/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211209.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 240

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Court Enters Briefing Order in Johnson Suit
ABBVIE INC: Bid to Deny Class Certification in Elkins Nixed as Moot
ALFI INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 31 Deadline
ALIERA COS: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Health Policies
ALLIANZ SERVICE: Smith "Insurance" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

AMAZON.COM INC: Secures Stay of Arbitration in Driver's Class Suit
AMAZON.COM: Parties Ask to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Seeks to Decertify Class in Advanced Rehab Suit
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Amir Class Suit
ANTHEM INC: Nurses File FLSA Class Action Lawsuit in Atlanta

ANZ BANKING: Sued Over "Unfair" Interest on Credit Cards
APPLE INC: Averts Antitrust Class Action Over App Store Control
APPLE INC: Faces Illegal Gambling Conspiracy Class-Action Lawsuit
AUBURN COMMUNITY: Class Status Deadlines Entered in Pizzoleo Suit
AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE: Faces Suit Over White Spot Disease Outbreak

B&G FOODS: Class Cert. Opposition Deadline Extended to Dec. 17
BANK OF NEW YORK: Self-Dealing Class Action Narrowed
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Fairness Hearing in AIS Reset to Jan. 4, 2022
BOW PLUMBING: Court Revises Scheduling Order in Braswell Suit
BRISTOL BAY: Abikar Must File Class Status Bid by Feb. 25, 2022

CANADA: Faces $40M Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Misconduct
CANADA: Proposed CWB Class Action Suit Takes Another Step
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Bid to Dismiss Tarry Suit Nixed w/o Prejudice
CAREPARTNERS: Settles Cyberattack Class Action for Up to $3.4MM
CENTERSTATE BANK: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in PRNF Suit

CENTERSTATE BANK: Ct. Modifies Scheduling Order in Grant Suit
CLARKE COUNTY, VA: To Participate in Opioid Claims Settlement
CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chan Suit Alleges
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles COVID Tuition Refund Suit For $12.5-M
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Issokson Class Status Bid Due March 7, 2022

CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Rain Class Status Bid Due March 7, 2022
CURRY COUNTY, OR: Detention Center Faces Suit Over Booking Fees
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 20 Deadline
DALLAS JONES: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Feb. 7, 2022
DESKTOP METAL: Bragar Eagel Probes for Possible Securities Suit

DESKTOP METAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Markovits Stock Investigates Data Breach Claims
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Time to File Class Cert-Related Bids Extended
EASTON DIAMOND: Court Stays Class Cert. Briefing in Wisdom Suit
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Suit Over Banana Boat Sunscreen Sprays

EURO PHARMA: Class Action Lawsuit Over Pain Reliever Settled
EVOLVE MORTGAGE: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Medina Class Suit
EXETER FINANCE: Preclusion of Third Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Kastern Seeks to Certify Class
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing

FOLGERS COFFEE: Sued for Misrepresenting Amount of Coffee Per Can
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Averts Class Action Over PPP Loans
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Seeks to Settle Female Inmates' Photos Suit
GAOTU TECHEDU: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Amrita Roopchand Files Suit in S.D. Florida

GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Julio Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Karina Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Paredes Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Reenie Roopchand Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Loses Bid for Class Certification

GENERAC POWER: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Partly OK'd
GENERAL MOTORS: Must File Bid to Junk Nalley Suit by Jan. 12, 2022
GOFUNDME INC: Judge Responds to ADA Class Action Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Troutman Pepper Attorneys Discuss UK Supreme Ct. Ruling
GREEN ROSE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Vega Class Suit

IDAHO: Supreme Ct. Challenges Decision in Kindergarten Fees Suit
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Quinn Emanuel to File Shareholder Class Action
JAGUAR LAND: Turbocharger Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

JENNMAR CORPORATION: Stacey, Allen Seek to Certify Class Action
JOHNSON UTILITIES: Settles Racketeering Class Action for $10MM
KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Thomas Suit
LAUREATE GROUP: Class Settlement in McDaniel Suit Gets Final Nod
LEE'S SUMMIT: Seeks to Remove Female Tech Specialists from Class

LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 24
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Probes Firm for Possible Lawsuit
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 15 Deadline
LUCKIN COFFEE: July 22, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MALAYSIA: Parties in Water Cuts Lawsuit Seek Documents From Govt.

MARIANI PACKAGING: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Conference Order
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC: Police Dept. Sued for Exposing Vital Info
META PLATFORMS: Users Await Settlement Checks in BIPA Class Action
MLD MORTGAGE: Dyes Seek Time Extension of Class Cert. Related Bids
MONDELEZ INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Fudge Cookie Advertising

NATHAN CAIN: Court Enters Case Management Order in Amos Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Extension of Class Cert. Reply Brief Sought
NATROL LLC: Scarpo Sues over Mislabeled Memory Tablet Products
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Court Enters General Pretrial Management Order
NIFTY GATEWAY: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Cruz

NISSAN NORTH: Parties in Kemp Suit Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Ct. Enters Intial Pretrial Order in Johansen
OLUBUNMI AKINTOYE: Court Enters General Pretrial Management Order
OWLET INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 18 Deadline
PELICIA HALL: Court Enters Class Certification Scheduling Order

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: May Face Class Action Over Holiday, Pension Pay
QUALITY ASSET: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Escalera Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vargas Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
RCI HOSPITALITY: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Collective Action

RE 2U: Pirani, OCERS Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
REALPAGE INC: Deadline for Expert Reports Extended to Dec. 22
REDWIRE CORP: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Holding Info Sessions on PFOA Settlement
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Court Certifies Work Specialist Class in Gibbs

SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Huang Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Local Groups May File Suit Over Bail Reform
SILVERBACK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 4 Deadline
SONY GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Discrimination
STREET TALK MIAMI: Faces Suit Over Improper Business Practices

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Illegan Scan of Drivers' Faces
TD AMERITRADE: Has Until Jan. 14, 2022 to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
TDL GROUP: Norton Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
TELEBRANDS CORP: Seeks to Modify Rash Class Cert Briefing Schedule
TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation

TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Briefing Schedule for Class Cert. Bid Continued
UNION BANK: Friedly Wins Bid for Conditional Class Certification
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert. Filing Continued to Feb. 25, 2022
UNITED STATES: Court Junks Davis Suit w/o Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Fails to Administer CARES Act, Ireland Suit Alleges

UNITED STATES: Rabelo-Rodriguez Loses Class Certification Bid
UNITED STATES: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 20
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: To Pay $1.85-M to Settle Retirement Plan Suit
VAIL RESORTS: Plaintiffs Continue Efforts to Block Class Settlement
VCA INC: Smith Sues over Mismanagement of Retirement Funds

VIACOMCBS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 28 Deadline
VIACOMCBS INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 2, 2022
VIVINT SOLAR: Dekker Residential PPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
W.B. HUNT: Court Enters General Pretrial Management Order in Cruz
WENDY'S CO: Faces BIPA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois

WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Bid to Strike Expert Report Nixed as Moot
WISE MEDICAL: Seeks Reply Extension to Conditional Cert Bid
ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
ZOOM VIDEO: March 2022 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
ZOOM VIDEO: Might Pay $25 as Part of Privacy Class Settlement

[*] Australia's Class Action Reform Bill Faces Delay

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Court Enters Briefing Order in Johnson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARROD JOHNSON,
individually, and on Behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008-AT (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order that the number
and page limitations for briefs regarding Class Certification are
as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff will be permitted to file a Class
      Certification opening brief and a reply brief, totaling no
      more than 65 pages combined. Plaintiff may allocate those
      65 pages among his opening brief and reply brief however
      he so chooses.

