lawsuit over a 2016 data breach. Mr. Roman's complaint sought to
represent more than 7,000 patients affected by the breach. The
health system said the class representatives lacked standing
because they didn't suffer an injury from the employee's legitimate
access to their confidential records, according to court
documents.

2. Angela Roberts, a former registration specialist at Berkeley
Medical Center and Jefferson Medical Center -- affiliate facilities
of West Virginia University Health Systems -- accessed the data of
about 7,445 patients over an eight-month period in 2016. Ms.
Roberts admitted to looking at each patient file with a dual
purpose: for work purposes and to steal patient data for her
boyfriend, Wayne Roberts, according to court documents.

3. Ms. Roberts said that when she looked at a patient's EHR, she
was trying to determine asked herself if the patient had enough
information on their accounts so she and Mr. Roberts could steal it
If they did, she would give their information to Mr. Roberts. The
data was stolen with the intention to commit identity theft,
produce fake Social Security cards and bank fraud. Ms. Roberts
pleaded pled guilty to the charges and signed a plea agreement in
2017, Herald-Mail Media reported.

4. The court contended that Ms. Roberts legitimately looked at
patient files when she stole their information. It also contended
that patients whose data was stolen didn't suffer an injury
sufficient to bring a class-action suit, according to court
documents. [GN]

WEST VIRGINIA: Class Cert. Order Lifted in Data Breach Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
hipaajournal.com reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
West Virginia University Health System over a breach of the
protected health information of 7,445 patients has had the class
certification order lifted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia.

The lawsuit is related to an insider data breach that occurred in
2016. Between March 2016 and January 2017, Angela Roberts, a former
registration specialist at Berkeley Medical Center and Jefferson
Medical Center, which are affiliated with West Virginia University
Health System, accessed the medical records of 7,445 patients with
a view to committing identity theft and fraud. When the
unauthorized access was discovered, Roberts admitted she had
accessed the medical records for work purposes, but also to steal
patient data to provide to her boyfriend and co-defendant Ajarhi
"Wayne" Roberts.

When viewing the medical records for legitimate work purposes, Ms.
Roberts determined whether there was enough information to allow
her and her boyfriend to steal patients' identities. If sufficient
information was there, the information was stolen and provided to
Mr. Roberts with a view to committing identity theft. Fake Social
Security cards were then produced in order to commit bank fraud.

Ms. Roberts was charged in a 36-count indictment and signed a plea
agreement to one count of identity theft in 2017. She admitted
unlawfully acquiring the names, signatures, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, and driver's license numbers of 10 patients, and
that she passed that information to her boyfriend who used the
information to open accounts. Victims suffered monetary losses of
$20,757 and Roberts was ordered to pay $5,189.25 in restitution.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Deborah Welch and
Eugene Roman that sought class action status covering the patients
whose medical records were impermissibly accessed. Welch and Roman
successfully certified a class of 7,445 patients; however, the
defendants argued that the class representatives lacked standing as
they had suffered no injury-in-fact from the legitimate accessing
of their medical records by Ms. Roberts.

The Supreme Court of Appeals recently determined Welch lacked
standing to sue for a breach of confidentiality or an invasion of
privacy because she had suffered no injury-in-fact from the
employee's legitimate accessing her medical records, and other
prerequisites to class certification were not met. The Supreme
Court of Appeals ruled that Roman, who represented a subclass of
109 individuals, also failed to meet the prerequisites for class
certification and that the circuit court failed to provide a
thorough analysis of the typicality prerequisite in light of
Roman's circumstances and claims. The class certification order was
lifted as in order for a class action lawsuit to proceed, at least
one of the named plaintiffs must have standing. [GN]

WESTCOURT PLACE: Judge Reserves Decision on Fire Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a judge heard arguments on whether to allow a
proposed class action lawsuit in the 2019 Westcourt Place apartment
fire to go ahead.

Lawyer Harvey Strosberg, who represents the tenants, said the judge
reserved his decision on the matter but will make one at a later
date.

"He said that he'll do it as quickly as possible but I think it
would be in the new year," he said.

The Nov. 12, 2019, fire displaced the building's tenants, including
hundreds of residents, as well as businesses and the Provincial
Offences Court.

The proposed legal action was seeking compensation for affected
tenants. In order to proceed, class action lawsuits have to be
certified by a judge.

The fire, which started in the building's underground parking
garage, was the result of electrical failure, according to the
Office of the Ontario Fire Marshal. [GN]

WISCONSIN: Two Subclasses of Prisoners Certified in Heredia Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled VICTORIANO HEREDIA, DUJUAN NASH, JOSEPH
OROSCO, BARNEY GUARNERO, BRIAN PHEIL, DONTAE DOYLE, JUMAR JONES,
DENG YANG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN TATE II, Chairperson and Commissioner
of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; JENNIFER KRAMER, Commissioner
of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; DOUGLAS DRANKIEWICZ,
Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; KEVIN CARR,
Secretary-Designee of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections; and
ANGELA HANSEN, Director of the Bureau of Classification and
Movement, in their official capacities, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-338-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin certifies two subclasses:

   (a) class members who were convicted of homicide; and
   (b) class members who were convicted of nonhomicide crimes.

The lawsuit is a class action that challenges how Wisconsin's
parole system applies to prisoners with very long sentences for
crimes committed as juveniles. The Plaintiffs' claims are rooted in
a line of Supreme Court decisions holding that the Eighth Amendment
bars life sentences for most juvenile offenders. See Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460
(2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). The Plaintiffs
contend that implicit in these decisions is a constitutional right
to meaningful parole consideration specifically on the basis of the
prisoner's maturity and rehabilitation, which Wisconsin's parole
system does not provide.

The Supreme Court has recently decided a new case that addresses
life sentences for juvenile offenders: Jones v. Mississippi, 141
S.Ct. 1307 (2021). The Court stayed discovery and asked the parties
to explain whether Jones would foreclose any of the Plaintiffs'
claims.

For reasons explained, Jones does not foreclose the Plaintiffs'
claims, but it does nothing to buttress their arguments that the
Constitution requires some specific mode of discretionary parole
consideration for juvenile offenders, District Judge James D.
Peterson holds.

The Court will not dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims, but it will
create subclasses for those convicted of homicide and those
convicted of nonhomicide crimes to reflect the distinction that
Jones recognizes between the two groups. The Court will also lift
the stay and decide the Plaintiffs' two discovery motions, which
are fully briefed.