   2. The Defendants in this matter will be permitted to jointly
      file a single, consolidated opposition brief totaling no
      more than 65 pages.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care,
and consumer goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31HSJ1y at no extra charge.[CC]

ABBVIE INC: Bid to Deny Class Certification in Elkins Nixed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER ELKINS and LORI-ANN
RIDLEY, v. ABBVIE, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-01562-PGB-LRH (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend is denied as moot.

   2. The  Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification is
      denied as moot.

The Court ultimately declines to peer into the merits of class
certification without a Plaintiff-initiated motion to certify.
Moreover, given the unique due process concerns surrounding the
rights of potential absent class members, the Court further
declines to find that missing the deadline to file a motion to
certify the class entitles Defendant to a ruling on the merits of
the class certification issue.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a similar action,
Cates v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., which was assigned to the Court.
No. 6:19-cv-1670 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2019). According to a filing
by Plaintiffs' counsel, the Cates case is related to this action
due to the "[s]ame factual and legal allegations involving the
CoolSculpting medical device against the manufacturer, Zeltiq
Aesthetics, Inc.," which is now owned by Defendant.

The Coolsculpting device is a biomedical machine that purports to
freeze fat cells away.

One year later, Plaintiffs -- along with formerly-joined litigants
Sheryl Dobbins, Javier Valencia, Paula Brooks, Phornphan Chubchai,
and Emily Michelle McGoldrick—initiated this action, initially
hoping to be certified as class
representatives. (Id.). They alleged several tort injuries
resulting from Defendant's Coolsculpting device.

On March 11, 2021, the Court dismissed the claims brought by
Valencia, Brooks, Chubchai, and Mcgoldrick for lack of personal
jurisdiction and transferred Dobbins' claims to the Southern
District of Florida. Formerly joined plaintiffs Chubchai, Valencia,
and Brooks refiled a similar class complaint in the Northern
District of California on May 28, 2021.

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss
without prejudice. The Court denied that Motion, finding that, on
balance, such a dismissal would prejudice Defendant. The Court's
Case Management and Scheduling Order set a deadline of October 21,
2021, for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs did not so file. Neither party has requested an
extension of the deadline, and Plaintiffs have not attempted to
present good cause for their failure
to do so. Indeed, Plaintiffs state they no longer wish to pursue
the class claims and "they do not intend to re-file another
putative class action in another district."

Instead, Plaintiffs bring the Motion to Amend, asking for the Court
to allow them to drop their class claims.

Throughout, the Plaintiffs avoid the possibility that they might be
beneficiaries of the related California putative class action if
the stay there is lifted.

AbbVie is an American publicly traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013. It originated as a spin-off of Abbott
Laboratories.

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

ALFI INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alfi, Inc. ("Alfi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALF; ALFIW)
and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and docketed under 21-cv-24232, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Alfi common stock or warrants
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below)
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about May 4, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or
(b) Alfi securities between May 4, 2021 and November 15, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Alfi common stock or
warrants pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued
in connection with the Company's IPO, and/or Alfi securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 31, 2022 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Alfi provides interactive artificial intelligence and machine
learning software solutions.

On January 8, 2021, Alfi filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective by the SEC on May 3, 2021 (the "Registration
Statement").

On May 5, 2021, Alfi filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC
in connection with the IPO, which formed part of the Registration
Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration
Statement, the "Offering Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Alfi conducted the IPO, selling
approximately 3.7 million shares of common stock, and approximately
3.7 million warrants, to the public at the Offering price of $4.15
per both share and warrant for approximate proceeds to the Company
of $14 million after applicable underwriting discounts and
commissions, and before expenses.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. The
complaint also alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Alfi maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result,
the Company and its employees could and did engage in corporate
transactions and other matters without sufficient and appropriate
consultation with or approval by the Company's Board of Directors
(the "Board"); (iii) all the foregoing increased the risk of
internal and regulatory investigations into the Company and its
employees; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation,
financial condition, and ability to timely file periodic reports
with the SEC; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 28, 2021, Alfi disclosed in an SEC filing that, on
October 22, 2021, the Board had placed Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") Paul Antonio Pereira ("P. Pereira"), Chief Technology
Officer Charles Raglan Pereira ("C. Pereira"), and Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") Dennis McIntosh ("McIntosh") "on paid
administrative leave and authorized an independent internal
investigation regarding certain corporate transactions and other
matters." That filing further disclosed, among other changes, that
on October 22, 2021, the Board had appointed a new interim CEO and
Chairman of the Board, and that "[o]n October 28, 2021, Mr. C.
Pereira's employment with the Company was terminated."

On this news, Alfi's stock price fell $1.24 per share, or 21.91%,
to close at $4.42 per share on October 29, 2021.

On November 1, 2021, Alfi disclosed in another SEC filing, among
other matters, that the Company's Chair of the Audit Committee had
resigned from the Board, and details concerning the corporate
transactions and matters that had precipitated the internal
investigation into P. Pereira, C. Pereira, and McIntosh. According
to that filing, the internal investigation resulted from "the
Company's purchase of a condominium for a purchase price of
approximately $1.1 million" and "the Company's commitment to
sponsor a sports tournament in the amount of $640,000," both of
which "were undertaken by the Company's management without
sufficient and appropriate consultation with or approval by the
Board."

Then, on November 15, 2021, Alfi disclosed that it "received a
letter from the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its
affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an
ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC" and
"that such documents and data should be reasonably preserved and
retained until further notice." According to Alfi, "[t]he materials
to be preserved and retained include documents and data created on
or after April 1, 2018 that[,]" among other things, "were created,
modified or accessed by certain named former and current officers
and directors of the Company or any other officer or director of
the Company" or "relate or refer to the condominium or the sports
tournament sponsorship identified in the Company's Current Report
on Form 8-K filed on November 1, 2021, or financial reporting and
disclosure controls, policies or procedures."

Also on November 15, 2021, Alfi announced "that Louis A. Almerini,
CPA, has been appointed by the [Board] to serve as interim [CFO],
effective November 8, 2021."

Finally, on November 16, 2021, Alfi filed a notice of its inability
to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for
the quarter ended September 30, 2021 (the "3Q21 10-Q"). That filing
cited, inter alia, "recent changes in the Company's [CEO] and [CFO]
and in the Chair of the Audit Committee" of the Board, as well as
needing "a new independent registered public accounting firm," as
reasons for the Company's inability to timely file the 3Q21 10-Q.

Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $0.24
per share, or 5.21%, to close at $4.37 per share on November 16,
2021.

As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Alfi common
stock and warrants were trading below the $4.15 per share Offering
price, damaging investors.

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

ALIERA COS: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Health Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit, Senior Judge Joseph Hood of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington
has certified a statewide class and entered judgments totaling
$4,696,124 against The Aliera Companies, Inc., the creator and
marketer of purported "health care sharing ministry" products.,
according to attorneys involved in the case.

Aliera was founded by Timothy Moses and his wife and son in
December 2015, the same year Moses finished serving a six-year
federal prison sentence for securities fraud and perjury.

HCSMs are organizations through which members share medical
expenses among themselves. But HCSM plans must meet strict
requirements in order to avoid being regulated as insurance
products. For example, under federal law, an HCSM must have been in
existence with members continually sharing health care costs since
1999, and under Kentucky law, all members of an HCSM must be
members of the same denomination or religion. Since its inception,
Aliera failed to comply with these requirements, according to
lawyers Jay Varellas and Jay Prather, who represented some of the
people involved in the case.

"Since we first started working with victims of this fraud two
years ago, we have had two objectives: to end the fraud and to
obtain compensation for its victims. With Trinity's bankruptcy, the
fraud is now over and we will turn our attention to recovering
funds to compensate those who were victimized by Aliera, Trinity
and OneShare Health," Varellas said.

Jay Prather of Garmer & Prather states: "Aliera and its partners
have taken advantage of hundreds of Kentuckians, many of whom
trusted the company because it professed Christian beliefs."
"Aliera's customers sought affordable healthcare coverage to
protect their families in times of need. But when those times of
need came, Aliera was more likely to shut the door in the face of
its own customers. This ruling by Judge Hood is the first step in
helping those families recover what they have lost," added
Prather.

Among other things, the federal judgements establish that the
health insurance policies Aliera sold to customers as cheaper
alternatives to traditional health insurance coverage did not
comply with important requirements of Kentucky and federal
insurance law, including requirements designed to protect consumers
and ensure adequate funds were available to cover health care
expenses.

In addition, the court's judgment found each Kentucky customer who
purchased products from Aliera during the period it partnered with
Trinity HealthShare, Inc., which subsequently began doing business
as Sharity Ministries, Inc., is entitled to either (1) payment of
the claims they submitted that have not yet been paid, or (2) a
refund of the policy premiums they paid, the attorneys said.

In July, Trinity filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware, and
its chief restructuring officer in that matter has calculated there
were $3,112,951 worth of medical bills submitted by Kentucky
policyholders that have not been paid and Kentucky policyholders
have paid a total of $2,189,003 in premiums. Assuming each
policyholder would elect to receive the higher of their unpaid
claims or a refund of their premiums paid, the court arrived at the
total amount of $4,696,124, the attorneys said.

The litigation on behalf of customers who allege they were
defrauded by Aliera, Trinity and Aliera's former business partner
Unity Healthshare, LLC, now doing business as OneShare Health, LLC,
will continue. This judgment only encompasses the second phase of
Aliera's fraud, when it sold sham HCSM policies through Trinity,
the attorneys said.

During the first phase of its fraud, Aliera sold sham HCSM policies
through Unity/OneShare. The case in federal court in Lexington will
continue until all claims against Aliera, Trinity and
Unity/OneShare are fully resolved.

The case is styled Albina and Willard v. The Aliera Companies,
Inc., Trinity HealthShare Inc., and OneShare Health, LLC d/b/a
Unity HealthShare, LLC, No. 20-496 (E.D. Ky.). [GN]

ALLIANZ SERVICE: Smith "Insurance" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH SMITH, an
individual, on behalf of the general public, v. ALLIANZ SERVICE
COMPANY, d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE; JEFFERSON INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08557-AB-AFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), Local Rule 23-3, and any other applicable
rule of civil procedure or law, of the following proposed class, or
such other classes as this Court determines are just and
appropriate, for purposes of pursuing her claims in her Class
Action Complaint relating to Allianz's payment of commissions in
connection with the sale of Event Protection Insurance:

With respect to Plaintiff Sarah Smith's claim for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (Count 2), the proposed Class
is defined as:

   "All persons in the State of California who during the Class
   Period purchased Event Protection Insurance, offered and sold
   by any Defendant, on Ticketmaster or Live Nation's websites."

The Class Period dates back four years from the date this action
was commenced (August 18, 2020) and continues through the present
and the date of judgment.

Excluded from the Class are: (a) any officers, directors or
employees of Allianz's, Ticketmaster and/or Live Nation; (b) any
judge assigned to hear this case (or spouse or immediate family
member of any assigned judge); (c) the undersigned counsel for
Plaintiff and the putative class and all employees of their law
firm; (d) Defendants' counsel and all employees of their law firm;
(e) any employee of the Court; and (f) any juror selected to hear
this case.

The Plaintiff moves for the following person to be named class
representative under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g)(1): Sarah Smith.
Plaintiff also moves for the following counsel to be appointed
class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1): Caleb Marker and Hart
Robinovitch of Zimmerman Reed LLP. To the extent the Court
disagrees with the definition or the proposed Class or Class Period
or finds Plaintiff to be inadequate on any issues.

The Plaintiff moves the Court to redefine or modify the definition
as appropriate, or to add additional class representatives as may
be necessary, as such determinations are within the Court's
discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)(B) and (c)(5). Further, the
Court has the authority to certify certain issues, but not others.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). The Plaintiff requests that the Court
certify all issues it deems appropriate for class action
treatment.

Allianz is an integrated financial services provider worldwide.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ownqzq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          Alyssa Leary, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
                  alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Secures Stay of Arbitration in Driver's Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles, California judge paused the Amazon Flex Drivers'
suit against the company until its appeal concludes. The court
opined that the appeal presents an arbitrability question of first
impression for the Ninth Circuit and that Amazon could suffer
irreparable harm absent a stay.

In September, Judge William Q. Hayes issued a decision denying the
company's motion to compel arbitration in the wiretapping suit.
Specifically, the court concluded that Amazon's 2016 rather than
2019 terms of service (TOS) applied. It further held that the
plaintiff's claims fell outside those contemplated by the TOS
because "the alleged wrongs 'do not arise out of or relate to the
2016 TOS, Plaintiff's participation in the Flex program, or
Plaintiff's performance of services.'"

Amazon filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit and
subsequently asked the court to pause proceedings until the higher
court could address its case. The plaintiff opposed.

In this week's ruling, Judge Hayes wrote that "[t]here are few
cases applying California mutual assent law to the modification of
terms in an internet agreement, and there are even fewer factually
similar cases applying California law to determine whether certain
tort claims fall within the scope of an employee arbitration
agreement." As such, the court adjudged the arbitration issue novel
and the e-commerce company's appeal a serious merits question.

Judge Hayes also opined that Amazon could be irreparably harmed
absent a stay considering the difference in the cost outlay between
litigating a class action and proceeding in arbitration. "In
addition, arbitration offers the benefits of 'speed and economy'
which may be 'lost forever' if Amazon is required to engage in
formal discovery prior to the resolution of its appeal," the ruling
said. Finally, the court said that a stay was in the public
interest because it would conserve judicial resources.

The Flex Driver is represented by Bursor & Fisher P.A. and Amazon
by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. [GN]

AMAZON.COM: Parties Ask to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, DOLORES
SHEEHAN, PAUL SHEEHAN, RICKY BABANI, MICHAEL BATES, DENNIS CROTEAU,
and JEANNETTE CROTEAU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the parties
stipulate and request that the Court continue the deadlines for
class certification briefings until after the Court rules on
Defendants' forthcoming Motion to Dismiss.