Analysis

A. Effect of Jones

In the order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Court summarized their claims as follows: (1)
the Defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment by failing to
give the Plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity for release based
solely on the Plaintiffs' demonstrated maturation and
rehabilitation; (2) the Defendants are violating the Due Process
Clause by failing to adopt procedures that allow plaintiffs to
demonstrate that they are entitled to release based solely on their
maturity and rehabilitation; (3) the Defendants are increasing the
Plaintiffs' mandatory minimum sentence in violation of the Sixth
Amendment by denying parole on the ground that the Plaintiffs
haven't served enough time, even after plaintiffs reach their
parole eligibility date; and (4) the Defendants are increasing the
Plaintiffs' maximum sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment by
implicitly finding that the Plaintiffs are incorrigible when
defendants deny parole based on the amount of time served rather
the Plaintiffs' demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

Judge Peterson notes that neither side challenges this summary. But
the Plaintiffs now withdraw claim (4) because the evidence gathered
in discovery doesn't support it. Hence, the Court will dismiss that
claim with prejudice.

In the orders screening the complaint, the Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment by alleging
that they were eligible for parole, but the Defendants were failing
to provide a meaningful opportunity for release; the Plaintiffs
stated a claim under the Due Process Clause by alleging that the
Defendants were not providing the procedures necessary to allow the
Plaintiffs to show that they were entitled to release; and the
Plaintiffs stated a claim under the Sixth Amendment by alleging
that the Defendants were increasing their mandatory minimum
sentence based on facts not determined by a jury.

The question now before the Court isn't whether the Plaintiffs have
proven any of their claims or are likely to succeed on them.
Rather, the question is a narrow one: whether Jones forecloses any
of the claims on which the Plaintiffs are proceeding.

Judge Peterson notes that the Plaintiffs' remaining Sixth Amendment
claim rests on cases such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99
(2013), and is about the parole commission's authority to find
certain facts. It's not based on Montgomery, Miller, or Graham, and
the argument the Plaintiffs are making isn't specific to juvenile
offenders. So Jones has no implications for that claim. And Jones
didn't limit or even consider the scope of Graham, so it would have
no effect on the claims of nonhomicide juvenile offenders.

To determine the potential effect of Jones on the Eighth Amendment
and due process claims of the class members convicted of homicide,
the Court starts with a closer look at Jones's holding and
reasoning.

The Court concluded that no such express finding was required,
holding that a state's discretionary sentencing system is both
constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient to
comply with Miller and Montgomery before sentencing a juvenile
offender convicted of homicide to life without parole.

Judge Peterson opines that Jones certainly does nothing to advance
the Plaintiffs' claims. And it provides support for a view that the
standards governing juveniles convicted of homicide are not the
same as the standards governing juveniles convicted of homicide
crimes.

Jones closed the door on any claim that the Eighth Amendment
categorically bars life-without-parole sentences for juvenile
offenders convicted of homicide, Judge Peterson holds. So long as
the legislative sentencing scheme does not mandate
life-without-parole, the sentencing judge has the discretion to
impose it.

The Defendants argue that the necessary implication of Jones is
fatal to the Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of juveniles convicted of
homicide. If a juvenile who isn't irreparably corrupt can be
sentenced to life without parole consistent with the Eighth
Amendment, then it ought to follow that the Eighth Amendment would
have no application to the same juvenile in the parole context. But
the Court isn't persuaded that Jones forecloses all relief under
the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause to juveniles
convicted of homicide, Judge Peterson finds.

Jones may have implications for determining how the Defendants must
consider a prisoner's youth when making parole decisions,
particularly for prisoners convicted of homicide. But Jones leaves
room for the Plaintiffs to argue that the Defendants must take
youth into consideration when considering class members for parole,
Judge Peterson points out. Sentencing and parole are not so similar
that the court can say that a discretionary parole scheme
"necessarily" takes a prisoner's youth into account. The facts
regarding whether and how defendants consider a prisoner's youth
aren't fully before the court, so arguments on that issue will have
to wait for a motion for summary judgment.

Because Jones suggests that the constitutional standards for
juvenile offenders convicted of homicide may be different from the
standards for juvenile offenders convicted of nonhomicide crimes,
the Court concludes that there should be subclasses for those two
groups. So Plaintiffs Victoriano Heredia, Jumar Jones, Joseph
Orosco, Dujuan Nash, Brian Pheil, Barney Guarnero, and Deng Yang
will represent a subclass of prisoners convicted of homicide;
Plaintiff Dontae Doyle will represent a subclass of prisoners
convicted of nonhomicide crimes. At summary judgment, the parties
should include separate arguments for each subclass.

B. Discovery Motions

Two discovery motions are before the Court. First, the Plaintiffs
move to compel the Defendants to conduct searches of electronically
stored information (ESI). Second, the Plaintiffs ask for a second
round of depositions of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).

1. Electronically Stored Information

The Plaintiffs' motion doesn't precisely identify the information
that they are seeking. But they filed a separate summary that
includes a list of 17 search queries, along with a description of
the parameters for the searches, including which officials'
electronic documents should be searched, which computer systems,
and what time frame.

In response to the Defendants' objections in their opposition brief
about the relevance of the requests and the burdens they would
impose, the Plaintiffs eliminated one of the 17 search queries.
They also narrowed most of the queries, and they narrowed both the
time frame and the officials implicated by the requests.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs now seek emails created between 2014
and the present for parole chairpersons, parole commissioners,
directors of the Bureau of Classification and Movement, or parole
commission offender records associates who served any time after
Jan. 1, 2016. Initially, the plaintiffs also included a request for
searches of G drives, H drives, and text messages for each of the
requested custodians. Now the Plaintiffs ask the Court to direct
the Defendants to provide more information about the contents of
those drives.

To sum up, the Court will direct the Defendants to run the
following search queries: (1) each former or current named
plaintiff's DOC number; (2) "JLWOP"; (3) "BOCM Procedure"; (4)
"Punishment ~5 sufficient"; (5) "depreciate ~5 offense OR severity
OR seriousness"; (6) "Truth ~4 'sentencing extension'"; and (7)
"'TIS' ~3 (before OR prior)." The Court also expects the Defendants
to run searches for Queries 2-7, as agreed by the parties. The time
frame of the searches will be from 2016 to the present. The
Defendants will run the search queries in the emails of any
chairperson of the Parole Commission or director of the Bureau of
Classification and Movement since 2016.

2. Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions

The Plaintiffs previously served deposition notices under Rule
30(b)(6) to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and the
Wisconsin Parole Commission, resulting in depositions of one
representative of the commission and three representatives of the
DOC. The Plaintiffs have also deposed three other officials from
the commission. Now the Plaintiffs move for leave to take another
deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of a representative or
representatives of the DOC.

The Court will deny the Plaintiffs leave to depose the DOC for two
reasons. First, the information the Plaintiffs are seeking has
limited relevance. Second, the Plaintiffs are seeking the same
information through written discovery.

The Defendants do not object to those requests. Because the
Plaintiffs don't even attempt to explain why written discovery is
inadequate, the Court declines to grant leave to depose the DOC a
second time.

Order

It is ordered that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants are increasing
      the Plaintiffs' maximum sentence in violation of the Sixth
      Amendment is dismissed with prejudice;

   2. The stay is lifted. The Clerk of Court is directed to set
      this case for a scheduling conference before Magistrate
      Judge Stephen Crocker;

   3. The Court certifies the following two subclasses:

      (a) class members who were convicted of homicide; and
      (b) class members who were convicted of nonhomicide crimes;

   4. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery is granted in
      part, as discussed in this opinion. The motion is otherwise
      denied; and

   5. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose the Wisconsin
      Department of Corrections is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3s6s3u from
Leagle.com.