On November 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint-Class Action. Under Local Rule 23(i)(3),
there is a deadline to file a motion for class certification within
180 days of filing a complaint. In light of the recently filed
First Amended Consolidated Complaint-Class Action, and the Court's
November 8, 2021 order, including the schedule for Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, counsel for the parties agree that good cause
exists to continue the date upon which the Plaintiffs shall file
their motion for class certification pursuant to Local Civil Rule
23(i)(3).

Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company which
focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and
artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33bhkMT at no extra charge.[CC]

The Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class, are:

          Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
          BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
          1000 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-2000
          Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
          E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com

The Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class, are:

          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          David Saldamando, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
                  cvillegas@labaton.com
                  dsaldamando@labaton.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
          Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  msawyer@rgrdlaw.com
                  acohen@rgrdlaw.com

The Interim Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class, are:

          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
          E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian D. Buckley, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 389-4510
          Facsimile: (206) 389-4511
          E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com

               - and -

          Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
          Jedediah Wakefield, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com
                  jwakefield@fenwick.com

AMEDISYS HOLDING: Seeks to Decertify Class in Advanced Rehab Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANCED REHAB AND
MEDICAL, P.C., a Tennessee corporation, individually and as the
representative of similarly situated persons, v. AMEDISYS HOLDING,
LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, Case No.
1:17-cv-01149-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order decertifying the class this Court certified in its
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
subsequently modified in its Order Granting Defendant's Motion to
Modify Class Definition.

Amedisys submits that the class should be decertified in light of
the Declaratory Ruling by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) excluding "online fax services" from coverage under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, see Amerifactors Financial
Group, LLC Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling, Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991

"The class should be decertified because there is no
administratively feasible way to determine which class members
received alleged unsolicited fax using a telephone facsimile
machine as opposed to an online fax service, as described in the
Amerifactors Ruling. Therefore, this Court would have to engage in
myriad individualized inquiries to determine the manner in
which each individual class member received the alleged unsolicited
faxes at issue in this case," the Defendant adds.

Advanced Rehab is a physical medicine and rehabilitation practice
in Dresden, Tennessee.

Amedisys operates as a holding company. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, provides home health, palliative, and hospice care
services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin C. Aaron, Esq.
          Charles F. Barrett, Esq
          NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: 615-244-1713
          Facsimile: 615-726-0573
          E-mail: baaron@nealharwell.com
                  cbarrett@nealharwell.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: Bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin C. Baltz, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          150 Third Avenue, South, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 651-6700
          Facsimile: (615) 651-6701
          E-mail: Kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com

               - and -

          Gregory R. Hanthorn, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1221 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (404) 521-3939
          Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
          E-mail: ghanthorn@jonesday.com

AMGUARD INSURANCE: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Amir Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MUSAID AMIR, ZEAD
RAMMOUNI, and ALI YAHYA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AmGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-12457-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Sean F. Cox entered a scheduling order as follows:

   -- Discovery due is on May 31, 2022.

   -- Status Conference is set for June 7, 2022 at 11:30 AM.

   -- Dispositive and Class Certification Motions is on June 30,
      2022.

   -- Final Pretrial Conference is set for Nov. 15, 2022 at
      02:00 PM.

Amguard is part of the Insurance Carriers Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ory6zo at no extra charge.[CC]

ANTHEM INC: Nurses File FLSA Class Action Lawsuit in Atlanta
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for ThinkAdvisor, reports that a proposed class
action filed in federal court in Atlanta accuses the Anthem -- the
parent of Blue Cross Blue Shield health care plans in Georgia -- of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring Georgia nurses
to work more than 40 hours a week with no paid overtime.

The nurses were responsible for reviewing health insurance claims
to see whether the care provided was medically necessary.

According to the complaint, the proposed class includes anyone who
has worked for Anthem in Georgia as a medical or utilization
management nurse, utilization review nurse, nurse reviewer or
associate, or in "other similar positions who were paid a salary
and treated as exempt from overtime laws and whose primary job was
to perform medical necessity reviews" during the past three years.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Deon Baker, who worked as a
medical management nurse from December 2015 to July 2020.

Baker "and the other similarly situated individuals' primary job
duty is non-exempt work consisting of reviewing medical
authorization requests submitted by healthcare providers against
pre-determined guidelines and criteria for insurance coverage and
payment purposes," the nurses said in the complaint.

Banker and other members of the proposed class were paid a salary
with no overtime pay, despite working as many as 60 hours a week at
times, according to the complaint.

Anthem knew about the unpaid overtime "because Plaintiff and others
complained about their long hours and the workload," the nurses
said. "Specifically, when Plaintiff told her supervisor that she
was working long hours, including working nights and weekends, her
supervisor responded that she could not change the workload because
the company would not be hiring additional workers."

Despite being legally required to do so, Anthem "did not make, keep
or preserve adequate or accurate records of the hours worked by
Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals," the nurses
said. [GN]

ANZ BANKING: Sued Over "Unfair" Interest on Credit Cards
--------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Australia and New Zealand Banking Group has
been sued by a law firm for charging interest on some purchases by
credit card holders which were repaid on time for nearly a decade,
the parties said on Nov. 24.

The law firm, Phi Finney McDonald, filed a class-action suit in the
federal court against Australia's No. 4 lender for charging
interest between July 2010 and January 2019 on purchases that
should have been interest-free.

"The terms of ANZ's contract made it impossible for a typical
consumer to understand that they would be charged retrospective
interest, even on purchases which they repaid on time," the law
firm said in a statement.

Australia outlawed charging retrospective interest in January
2019.

The lawsuit alleged "unfair contract terms and unconscionable
conduct" by the bank, but did not specify the damages it was
seeking against ANZ in the federal court.

ANZ said in a statement it would review the claim that its contract
contravened the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Act.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal actions faced by
Australia's top banks, ranging from breach of consumer protection
credit laws to charging financial advice fees to dead customers.
read more

Scrutiny of Australian lenders and financial institutions has
ramped up significantly since a Royal Commission inquiry in 2018
found widespread shortcomings in the sector, forcing companies and
regulators to take swift action. [GN]

APPLE INC: Averts Antitrust Class Action Over App Store Control
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
finding fatal flaws in a lawsuit claiming Apple monopolizes iOS app
distribution, a federal judge on Nov. 30 threw out a class action
that sought to make the iPhone maker open up its App Store and stop
charging annual fees to developers.

Lead plaintiff Coronavirus Reporter, an app designed to collect
"biostatistical and epidemiological data," joined with other app
developers to sue the technology giant claiming antitrust
violations this past July.

The developers claimed Apple used its monopoly power to exclude
Coronavirus Reporter from the App Store to benefit its own
"institutional partners." Apple rejected the software under a
policy that bans Covid-related apps unless they are submitted by a
recognized health entity such as a government agency or medical
institution. The developers said Apple used similar policies to
exclude or suppress the rankings of other apps for anticompetitive
reasons.

Coronavirus Reporter and its co-plaintiffs sought a preliminary
injunction that would temporarily block Apple from keeping certain
apps out of its App Store and charging developers a $99 yearly App
Store submission fee.

In a 34-page ruling issued on Nov. 30, U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen denied the motion for an injunction as moot after dismissing
the lawsuit. Chen found the developers failed to adequately
identify a market over which Apple exerts monopolistic control.

The developers described multiple markets in their complaint,
including the "smartphone market," "iOS institutional app market,"
and the "national smartphone app distribution market."

In subsequent briefs, the developers sought to clarify that Apple
dominates two primary markets, defined as the "U.S. smartphone
market" and "U.S. iOS smartphone market." They also identified five
downstream markets, including markets for wholesale app
competition, iPhone apps, permission tokens to launch iOS apps,
onboarding software and access to iOS users.

Chen concluded those market definitions were unclear and "failed to
pass muster."

"Missing from plaintiffs' market definitions is the identification
of any well-pleaded allegations that support the boundaries they
seek to define," Chen wrote.

Most of the markets identified are "single-brand markets" in which
Apple is "inherently and necessarily" the only participant, Chen
wrote. The judge said the developers offered no facts that would
justify an "extremely rare" finding that a single-brand market
gives rise to an antitrust claim.

"Plaintiffs fail to define that area of effective competition in
which they compete," Chen wrote. "They are not smartphone
manufacturers. Nor do they provide any other basis for the court to
find that the market of U.S. Smartphones is the 'area of effective
competition' for plaintiffs' claims."

Chen compared the App Store to a newspaper that publishes
advertisements. If a newspaper accepts some ads and refuses to
print others, the rejected advertiser has not suffered an antitrust
injury, the judge wrote. A true antitrust injury would look more
like a newspaper barring advertisers to stop them from promoting a
competing news service, he explained.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is Dr. Jeffery Isaacs, who
created the apps "Caller-ID" and "WebCaller." He claimed Apple
lowered the ranking for his videoconferencing app WebCaller to
suppress competition against its own FaceTime app, resulting in
single-digit downloads for WebCaller, launched in 2019.

During a Nov. 4 hearing on the motion for an injunction, Isaacs,
who represents himself, argued Apple is unlawfully controlling
access to "180 million physical devices" that use iOS in the United
States.

But Chen found Isaacs failed to show how App Store search rankings
harm competition across the market since the "suppression" of one
app necessarily raises the visibility of another.

On the claim that Apple rejected the Coronavirus Reporter app to
benefit "large institutions and strategic partners" working to roll
out their own Covid-related apps, Chen found the lawsuit lacked
specific facts to back up that assertion.

"If Apple were to reject or suppress plaintiffs' apps to diminish
competition for Apple's own apps or apps of other developers with
whom Apple is conspiring, that might be deemed to inflict antitrust
injury," Chen wrote, adding the plaintiffs "fail to plausibly
allege such conduct with any specificity."

He said amending the complaint would be futile and ordered the case
closed with judgment in favor of Apple.

In brief phone interviews, Isaacs and Coronavirus Reporter lawyer
Keith Matthews said they were "baffled" by the ruling and intend to
appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

"This is to us a clear case of the courts not enforcing the Sherman
Act," Isaacs said. "We view it as a very questionable decision that
should not hold up on appeal."

Matthews said the court should have at least allowed the case to
move to the discovery phase so developers could dig up more
evidence on Apple's motives for rejecting his client's app and
others.

"That information lies with Apple," Matthews said.

The New Hampshire-based attorney added that more than 30 countries
have now introduced legislation seeking to rein in Apple's
allegedly anticompetitive rules for app developers.

"Most countries agree with us," Matthews said. "The noose is
tightening on Apple's hold."

Apple and its attorney Mark Perry of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher did not
immediately return emails requesting comment on Nov. 30.

The ruling comes nearly three months after another federal judge in
Oakland, California, ordered Apple to change its policies that
prohibited developers from telling users how to sidestep the App
Store and pay them directly for subscriptions and other services.

It also follows a settlement in another antitrust case in which
Apple agreed to pay small developers $100 million and offer lower
commission rates of 15% on App Store purchases for developers who
make less than $1 million in annual revenue. [GN]

APPLE INC: Faces Illegal Gambling Conspiracy Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew O'Malley at vegasslotsonline.com reports that Google,
Facebook, and Apple are all defendants in a class-action lawsuit
that alleges that they were part of an "illegal gambling
conspiracy" involving social casino games. The complaint was filed
in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Three separate complaints have been amalgamated into a single
lawsuit in which there are 25 plaintiffs. There is a hierarchy of
complaints, with Facebook appearing to be the initial area of
focus. The original filing of the case against Facebook came in
April.

main focus of the lawsuit relates to free-to-play casino games

The main focus of the lawsuit relates to free-to-play casino games,
which are allegedly not legal in California. The implication is
that the three tech giants make up a "social casino enterprise" and
entered "dangerous partnerships" with slots developers with the aim
to direct Californians to play slot games on social casino apps.

The complaint outlines various examples of plaintiffs suffering
financial losses as a result of these types of gambling offerings.
The suit claims that the three companies have affected interstate
commerce and also caused damage to interstate commercial activity.
The goal of this legal action is to forbid the platforms from
offering social casino games, as well as to make them return the
profits they have made from these operations. It is also is seeking
class-action relief.

Very lucrative offerings

The lawsuit outlined how the providers of social casino games rely
on companies like Google, Apple, and Facebook in order to reach an
audience, to host the games, and process payments. In return, the
lawsuit claims that the tech giants need social casino game
developers such as DoubleDown Interactive to create "profit-driven
and addictive" apps on these platforms in order to create lucrative
streams of revenue.

Social casino games are usually free-to-play, but allow players to
buy additional virtual chips with real money. These virtual chips
cannot be withdrawn as real money.
The lawsuit claims that Facebook has a 30% financial interest for
being a host for these games, directing people to play these games,
as well as acting as the bank. The lawsuit also claims that the
likes of Facebook are the main promoters for these alleged forms of
illegal gambling.

The complaint claimed that the DoubleDown Casino will sell about
$400m in virtual currency to consumers this year. About $240m will
go to DoubleDown Interactive, $40m to IGT for licensing slot
machine IP to DoubleDown, and the remaining $120m will go to the
host of the apps, such as Facebook. The complaint even goes as far
to claim that the social casino enterprise could be considered to
be a form of racketeering. It stated: "Most or all of the illegal
slots are also hosted and promoted by the other platform members of
the social casino enterprise: Apple and Google."

Not the first complaint

The lawsuit cites a legal precedent from a 2018 case in Washington
State involving social casino game supplier Big Fish Games. The
Ninth Circuit of US Court of Appeals deemed that the virtual
currency used as part of these social casino games was "something
of value" as per state law and as a result, virtual currency was
equivalent to real currency. Therefore, these types of casino games
were deemed illegal gambling. Big Fish settled the case for $155m.

There have been numerous other lawsuits filed across the United
States in recent years regarding social casino apps. These lawsuits
often name tech companies like Google and Apple as defendants. They
usually claim that social casino games try to navigate around state
gambling laws by not offering any real money winnings, but that
they should still be considered illegal gambling.

In 2020, players bought about $6bn worth of virtual chips.