WV UNIVERSITY: Court Can't Enforce Class Cert. Order in Welch Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS - EAST, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS BERKELEY
MEDICAL CENTER; CITY HOSPITAL, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS BERKELEY
MEDICAL CENTER; AND THE CHARLES TOWN GENERAL HOSPITAL, DOING
BUSINESS AS JEFFERSON MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants Below, Petitioners
v. THE HONORABLE DAVID M. HAMMER, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AND DEBORAH S. WELCH AND EUGENE A. ROMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs Below, Respondents, Case No. 21-0095 (W.Va.), Chief
Justin Evan H. Jenkins of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia prohibits the circuit court from enforcing its order of
Dec. 23, 2020, granting class certification.

Background

In this original jurisdiction proceeding, petitioners, West
Virginia University Hospitals - East, Inc., doing business as
Berkeley Medical Center; City Hospital, Inc., doing business as
Berkeley Medical Center; and the Charles Town General Hospital,
doing business as Jefferson Medical Center (collectively
"Hospitals"), seek a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County from enforcing its order granting class
certification in the underlying civil action filed by the
respondents, Deborah S. Welch and Eugene A. Roman.

The underlying suit arose after an employee of Hospitals
misappropriated the private information of certain patients from
Hospitals' medical records during the course of performing her
authorized job duties.

In August 2020, Welch and Roman filed a motion for class
certification, wherein they sought to certify a class consisting of
"all West Virginia citizens whose personal information was accessed
in the data breach identified by Hospitals in their Feb. 23, 2017
correspondence to Deborah Welch."

Plaintiffs Welch and Roman also sought to certify a subclass of
"the 109 West Virginia citizens whose misinformation was found in
Angela Roberts and her co-conspirator possession."

Hospitals opposed class certification and argued, in relevant part,
that both named Plaintiffs, Ms. Welch and Mr. Roman, lacked
standing to represent the proposed class and subclass. With respect
to Ms. Welch, Hospitals argued that, because Ms. Roberts had
accessed Ms. Welch's data in the course of her authorized job
duties, the data had not been misappropriated. Hospitals also
argued that Mr. Roman was not an appropriate class representative
because Welch and Roman had failed to establish how Mr. Roman's
information had come into Mr. Roberts's possession.

Following briefing and a hearing, the circuit court entered an
order dated Dec. 23, 2020, granting class certification. Welch and
Roman successfully certified a class of approximately 7,445
individuals, which represented every medical record accessed by the
employee during the relevant period of her employment.

The Circuit Court specifically certified a class that includes "all
West Virginia citizens residents whose personal information was
accessed in the data breach identified by the Defendant Hospitals
in their Feb. 23, 2017 data breach notices." The circuit court
additionally certified "a subclass of those 109 individuals whose
information was found in the possession of Ms. Roberts's
accomplice." Finally, the circuit court appointed Ms. Welch and Mr.
Roman as the class representatives.

The instant petition for writ of prohibition, seeking to prevent
the circuit court from enforcing its class certification order,
followed. Hospitals argue that the class representatives lack
standing because they have suffered no injury-in-fact from the
employee's legitimate access to their confidential records.

Discussion

Through their petition for writ of prohibition, Hospitals raise two
issues. First, Hospitals argue that the circuit court erred in
certifying a class that includes named Plaintiffs and others who
suffered no injury-in-fact and, therefore, do not have standing to
maintain a claim. Hospitals also argue that the circuit court erred
by certifying a class when the prerequisites of West Virginia Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 were not met.

As to Hospitals' first argument, Judge Jenkins agrees with respect
to Ms. Welch. He finds that Ms. Welch has not suffered an
injury-in-fact arising from a breach of her confidential
information or invasion of her privacy and, therefore, she lacks
standing to assert those claims against Hospitals. Because Ms.
Welch lacks standing, the circuit court erred as a matter of law in
certifying the class of plaintiffs she represents.

Accordingly, Judge Jenkins grants the requested writ and prohibit
the circuit court from enforcing that portion of its order of Dec.
23, 2020, granting class certification to "all West Virginia
citizens residents whose personal information was accessed in the
data breach identified by the Defendant Hospitals in their Feb. 23,
2017 data breach notices."

With respect to Hospitals' second argument, Judge Jenkins addresses
the issue only as to Mr. Roman and the subclass of 109 individuals
he represents and finds that the circuit court failed to provide a
thorough analysis of the typicality prerequisite in light of Mr.
Roman's circumstances and claims. Because the circuit court failed
to thoroughly analyze typicality with respect to Mr. Roman's
individual circumstances as they relate to the claims he asserts
and the class he represents, Judge Jenkins grants the requested
writ and prohibits the circuit court from enforcing that portion of
its order of Dec. 23, 2020, granting class certification to "a
subclass of those 109 individuals whose information was found in
the possession of Ms. Roberts's accomplice."

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated in the body of his Opinion, Judge Jenkins
grants the requested writ and prohibits the circuit court from
enforcing its order of Dec. 23, 2020, granting class certification.
He remands the case for additional proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4fmt9shx from Leagle.com.

Marc E. Williams -- marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- Robert L.
Massie -- bob.massie@nelsonmullins.com -- Thomas M. Hancock --
tom.hancock@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, in Charleston, West Virginia, in Huntington, West
Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioners.

Troy N. Giatras -- t-giatras@gwlawfirm.com -- Matthew Stonestreet,
The Giatras Law Firm, PLLC, Attorneys for the Respondents.


[*] Australia's Class Action Reform Bill Passes House of Reps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mizen, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's push to cap legal fees and payouts to
litigation funders for class actions narrowly passed the House of
Representatives on Nov. 24 after a slew of crossbench MPs backed
scuttling the bill.

They were supported by retiring Queensland Coalition MP George
Christensen, who crossed the floor to vote against the government.

But it was Zali Steggall, the independent who beat Tony Abbott at
the 2019 election, who won the day for Mr Frydenberg. After
initially indicating she would abstain from voting, Ms Steggall
backed the government.

"I was disappointed that the bill wasn't better consulted, but on
balance I support the intent of the legislation, which is to ensure
that claimants get a greater share of judgments awarded," she
said.

That support came after "assurance" from the government that the
solicitor general had advised the bill was constitutionally sound.
Ms Steggall was still in negotiations late into the day.

Class action funders and lawyers would be restricted to a maximum
30 per cent of any payout under the changes, which the government
hopes will curb "disproportionate" returns at the expense of class
members.

Veteran Queensland crossbencher Bob Katter said he had originally
decided to back the bill, but after reflecting on how difficult it
was for class actions he had been involved with to find lawyers,
had changed his mind.

"To get people to come onboard, there has to be a really big
profit," Mr Katter told The Australian Financial Review, adding
there has been "heavy" pressure to pass the bill throughout the
day.

On Nov. 24 Mr Katter said he intended to abstain from voting, but
in the final division late on Nov. 24 voted against the change.

Labor, Greens leader Adam Bandt, Tasmanian Andrew Wilkie and
Victorian independent Helen Haines were in the against the
government, while United Australia Party leader Craig Kelly also
withheld his support.

Mr Kelly wanted support from government MPs to triple the penalties
for companies that breach Australia's consumer law in return for
his support, something they were unwilling to give.

South Australian Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie was the only
other crossbencher to support the bill, which passed 65 votes to
63.

But the fate of the legislation remains uncertain, with the
government's legislative agenda ground to a halt in the Senate as
maverick Coalition senators Alex Antic and Gerrard Rennick withhold
their support.

With a federal election looming in the first half of next year, the
reforms could come to nought if Labor forms government.

Business groups including the Australian Institute of Company
Directors and the Business Council of Australia back the change.

A parliamentary inquiry looking into litigation funder-backed class
actions last year was generally scathing of the sector, which it
accused of using the justice system for the primary motive of
generating a return on investment.

The change is fiercely opposed by many in the legal community, as
well as by litigation funders who claim it would make some class
actions impossible to run, leaving people left without adequate
legal recourse.

"Class actions provide a vital path to justice for Australians
trying to uphold their rights against wealthy defendants with
vastly greater resources," shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus
said.

PwC research showed when the cap was applied to class actions from
the past 20 years, returns in 36 per cent of matters would not have
covered the legal costs of running the case, let alone adequate
returns to the funder. [GN]

[*] New U.S. Bill May Prohibit Class, Collective Action Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Farber, Esq., David R. Golder, Esq., Eric R. Magnus, Esq., and
Lisa A. Milam, Esq., of Jackson Lewis PC, in an article for
Lexology, report that the U.S. House of Representatives on November
19, 2021, passed the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), ambitious
climate protection/social spending legislation that now awaits
deliberation in the Senate. Tucked inside the massive bill are
numerous provisions of interest to employers. For example, there is
a provision that effectively may prohibit employers from adopting
class and collective action waivers. By creating significant civil
penalties, the bill calls into question the ongoing viability of
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v.
Lewis, which condoned the use of class and collective action
waivers in employment arbitration agreements pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act.

The bar on class waivers is one of several onerous amendments to
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) set forth in the
legislation. (In a separate blog post, attorneys in the Jackson
Lewis Labor Relations practice group discuss these proposed
amendments more broadly.) If enacted in its current iteration, the
Build Back Better Act would make it an unfair labor practice for a
covered employer to require employees to agree not to engage in
collective or class action, or to join such litigation.

Specifically, the bill states that it would be unlawful for an
employer to enter into or attempt to enforce any agreement, express
or implied, whereby prior to a dispute to which the agreement
applies, an employee undertakes or promises not to pursue, bring,
join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective
claim arising from or relating to the employment of such employee
in any forum that, but for such agreement, is of competent
jurisdiction[.]

The bill also makes it unlawful to "coerce" an employee into
promising not to pursue or join such an action, or to retaliate
against an employee for refusing to make such a promise. (Notably,
the provision would expressly allow such agreements if permitted by
a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the
employees' union -- if the employees are represented for collective
bargaining by a union.)

A violation of this provision would result in civil penalties under
the NLRA. The bill proposes civil monetary penalties for violations
of the NLRA, which has never had civil penalties before -- as much
as $50,000 per violation ($100,000 for repeat offenses). The size
of these civil monetary penalties could effectively bar the ongoing
use of class and collective action waivers in employment or
arbitration agreements.

Employers increasingly enter into arbitration agreements with
employees and independent contractors, in which the parties opt to
resolve disputes on an individual (rather than class or collective)
basis. Many employers without arbitration programs also have
initiated the use of "stand-alone" class waivers. These strategies
have allowed for the expedient and cost-effective resolution of
claims and have minimized the enormous pressure on employers to
settle questionable claims. The restriction on class and collective
action waivers embodied in the current version of the Build Back
Better Act would upend what has proven to be a critical risk
management tool for employers in the face of an employment class
action wave that shows no sign of slowing -- and as employers
confront novel challenges posed by COVID-19 and the uneasy return
to "normal."

Business groups are understandably concerned about these draconian
amendments. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for one, has voiced its
strong disapproval. Indeed, the bill's more controversial
provisions were not expected to remain in the final bill voted on
in the House; so far, however, the NLRA amendments have survived
intact. In the Senate, though, the legislation faces an uncertain
future, and may well succumb to procedural hurdles and opposition
from Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats. We will keep a
watchful eye as Senate deliberations unfold, as passage of this
provision, though questionable, would usher in a harsh class action
litigation climate for employers. [GN]

[*] Uptick in Class Action Activity Seen in Alberta Over a Decade
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sunter, Esq., of Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, in an
article for Lexpert Business of Law, reports that Alberta has not
historically been considered a particularly vibrant class action
jurisdiction. While its Class Proceedings Act was enacted in 2004,
the province did not see nearly the case load of Ontario, British
Columbia and Saskatchewan. In 2010, the Class Proceedings Act was
amended, and Alberta became an "opt out" jurisdiction, making the
province more plaintiff-friendly. However, there still wasn't
significant activity, in part because of a notable lack of local
plaintiff-side firms.

Over the past decade, however, things have changed. There has been
a noticeable uptick in class action activity in the province. There
is an ever-growing number of plaintiff-side lawyers and a deep
roster of defence-side practitioners. Unlike some other
jurisdictions, you do not really need to pick a side in Alberta --
many lawyers choose to play on both sides of the fence. There are
also several experienced class action case management judges (all
class action lawsuits in the province must be case managed).

Alberta now has a vibrant and rapidly maturing class actions
ecosystem. In 2020 and 2021 (year-to-date), there have been nine
reported certification decisions -- of course, this was in the
middle of a pandemic where court houses have been closed and
hearings have been considerably delayed. The general activity
surrounding class actions has increased exponentially -- in 2011
there were only four reported decisions dealing with class actions;
so far in 2021, there have been 16.

Further, the types of class actions being litigated in Alberta are
increasingly diverse. Many of the earlier Alberta cases were
brought by investors in real estate projects "gone bad." There are
now class proceedings addressing a multitude of issues -- for
example, the THC content in cannabis, potentially defective
vehicles, environmental incidents, alleged wrongful detention and
securities disclosure issues.

The current regime in Alberta is probably best described as
"balanced," rather than "pro-" plaintiff or defendant. For example,
it is not a "no cost regime," and costs can potentially be
significant (i.e., 40% to 50% of the successful party's actual
fees, as the Court of Appeal held in McAllister v Calgary (City),
2021 ABCA 25). On the other hand, in Elder Advocates of Alberta
Society v Alberta Health Services, 2021 ABCA 67, the Alberta Court
of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to not award any costs
against unsuccessful representative plaintiffs where there was a
novel issue of law and the class members constituted a
"disadvantaged group," to promote access to justice.