Social casino games are big business for the tech giants. In 2020,
players bought about $6bn worth of virtual chips. Nine of the top
dozen grossing apps on the Facebook platform were social casinos.
The cumulative class-action lawsuit filed in California spoke about
why these apps are so lucrative, stating that it is due to them
mixing "the addictive aspects of traditional slot machines with the
power of the Platforms to leverage big data and social network
pressures to identify, target and exploit consumers prone to
predictive behaviors." [GN]

AUBURN COMMUNITY: Class Status Deadlines Entered in Pizzoleo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pizzoleo et al v. Auburn
Community Hospital, Case No. 5:20-cv-01529 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order regarding class
certification deadlined as follows:

   (1) the parties shall filed detailed Status Reports by Feb.
       4, 2022;

   (2) Discovery -- Merits of named Plaintiffs' Claims and Class
       Certification shall be completed by March 10, 2022;

   (3) Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by March 17, 2022;
       and

   (4) Dispositive Motions and the Class Certification Motion
       shall be filed by June 20, 2022.

The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act involving the
collection of unpaid wages.

Auburn Community Hospital is a 99-bed acute-care medical facility
in upstate New York.[CC]

AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE: Faces Suit Over White Spot Disease Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Parnell at brisbanetimes.com.au reports that one of
Australia's best-known fishing brands is leading a class action
over the 2016 outbreak of white spot disease in Queensland.

Tweed Bait is spearheading the lawsuit on behalf of more than 225
commercial fishers, handlers and wholesalers.

They have the support of litigation funders and seek about $150
million in damages.

In an 84-page statement of claim, lawyers for Tweed Bait accused
the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service of failing to keep
white spot disease out of Australia and not responding promptly
when the threat was recognised.

White spot disease was discovered in south-east Queensland prawn
farms in December 2016, causing havoc in the industry and
undermining Australia's claim to have virus-free stock. It is
thought to have originated in frozen prawns imported from Asia to
be sold as food but used as bait.

While the disease is harmless to humans, it is deadly to prawns and
other crustaceans. The domestic fishing industry has been left with
added regulatory and compliance costs.

"As a result of the various governmental actions taken in response
to the white spot outbreak, many businesses in and associated with
the commercial fishing industry in the Logan River and Moreton Bay
suffered significant losses," argued Law Essentials, which is
running the class action with the firm Clyde and Co.

"Commercial fishermen were unable to fish their traditional and
most productive fishing grounds. Fish handling and wholesaling
businesses in the Moreton Bay area were unable to secure their
usual level of supply of various species of fish prawns and worms,
and suffered loss as a result."

The class action comes after one of the worst-affected companies,
Gold Coast Marine Aquaculture, which trades as Gold Coast Tiger
Prawns, lodged a separate lawsuit against the government and
several companies allegedly implicated in the outbreak. Its Federal
Court case is set down for hearings in March and April next year.

Six months before the outbreak, a government biosecurity blitz,
Operation Cattai, detected white spot in retail samples. Importers
in Sydney and Melbourne were prosecuted, while 21 import permits
were also revoked.

Ten years before the outbreak, Queensland's then-fisheries minister
warned against imported green prawns being used as bait, saying it
could cause an outbreak of white spot disease.

The disease re-emerged in Queensland last year. [GN]

B&G FOODS: Class Cert. Opposition Deadline Extended to Dec. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA SILVA and NANCY
SCHIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. B&G FOODS, INC., and B&G FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00137-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered
an order that the deadline to oppose class certification motion
currently set for December 10, 2021 is continued to December 17,
2021.

B&G Foods manufactures and distributes food products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rDQh7a at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com

The Counsel for the Defendants, are:

          J. Noah Hagey, Esq.
          Matthew Borden, Esq.
          David H. Kwasniewski, Esq.
          BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
          351 California St., Tenth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 599-0210
          E-mail: hagey@braunhagey.com
                  borden@braunhagey.com
                  kwasniewski@braunhagey.com

BANK OF NEW YORK: Self-Dealing Class Action Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------
Katryna Perera, writing forLaw360, reports that The Bank of New
York Mellon dodged two of the five remaining claims against it in a
proposed class action that accuses the bank of steering high net
worth clients into underperforming investments it owned or
benefited from. [GN]



BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Fairness Hearing in AIS Reset to Jan. 4, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIS Capital Management,
L.P. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07235-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order that:

   -- The Fairness Hearing is rescheduled to Tuesday, January 4,
      2022 at 2:30 P.M.

   -- The Court will also discuss Plaintiffs' motions with
      respect to the Third Settlement Agreement and the revised
      Plan of Allocation as to all three settlements at the
      Hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and all Defendants must
      attend the hearing.

   -- The hearing will be held in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood
      Marshall United States Courthouse, located at 40 Foley
      Square, New York, New York 10007. All parties must attend
      the Hearing in person. Interested members of the public
      may attend the Hearing in person or remotely, by dialing
      1-888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and the
      security code 2548. All of those accessing the hearing are
      reminded that recording or rebroadcasting of the
      proceeding is prohibited by law.

   -- By no later than Friday, December 10, 2021, counsel for
      the COMEX Objectors must inform the Court whether they
      wish to be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Any request must
      include a short description, not to exceed one page, of
      the content of the proposed presentation.

   -- By no later than Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Plaintiffs
      must post on the settlement website that the Fairness
      Hearing has been rescheduled. By no later than
      Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Plaintiffs must inform
      the Court that the settlement website has been
      updated.

   -- All other deadlines, including with respect to the motion
      for class certification and any Daubert motions, are
      stayed.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dqaOnj at no extra charge.[CC]

BOW PLUMBING: Court Revises Scheduling Order in Braswell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSELYN BRASWELL v. BOW
PLUMBING GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00025-ECM-KFP (M.D. Ala.),
the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting motion for
revised scheduling order to the following extent:

   1. The expert disclosure deadline on class certification
      issues from Plaintiff is extended from March 14, 2022 to
      June 14, 2022.

   2. The expert disclosure deadline on class certification
      issues from the Defendant is extended from May 2, 2022 to
      August 2, 2022.

   3. The deadline for motions for class certification is
      extended from June 14, 2022 to September 14, 2022.

All other deadlines remain as set, says Judge Marks.

BOW manufactures plumbing products. The Company offers plastic
pipe, fittings, drainage, and pressure plumbing products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3doVZ4i at no extra charge.[CC]

BRISTOL BAY: Abikar Must File Class Status Bid by Feb. 25, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abikar, et al., v. Bristol
Bay Native Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01700 (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Andrew G Schopler entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to extend phase one discovery and the
class-certification deadline as follows:

   --  Discovery is extended to January 21, 2022, for the sole
       purpose of taking depositions.

   --  Any motion for class certification must be filed by
       February 25, 2022.

   --  All other provisions of this Court's original scheduling
       order remain in effect.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving minimum wage.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation is one of thirteen Alaska Native
Regional Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971 in settlement of aboriginal land claims.[CC]

CANADA: Faces $40M Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Misconduct
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Franklin at ctvnews.ca reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed against the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) in
connection with the alleged sexual misconduct of a teacher who died
this past February.

According to the court document, Michael Gregory was a teacher at
John Ware Junior High School in southwest Calgary who taught there
between 1986 and 2006.