Further, certification is typically not a significant obstacle for
lawsuits where there is some evidence of a real common harm or
loss. In the last few years, about three-quarters of all
certification hearings have been successful (in whole or in part).
On the other hand, applications to strike or stay unmeritorious
actions are often heard before certification to promote efficiency
and avoid wasted costs, such as in Briton v Ford Motor Company of
Canada Ltd, 2020 ABQB 344. Alberta has developed a playing field
that strikes a balance between plaintiffs and defendants.

It has been exciting to witness the evolution of Alberta's class
action regime over the past decade, and it will be interesting to
see how this increasingly active jurisdiction matures in the years
to come. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Completes Internal Review of A&E Exposures
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc. (AFG), during the third quarter of
2021, has completed an in-depth internal review of its asbestos and
environmental exposures relating to the run-off operations of its
property and casualty insurance segment and its exposures related
to former railroad and manufacturing operations and sites,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In addition to its ongoing internal monitoring
of asbestos and environmental exposures, AFG has periodically
conducted comprehensive external studies of its asbestos and
environmental reserves with the aid of specialty actuarial,
engineering and consulting firms and outside counsel, with an
in-depth internal review during the intervening years.

"During the 2021 internal review, no new trends were identified and
recent claims activity was generally consistent with AFG's
expectations resulting from the 2020 external study. As a result,
the 2021 review resulted in no net change to AFG’s property and
casualty insurance segment's asbestos and environmental reserves.

"A comprehensive external study of AFG's A&E reserves was completed
in the third quarter of 2020. As a result of the 2020 external
study, AFG recorded a $47 million (net of reinsurance) pretax
special charge to increase its property and casualty insurance
segment's asbestos reserves by $26 million (net of reinsurance) and
its environmental reserves by $21 million (net of reinsurance). AFG
also recorded a $21 million pretax special charge to increase the
reserves of its former railroad and manufacturing operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xFDwd6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces Personal Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its subsidiaries are involved in
various claims and lawsuits incidental to their businesses from
time to time and are also subject to asbestos litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
(the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pj6V9g



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Faces Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is party to asbestos
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

BNSF states, "Because of the relatively finite exposed population,
the Company has recorded an estimate for the full amount of
probable exposure. This is determined through an actuarial analysis
based on estimates of the exposed population, the number of claims
likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require
payment, and the cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal
rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent
claim data and trends.

"BNSF's personal injury liability includes the cost of claims for
employee work-related injuries, third-party claims, and asbestos
claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted and unasserted claims
when the expected loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.
Because of the uncertainty of the timing of future payments, the
liability is undiscounted. Defense and processing costs, which are
recorded on an as-reported basis, are not included in the recorded
liability. Expense accruals and adjustments are classified as
materials and other in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these
cases under the FELA’s fault-based system requires either a
finding of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement.
Third-party claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory
damages and may, from time to time, include requests for punitive
damages or treatment of the claim as a class action.

"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience against
the forecasted number of claims to be received, the forecasted
number of claims closing with payment, and expected claim payments
and records adjustments as new events or changes in estimates
develop."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GaVDe5

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., from time to time named, along with
numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and the
Registrants anticipate that additional claims may be asserted in
the future, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other
asbestos-containing materials. Although their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect
these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/31d9rpu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 1,100 Pending Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020,
has been assigned to approximately 1,000 and 1,100 lawsuits pending
against EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos
docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.

"At September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, Chemours had an
accrual of $34 related to these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Dbhdgr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reports $1.1MM Asbestos-Related Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has recorded an asbestos-related costs, net of
taxes of $1.1 million and $3.5 million during the three and nine
months ended October 1, 2021, respectively, and $2.0 million and
$4.8 million during the three and nine months ended October 2,
2020, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company retained certain asbestos-related contingencies and
insurance coverages from divested businesses for which it did not
retain an interest in the ongoing operations subject to the
contingencies.

The Company also recorded Loss from discontinued operations, net of
taxes of $0.2 million and $6.8 million during the three and nine
months ended October 1, 2021, respectively, and $0.6 million and
$6.2 million during the three and nine months ended October 2,
2020, respectively, related to its divested air and gas handling
business, including a settlement executed in the first quarter of
2021, as well as certain professional, legal, and consulting fees
in 2020.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lp2Vmx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues Est. Potential Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) and CECONY, at September 30,
2021, has accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not,
in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all
the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. Courts
have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue,
to apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the
Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility
of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the
suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of
such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted
to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'
compensation claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ec2vY6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Still Involved in Various Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc., from time to time, is involved in various litigation,
administrative and other legal proceedings, including regulatory
actions, incidental or related to its business, including consumer
class or collective actions, personal injury (including asbestos
claims related to the Company's talc-based cosmetic products),
intellectual property, competition, compliance and advertising
claims litigation and disputes, among others (collectively, "Legal
Proceedings"), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Coty states, "While the Company cannot predict any final outcomes
relating thereto, management believes that the outcome of current
Legal Proceedings will not have a material effect upon its
business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations,
cash flows or the trading price of the Company's securities.
However, management’s assessment of the Company's current Legal
Proceedings is ongoing, and could change in light of the discovery
of additional facts with respect to Legal Proceedings not presently
known to the Company, further legal analysis, or determinations by
judges, arbitrators, juries or other finders of fact or deciders of
law which are not in accord with management's evaluation of the
probable liability or outcome of such Legal Proceedings. From time
to time, the Company is in discussions with regulators, including
discussions initiated by the Company, about actual or potential
violations of law in order to remediate or mitigate associated
legal or compliance risks and liabilities or penalties. As the
outcomes of such proceedings are unpredictable, the Company can
give no assurance that the results of any such proceedings will not
materially affect its reputation, business, prospects, financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows or the trading price
of its securities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ocLoQ1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Pending Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid
any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related
case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past
operations as well as our acquired businesses and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in our historical products make
it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos
litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We maintain
insurance coverage and indemnification agreements for these
potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3IhWsDM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Faces Asbestos-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is one of several unrelated
defendants in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging
that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its drilling rigs,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The
manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already
ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in
these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages
asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are unable to
estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this
time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/31djdYU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Emmett Unable to Estimate CARO
-------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Emmett, Inc., as of September 30, 2021, has reported that
the obligations to remove the asbestos from its other properties
have indeterminable settlement dates, and is unable to reasonably
estimate the fair value of the associated conditional asset
retirement obligations (CARO), according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Environmental site assessments have identified
thirty-two buildings in our Consolidated Portfolio which contain
asbestos, and would have to be removed in compliance with
applicable environmental regulations if these properties are
demolished or undergo major renovations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/32LAB7b



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Faces Indemnification Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of
September 30, 2021, there were 74 asserted claims for non-malignant
cases with cumulative relief sought of up to $15 million, and 58
asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought
of up to $21 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience,
it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims
likely will be less than the amount claimed.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$508 million at September 30, 2021, and $572 million at December
31, 2020. These reserves are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based
upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future
asbestos claims through 2041 and are recorded on an undiscounted
basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term
forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate
the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2041
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative
payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in 2008. Future
payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the
third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is $697 million in excess of the self-insured
retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $644 million
at September 30, 2021, and $704 million at December 31, 2020. These
amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and
Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any
uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims.
Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is
probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a
strong financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lo1eWh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH's Subsidiaries Defends PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Certain Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH) subsidiaries that Sempra
Energy acquired as part of the merger of EFH with an indirect
subsidiary of Sempra are defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "As of November 1, 2021, three such lawsuits
are pending, all of which have been served. These cases allege
illness or death as a result of exposure to asbestos in power
plants designed and/or built by companies whose assets were
purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and
generally assert claims for product defects, negligence, strict
liability and wrongful death. They seek compensatory and punitive
damages. Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy
proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on
behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar
circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the
future. None of these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH
bankruptcy proceeding. The costs to defend or resolve these
lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be imposed or incurred
could have a material adverse effect on Sempra's cash flows,
financial condition and results of operations.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Eci7L6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $11.55MM Asbestos Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited reports defendant asbestos liabilities of
$11.55 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2021, compared
to defendant asbestos liabilities of $12.57 million for the three
months ended Dec. 31, 2020,

Enstar has reported that segment income from its Run-off segment
increased by $12.7 million for the three months ended September 30,
2021 compared to the same period in 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "The increase in segment income was partially
offset by a decrease in other income as a result of a lower
reduction in the estimates of ultimate net liabilities relating to
our defendant asbestos and environmental exposures in the current
period versus the comparative period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3D2D3Tv



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $167.7MM Net Loss Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., at September 30, 2021, had net asbestos
loss reserves of $167.7 million, or 99.3%, of total net A&E
reserves, all of which was for assumed business, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Everest Re Group states, "The survival ratio is typically
calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the
three year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio
equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the
current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at
historical levels. Using this measurement, our net three year
asbestos survival ratio was 5.5 years at September 30, 2021. These
metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in
the prior three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the
timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3o9euA6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan's Affiliates Faces PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX)'s various affiliates, since
approximately 1990, have been named as defendants in a large number
of lawsuits alleging personal injury from, among other things,
exposure to asbestos or talc allegedly contained in industrial
products, and more recently alleging the presence of asbestos
contamination in talc-based cosmetic and personal care products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines
Corporation (Cyprus Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are
among the targets of such lawsuits. Cyprus Mines and subsidiaries
were engaged in talc mining and processing from 1964 until 1992
when Cyprus Mines exited its talc business. On February 13, 2019,
Imerys Talc America (Imerys), the current owner of the talc
business assets and liabilities previously owned by Cyprus Mines,
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On December 22, 2020,
Imerys filed an amended bankruptcy plan disclosing a global
settlement with Cyprus Mines and CAMC, which provides a framework
for a full and comprehensive resolution of all current and future
potential liabilities arising out of the Cyprus Mines talc
business, including claims against FCX, its affiliates, Cyprus
Mines and CAMC. The hearing to consider confirmation of the Imerys
bankruptcy plan previously scheduled to be held in November 2021
has been cancelled following a recent decision by the bankruptcy
judge to invalidate a substantial number of votes in favor of the
plan. Consistent with the global settlement agreement, Cyprus Mines
commenced its own bankruptcy process on February 11, 2021, and
talc-related litigation against both Cyprus Mines and Cyprus Amax
Minerals Company is stayed through 2021. The global settlement is
subject to, among other things, votes by claimants in both the
Imerys and Cyprus Mines bankruptcy cases as well as bankruptcy
court approvals in both cases, and there can be no assurance that
the global settlement will be successfully implemented. FCX has a
$130 million liability balance at September 30, 2021, associated
with the proposed settlement.

"In 2019, affiliates of FCX reached an agreement in principle to
settle all 13 cases. The maximum out-of-pocket settlement payment
will be $23.5 million with the initial payment of $15 million to be
paid upon execution of the settlement agreement.

"The settlement agreement must be executed by all parties,
including authorized representatives of the six south Louisiana
parishes originally plaintiffs in the suit and certain other
non-plaintiff Louisiana parishes and the state of Louisiana. The
agreement in principle does not include any admission of liability
by FCX or its affiliates. FCX recorded a charge in 2019 for the
initial payment of $15 million, which will be paid upon execution
of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement has been
executed by the FCX affiliates, the state of Louisiana and 8 of the
12 Louisiana parishes. FCX is continuing its efforts to finalize
the settlement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EkfjeU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The cases allege various injuries, including
those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer,
mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In
some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also
named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of
its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during
the nine months ended September 30, 2021 and 2020, were immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
hhttps://bit.ly/3ofUCLL

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $125MM Litigation Reserve
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc., has recorded a total litigation reserve of
$125.0 million and $131.4 million as of September 30, 2021 and
December 31, 2020, respectively, with regards to potential
liability arising from its asbestos-related litigation, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity. Asbestos related defense costs
are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded
separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected
future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of
these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operation or liquidity.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of
its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $132.1 million as of both September 30, 2021 and
December 31, 2020, which was included in "Other assets" in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts recorded by the
Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries
are based on currently available information and assumptions that
the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of
relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries
could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary
significantly from the assumptions.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/31ru9lq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corporation Defends Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other
parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that
the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other
primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for
these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's
tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have
accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or
advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because
settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed
to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will
have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the
non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However,
unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible
amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be
required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its
litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the
policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter)
have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus
do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits.
The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations.
As of September 30, 2021, we recorded $129 and $711 within other
accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities, respectively,
within our condensed consolidated balance sheet for estimated
future claims. An insurance receivable of $129 and $711 was
recorded within other current assets and other assets, net,
respectively, within our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2021 for estimated insurance recoveries.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ltyzPB

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Transfers Asbestos-Related Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc., on June 30, 2021, has entered into a Membership Interest
Purchase Agreement (the Purchase Agreement) with Sapphire TopCo,
Inc. (Buyer), a wholly owned subsidiary of Delticus HoldCo, L.P.,
which is a portfolio company of the private equity firm Warburg
Pincus LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the Purchase Agreement, the Company transferred 100% of the
equity interests of InTelCo to the Buyer, effective as of July 1,
2021, along with a cash contribution from the Company of $398 to
InTelCo. As InTelCo was the obligor for the Company's
asbestos-related liabilities and policyholder of the related
insurance assets through its subsidiaries ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, the rights and obligations related to these items transferred
upon the sale. In addition, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the
Buyer and InTelCo have indemnified the Company and its affiliates
for legacy asbestos-related liabilities and other product
liabilities, and the Company has indemnified InTelCo and its
affiliates for all other historical liabilities of InTelCo. This
indemnification is not subject to any cap or time limitation. In
connection with the sale, the Company and its Board of Directors
received a solvency opinion from an independent advisory firm that
InTelCo was solvent and adequately capitalized after giving effect
to the transaction.