He was charged after a number of victims - former students - came
forward to police, accusing him of sexual assault and
exploitation.

Gregory took his own life after charges were laid, but the victims
now want the CBE to take responsibility for the wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, obtained by CTV News and written by lawyer Jonathan
Denis, named three plaintiffs who were all students of Gregory's.
They all alleged he sexually assaulted them on multiple occasions.

The incidents occurred both inside the school and while on school
trips, the document says.

The lawsuit also claims that Gregory "became adept" at grooming the
students, including giving them concert tickets, drugs, alcohol and
money.

It alleges the CBE knew about Gregory's actions and administrators
and staff members did nothing.

"During the course of the Defendant, Gregory's multi-decade career,
other teachers and administrators at inter alia John Ware Junior
High School, saw behaviours that did, or ought to have given them
cause for concern, and received reports from students, teachers and
parents of conduct that warranted further investigation and
action," the statement of claim reads.

When some parents became concerned about the situation, the
statement of claim alleges the assistant principal of the school,
Mr. Adams, "discounted their concerns" and ridiculed them for
bringing attention to them.

"It is no small coincidence that Adams and the Defendant Gregory
were friends," the document said.

Following an investigation by the Alberta Teachers' Association
into the sexual misconduct allegations, Gregory's teaching licence
was suspended and he left the profession in 2006.

Seventeen charges for sexual assault and sexual exploitation were
filed against him in 2021 but, in February, he died by suicide.

The class action seeks a declaration that the CBE breached its duty
of care to the plaintiffs and class members, a caveat on Gregory's
estate to enjoin the trustee from distributing it until the matter
is resolved and damages in the amount of $40 million as well as
costs of the legal action.

When reached out to for comment, the CBE said it had not received
the statement of claim.

"As this is a legal matter, we cannot provide additional
information at this time," said Bryan Weismiller, CBE spokesperson.
[GN]

CANADA: Proposed CWB Class Action Suit Takes Another Step
---------------------------------------------------------
Allan Dawson at manitobacooperator.ca reports that a
class-action lawsuit against the Government of Canada and G3
Canada Limited, alleging millions of dollars of farmers' money was
improperly used to privatize the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) in
2012, is a step closer to certification.

In Winnipeg Nov. 22 Court of Queen's Bench Justice Chris Martin
heard from lawyers representing the plaintiff and defence on how
the case that began almost nine years ago should proceed.

"The purpose of the process here is so that the judge can ensure
that this case moves forward in a way that serves the best interest
of the farmers," Anders Bruun, one of the lawyers for plaintiff,
Brookdale, Man., farmer Randy Dennis, said in an interview Nov. 23.
"So our proposal has to be one that we think is in the best
interests of the farmers in terms of publicity on how they can
claim money (if the case is won) and so forth. That's the test.
What's the best way to move this case forward in the interests of
farmers?

"Is it best to certify as a class action instead of requiring
70,000 farmers to sue individually?"

Based on a Manitoba Court of Appeal ruling Dec. 2, 2020, Bruun said
he is confident the proposed class-action lawsuit seeking more than
$160 million in compensation to farmers who sold grain through the
CWB pool accounts in 2010-11 and 2011-12, will be certified.

"Now it's a question of determining what the protocol for moving
the action forward is going to be," Bruun said.

"It's essentially, what should the terms of certification be?"

If the class-action lawsuit is certified the plaintiffs will then
have to prove the federal government and G3, which took control of
the CWB's assets in 2015, misused farmers' money.

Why it matters: If the lawsuit is certified, allegations that the
Harper Conservative government misused farmers' money to privatize
the Canadian Wheat Board will be tested.

The suit alleges the federal government improperly used $151
million that should've gone to farmers to cover some of the costs
transitioning the CWB from a statutory, single-desk wheat and
barley marketer, to a private grain company.

Of the $151 million, the suit claims $145.2 million ended up in the
CWB's contingency fund and $5.9 million was withdrawn from the
CWB's pool accounts.

The CWB set up a contingency fund to cover losses that occurred
when farmers opted to price grain sales outside the CWB's pools. It
was normally funded when transactions earned more than the price
farmers sold at. The fund was meant to break even over time.

"In order to fund the transformation of the board to a privately
held entity, the defendants engaged in a course of conduct intended
to reduce payments to farmers who had sold and delivered grain to
the board during the class period and to increase the monies in the
contingency fund," the lawsuit alleges.

The CWB Act didn't allow the wheat board to use money earned from
its pool accounts for anything other than covering its operating
expenses.

Gerry Ritz, who was agriculture minister at the time, said the
government would cover the costs of transitioning the CWB to an
entity that could be acquired by a private company.

"Nevertheless, the board improperly charged $5.9 million in
transition costs to the pool accounts, which reduced the amount
that was available to producers upon payment of their contracts
during the 2011-12 crop year," the claim alleges.

"The plaintiff pleads that the board breached its duty of good
faith to the class (farmers who delivered to the CWB) by ignoring
its obligations to the producers, and by allocating money to the
contingency fund that otherwise would have been paid to the pool
account contract holders."

The case is simple, Bruun said. Under the wheat board act the CWB
was obliged to buy all wheat "offered by a producer for sale and
delivery."

After the CWB sold the grain farmers delivered, the earnings went
into the pool accounts. The CWB deducted the costs incurred in
marketing the grain and by statute was obliged to return what was
left to the farmers who delivered the grain.

"The case is really that simple, which may be why we've seen one
feeble delay tactic after another (by the federal government's
lawyers)," he said.

The Conservative government ended the CWB's single-desk marketing
authority Aug. 1, 2012.

In 2015, G3 (Global Grain Group), newly formed to subsume
the CWB, agreed to invest $250.5 million and in return received the
CWB's assets from the federal government.

G3 is a joint-venture firm majority owned by the state-owned
Saudi Agricultural Livestock Investment Company (SALIC) and
Bunge.

After taking over the CWB, the new G3, renamed G3 Canada Limited,
was 50.1 per cent owned by SALIC and Bunge and up to 49.9 per cent
potentially owned by farmers, depending on how much grain they
delivered to the new firm.

Farmers were to earn $5 of G3 equity for every tonne.

G3 Canada had two shareholders -- G3 Global Grain Group and the
farmers' equity trust.

Farmers who deliver to CWB own units in the trust and the trust
owns shares in G3 Canada Limited.

After the farmers' equity is fully allocated, or in seven years
(2022), G3 Canada Limited can buy the equity, but isn't obliged
to.

In 2016 Reuters reported SALIC's ownership within G3 Global Grain
Group jumped to 75 per cent from 49 per cent, according to an April
28, 2016 Bunge filing. [GN]

CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Bid to Dismiss Tarry Suit Nixed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tarry, et al., v. Captain
George's of South Carolina, LP, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00800
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson, III entered an order
denying, without prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery of Interrogatory Response, and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Rule 23 Class Certification, and Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling
Order, in light of the pending motion for settlement approval.

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


CAREPARTNERS: Settles Cyberattack Class Action for Up to $3.4MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that
CarePartners, an Ontario-based private healthcare services
provider, has agreed to pay up to $3,444,000 for the settlement of
a proposed class action relating to a cyberattack that targeted its
computer systems on or around June 11, 2018.