Prior to the divestiture, former subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT
LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other
companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury
due to purported asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege
that certain products sold by these entities or their subsidiaries
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g.,
a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party
parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the
gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. ITT LLC and Goulds
Pumps LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of InTelCo Management LLC
(InTelCo), a former subsidiary of ITT.

Following the completion of the transfer, the Company no longer has
any obligation with respect to pending and future asbestos claims
relating to these matters. As such, InTelCo has been deconsolidated
from our 2021 financial results, as we no longer maintain control
of the entity. Therefore, all associated assets and liabilities are
no longer reported on the consolidated balance sheet. The
transaction resulted in a pre-tax gain of $88.8. Additionally, the
Company recorded tax expense as a result of the reversal of
previously recorded deferred tax assets of $116.9, resulting in an
after-tax loss of $28.1 recorded in the second quarter of 2021.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EbBGTB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Intl. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner
of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the
plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by
the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured
with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur
any material liability with respect to these claims.

For claims originated in 2020, the Company changed its insurance
coverage for worker's compensation and no longer has a deductible
obligation. The Company is fully insured for any amount on any
individual claim that exceeds the deductible and for any additional
amounts of all claims once the aggregate is reached. The Company
currently has several workers' compensation claims related to
injuries that occurred after December 31, 2011 and therefore are
subject to a deductible. The Company does not believe that the
contingencies associated with these workers' compensation claims in
aggregate will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

On May 5, 2011, the Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of September 30, 2021, the
Company has a remaining obligation under the agreements to pay the
plaintiffs an aggregate of $950 without interest in 10 annual
installments of $95 on or before May 22 of each year. The Company
has recorded a liability for the net present value of the
liability. The difference between the net present value and the
total payment will be charged to interest expense over the payment
period.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pmJw6G


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Has $10.2MM Product Liability Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., has reported product liability
reserves, including asbestos related claims of $10.2 million and
$9.2 million as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These reserves were estimated using a
combination of actual case reserves and actuarial methods. Based on
the Company's experience in defending product liability claims,
management believes the current reserves are adequate for estimated
case resolutions on aggregate self-insured claims and insured
claims. Any recoveries from insurance carriers are dependent upon
the legal sufficiency of claims and solvency of insurance
carriers.

"It is reasonably possible that the estimates for warranty costs,
product liability, asbestos-related claims and other various legal
matters may change based upon new information that may arise or
matters that are beyond the scope of the Company's historical
experience. Presently, there are no reliable methods to estimate
the amount of any such potential changes. The ultimate resolution
of these matters, individually and in the aggregate, is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3d7fI8s


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Technologies Defends 223 Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of
industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump
and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In management's opinion, the complaints
typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that
Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to
the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's
insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are
vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed
after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to
Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where evidence has been
produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has
been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2021
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $4.1 million, of
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, $4.0 million has been paid by the Company's insurers. The
average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately $36,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 223 cases pending
against the Company as of September 30, 2021 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 200 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2020. During the nine months ended September 30, 2021, 86 new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed
from 42 cases and settled 21 cases. Most of the pending cases have
not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a
number of cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial.
The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for
the cases currently pending against the Company and for the
foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume,
nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no
control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against
it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their
position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that
none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3rrSFxz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife's Subsidiary Receives 2,156 New Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary MLIC, for the nine months
ended September 30, 2021 and 2020, has received approximately 2,156
and 1,768 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome
of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can
be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3rpNZbz



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 2,156 New PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2021 and 2020, has received approximately 2,156 and
1,768 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing
or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period
from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned
of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3I75l2V


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc.'s subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Minerals Technologies states, "The Company is party to a number of
lawsuits arising in the normal course of our business. Most of
these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their
merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or
the magnitude of such liability, if any.  We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require identifying the
amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for
the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be
insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against our subsidiaries AMCOL International
Corporation or American Colloid Company, which we acquired in 2014,
are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for liabilities related to
sales prior to the initial public offering. The Company has settled
only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal amount, and no asbestos
lawsuits to date (not including any that may have been settled by
AMCOL or American Colloid prior to completion of the acquisition).
At this time, management anticipates that the amount of the
Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims,
will not have a material effect on its financial position or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ddh6qm



ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 568 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of September 30, 2021, has been named a
defendant in approximately 568 lawsuits involving approximately
1,133 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3d9xgkn




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Re-evaluates A&E Claim Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation reports that unfavorable
asbestos and environmental ("A&E") claim developments, although not
material in any of the periods presented, are typically
attributable to periodic re-evaluations of A&E claim reserves as
well as subsequent reclassifications of other coverages' reserves,
most often workers' compensation, deemed assignable to A&E category
of losses, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Except for a small portion that emanates from
ongoing primary insurance operations, a large majority of the A&E
claim reserves posted by Old Republic stem mainly from its
participations in assumed reinsurance treaties and insurance pools
which were discontinued during the 1980's and have since been in
run-off status. With respect to the primary portion of gross A&E
reserves, Old Republic administers the related claims through its
claims personnel as well as outside attorneys, and posted reserves
reflect its best estimates of ultimate claim costs. Claims
administration for the assumed portion of the Company's A&E
exposures is handled by the claims departments of unrelated primary
or ceding reinsurance companies. While the Company performs
periodic reviews of certain claim files managed by third parties,
the overall A&E reserves it establishes respond to the paid claim
and case reserve activity reported to the Company as well as
available industry statistical data such as so-called survival
ratios. Such ratios represent the number of years' average paid
losses for the three or five most recent calendar years that are
encompassed by an insurer's A&E reserve level at any point in time.
According to this simplistic appraisal of an insurer's A&E loss
reserve level, Old Republic's average five year survival ratios
stood at 7.4 years (gross) and 7.8 years (net of reinsurance) as of
September 30, 2021 and 6.3 years (gross) and 7.1 years (net of
reinsurance) as of December 31, 2020. Fluctuations in this ratio
between years can be caused by the inconsistent pay out patterns
associated with these types of claims. Incurred net losses for A&E
claims have averaged .3% of general insurance group net incurred
losses for the five years ended December 31, 2020."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/31nKKXn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Defends Various PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. is a party, as plaintiff or
defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business for
monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries
(including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic
materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to
claims arising under charter parties, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "A substantial majority of such personal
injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against
the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not
material in amount). In the opinion of management, none of these
claims, individually or in the aggregate, are expected to be
material to the Company's financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ohbnWU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Intl. Still Faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc., from time to time, receives claims
brought against the Company relating to the exposure of former
employees to asbestos and/or coal dust, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These are generally covered by an insurance
settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers.
However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by
people who were not employees of our historic railroad operations
and who may claim direct or second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal
dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as
potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these
types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not
material.

"Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad
operations, coal mining, and manufacturing.  Also, certain of these
subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may
suffer from pollution.  Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries
have, from time to time, been named in and may in the future be
named in various actions brought under applicable environmental
laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may
encounter from time-to-time environmental conditions at properties
that we have acquired for development and which will need to be
addressed in the future as part of the development process.  These
environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and
adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such
projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under
applicable environmental laws is material in amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3DfzitU



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $7.4MM Accrued Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers, L.P., as of September 30, 2021, reported accrued
liabilities of $7.4 million for its Pro-rata share of environmental
remediation, including its Investments in real estate partnerships,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws
and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining
primarily to specific chemicals historically used by certain
current and former dry cleaning tenants and the existence of
asbestos in older shopping centers.  We believe that the few
tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations
do so in accordance with current laws and regulations.  We believe
that the few tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or
gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations.
Generally, we endeavor to require tenants to remove dry cleaning
plants from our shopping centers or convert them to more
environmentally friendly systems, in accordance with the terms of
our leases.  We have a blanket environmental insurance policy for
third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers
that currently have no known environmental contamination.  We have
also secured environmental insurance, where appropriate, on a
relatively small number of specific properties with known
contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk.  We
monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in
certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites.  We also have legal
obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of
doing so.

"We believe that the ultimate remediation of currently known
environmental matters will not have a material effect on our
financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.  We can
give no assurance that existing environmental studies on our
shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental
contamination; that our estimate of liabilities will not change as
more information becomes available; that any previous owner,
occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental
condition not known to us; that the current environmental condition
of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and
occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated
third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and
regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional
environmental liability to us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/32DZCkI

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Products Defends PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses. However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in the next 12 months."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pl9WWz



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Has Personal Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., including its subsidiaries, has been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Currently there are a few thousand claimants
in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show
that they worked with our products or products of divested
businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we
have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity
of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3pnj9gW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corporation Defends PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, like many other industrial companies, have been
named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across
the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We have never mined, milled, manufactured or
marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users
a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos,
but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most
of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants,
sometimes as many as several hundred."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ddLpNo

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Corp. Has $540.4MM Liabilities at Oct. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation has recorded total contingent liabilities related
to asbestos claims of $540.4 and $575.7 at October 2, 2021 and
December 31, 2020, respectively, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These claims relate to litigation matters
(e.g., class actions, derivative lawsuits and contracts,
intellectual property and competitive claims), environmental
matters, product liability matters (predominately associated with
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials), and other risk
management matters (e.g., general liability, automobile, and
workers' compensation claims). Additionally, we may become subject
to other claims of which we are currently unaware, which may be
significant, or the claims of which we are aware may result in our
incurring significantly greater loss than we anticipate. While we
(and our subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product,
general liability, environmental, and directors' and officers'
liability insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies
in connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures. Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures."

"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have
historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3D7XApt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Recorded 500 Cases in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. has reported a current docket of active and inactive
cases of approximately 500 cases in the United States and less than
50 in Europe, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

For many years, the Company has been and continues to be subject to
lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lqhvKy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi's Subsidiary Involved in Asbestos Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries is involved in certain
legal proceedings with a number of its former insurance carriers
regarding the nature and extent of the carriers' obligations to NL
under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and
asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The issue of whether insurance coverage for
defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for NL's
lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of
factors, and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will
be available.

"NL has agreements with certain of its former insurance carriers
pursuant to which the carriers reimburse it for a portion of its
future lead pigment litigation defense costs, and one such carrier
reimburses NL for a portion of its future asbestos litigation
defense costs. We are not able to determine how much NL will
ultimately recover from these carriers for defense costs incurred
by NL because of certain issues that arise regarding which defense
costs qualify for reimbursement. While NL continues to seek
additional insurance recoveries, we do not know if we will be
successful in obtaining reimbursement for either defense costs or
indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize insurance recoveries in income
only when receipt of the recovery is probable and we are able to
reasonably estimate the amount of the recovery."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ecul6l


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vector Group's Subsidiary Defends 16 PI Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary Liggett, was a defendant in 16
multi-defendant personal injury cases in Maryland alleging claims
arising from asbestos and tobacco exposure ("synergy cases"),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In July 2016, the Court of Appeals (Maryland's
highest court) ruled that joinder of tobacco and asbestos cases may
be possible in certain circumstances, but plaintiffs must
demonstrate at the trial court level how such cases may be joined
while providing appropriate safeguards to prevent embarrassment,
delay, expense or prejudice to defendants and "the extent to which,
if at all, the special procedures applicable to asbestos cases
should extend to tobacco companies." The Court of Appeals remanded
these issues to be determined at the trial court level. In June
2017, the trial court issued an order dismissing all synergy cases
against the tobacco defendants, including Liggett, without
prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek appellate review or file new cases
against the tobacco companies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xN7Ylq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Records $68.1MM Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------
Vontier Corporation has recorded gross liabilities associated with
known and future expected asbestos claims of $68.1 million and
$68.0 million as of October 1, 2021 and December 31, 2020,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Vontier Corp. states, "Known and future expected asbestos claims of
$15.8 million and $17.5 million are included in Accrued expenses
and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Condensed Balance
Sheets as of October 1, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively.
Known and future expected asbestos claims of $52.3 million and
$50.5 million are included in Other long-term liabilities on the
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of October 1, 2021 and
December 31, 2020, respectively.

"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos
related matters, the Company records insurance recoveries that are
deemed probable and estimable. In assessing the probability of
insurance recovery, we make judgments concerning insurance coverage
that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical
dealings, our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues
surrounding insurers, and litigation and court rulings potentially
impacting coverage. While the substantial majority of our insurance
carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are
insolvent, which has been considered in the analysis of probable
recoveries. Projecting future events is subject to various
uncertainties, including litigation and court rulings potentially
impacting coverage, that could cause insurance recoveries on
asbestos related liabilities to be higher or lower than those
projected and recorded. Given the inherent uncertainty in making
future projections, the Company reevaluates projections concerning
the Company's probable insurance recoveries considering any changes
to the projected liabilities, the Company's recovery experience or
other relevant factors that may impact future insurance
recoveries.

"We recorded the related projected insurance recoveries of $33.2
million and $36.0 million as of October 1, 2021 and December 31,
2020, respectively. Projected insurance recoveries in the
accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of October 1,
2021 include $8.0 million in Prepaid expenses and other current
assets and $25.2 million in Other assets. Projected insurance
recoveries in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance
Sheets as of December 31, 2020 include $10.8 million in Prepaid
expenses and other current assets and $25.2 million in Other
assets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3oaFmzA



                            *********

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 ***