The Toronto firms of Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP, Waddell Phillips PC
and Schneider Law Firm represented the plaintiffs, Arthur Redublo
and Donna Moher.

The privacy breach class action alleged that hackers
inappropriately accessed personal information of hundreds of
thousands of CarePartners patients and staff -- possibly including
detailed medical records, financial information, employment records
and personal contact information -- and produced some information
to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in an attempt to extort a
ransom from CarePartners, said a news release from Howie, Sacks &
Henry LLP.

Loblaw Financial successful in tax appeal at Supreme Court
The claim also alleged that CarePartners is liable for breach of
privacy, breach of contract, negligence and other breaches of
numerous statutes due to its inadequate and outdated security
systems, which the hackers could exploit to access the company's
computer network, said information from the website of Waddell
Phillips PC.

CarePartners offers out-of-hospital care -- inclusive of personal
support care, nursing care, rehabilitation care, caregiver support
and palliative care -- to patients at their homes, schools or
workplaces. It primarily delivers services as a partner of
Ontario's local health integration networks and operates a clinic
network.

CarePartners collects a significant amount of sensitive personal
information, including health-related and financial information. At
the time of the incident, it had over 4,500 employees and
contractors and served as custodian to records regarding
approximately 237,000 patients.

Any patient or non-unionized employee who had their personal health
information or personal information produced to the CBC can claim
compensation under the proposed settlement, which requires the
approval of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The virtual
hearing for this purpose is scheduled for Feb. 9, 2022.

If the court approves the proposed settlement, the amount of
compensation owed to each class member is contingent upon the
number of persons affected and the number of persons who have made
claims for inclusion in the distribution. [GN]

CENTERSTATE BANK: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in PRNF Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Precision Roofing of N.
Florida, Inc. v. Centerstate Bank, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to modify scheduling order.

The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of the motion for
class Certification on or before January 17, 2022, says Judge
Davis.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

CenterState Bank is a financial holding company, which engages in
the provision of consumer and commercial banking services.[CC]


CENTERSTATE BANK: Ct. Modifies Scheduling Order in Grant Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DENISE GRANT, v.
CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 8:20-cv-01920-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven entered an order granitng the Parties'
joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows:

   -- All deadlines, including the deadline for Plaintiff's
      Reply in support her Motion for Class Certification, are
      stayed pending the outcome of the December 13, 2021
      mediation.

   -- The Parties shall promptly notify the Court of the results
      of mediation. Upon notification of the Parties, the Court
      will reset any outstanding deadlines, including the trial
      term, if necessary.

CenterState is a financial holding company.

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

CLARKE COUNTY, VA: To Participate in Opioid Claims Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Powell at The Winchester Star reports that Clarke County is
seeking compensation from pharmaceutical manufacturers for its
involvement in battling a nationwide opioid epidemic.

Earlier, the Clarke County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution approving the county's participation in a proposed
settlement of opioid-related claims against McKesson, Cardinal
Health, Amerisource Bergen, Janssen and their related corporate
entities. The board also adopted a resolution approving the
county's participation in the Virginia Opioid Abatement Fund and
Settlement Allocation Memorandum of Understanding.

The companies altogether may have to pay as much as $26 billion as
part of settlement proposals toward a nationwide class-action
lawsuit against them.

Not only has the epidemic claimed the lives of thousands of people,
but it also has placed a heavy burden on emergency medical, law
enforcement, criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse
services that have dealt with it, the resolutions read.

The state, its counties and cities will continue having to
"allocate substantial taxpayer dollars, resources, staff energy and
time to address the damage" to society caused by the epidemic, the
documents assert.

For addicts, "opioid addiction is not pretty," said Berryville
District Supervisor Matthew Bass.

Bass, a lawyer, mentioned he has known people who became addicted
to the drugs.

Frederick County's supervisors recently approved participating in
the settlement. Officials estimated that county could receive up to
$2.6 million.

Clarke County Administrator Chris Boies didn't estimate how much in
settlement funds the county could receive.

But "the more localities that participate, the higher the (actual)
settlement amount" will be, Boies said.

Settlement allocations can be put toward expenses such as emergency
medical responses and drug abuse education and treatment programs,
he said.

Following motions by Bass, the resolutions were adopted in 4-1
votes.

Russell District Supervisor Doug Lawrence abstained from voting.

"I was hoping this settlement would help taxpayers" in some way,
Lawrence said.

To his understanding, he said, rules for participating in the
settlement would require the money to be used toward expanding
services, not covering costs for existing ones.

For instance, "even if we had the best treatment program in the
world, we couldn't supplant its funding," said Lawrence.

"I hope this isn't the final agreement," he added.

In other business, the supervisors approved a special-use permit
amendment enabling the top of a cellular phone antenna mast off
Harry Byrd Highway (Va. 7) to be raised by 10 feet.

Crown Castle International LLC wants to increase the monopole's
height to 120 feet so AT&T antennas can be place on the structure.
Verizon, Shentel and T-Mobile already have antennas on it.

Monopoles are tall, solid poles, as opposed to traditional
lattice-style towers and masts.

At the site, "the only change will be a little bit of equipment
(added) on the ground and the extension on top" of the mast, said
Jeremy Camp, the county's senior planner and zoning administrator.

The mast actually is on the Stuart M. Perry Inc. site off Quarry
Road east of Berryville. It sits back about 400 feet from Va. 7.
However, it's easily visible above the treeline near the highway's
intersection with Shepherds Mill Road (Va. 612).

Nobody spoke during a public hearing on the permit request. The
supervisors said little before voting to approve it.

Also, the supervisors reappointed:

Peter Cook to the Barns of Rose Hill Board of Directors. Cook will
serve a three-year term expiring in December 2024.

Tracy Smith to the Clarke County Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board. Smith will serve a four-year term ending in December 2025.

Reid Dodson to the Clarke County Economic Development Advisory
Committee. Dodson, too, will serve a four-year term expiring in
December 2025.

Peter Engel and Walker Thomas to the Clarke County Conservation
Easement Authority. They will serve three-year terms ending in
December 2024.

Denise Acker, Leea Shirley and Dr. Colin Greene to the Community
Poilicy Management Team (CPMT). They also will serve three-year
terms expiring in December 2024.

The CPMT manages the local Children's Services Act program. Enacted
in 1993, the legislation provides funds for behavioral health
services for young people and their families.

Greene will serve as an alternate team member. He and Shirley will
be switching roles, Boies said. [GN]

CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chan Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAI TING CHAN; JOANNA CHEN; NA LIN; JENNIFER SHUM; NAVITA SINGH;
and YUEXIN YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC; CLEAR19 RAPID
TESTING, LLC; CLEARMD, LLC; ALI RASHAN, M.D.; and SANDEEP KAUR
WALIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09687 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as medical
assistant.

CLEAR19 DIAGNOSTICS, LLC operate a medical company in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
          580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 457-1699

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles COVID Tuition Refund Suit For $12.5-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Caron at typepad.com reports that Columbia University Logo
(2021)Columbia University has agreed to pay $12.5 million to
resolve a lawsuit seeking tuition and fee reimbursements in the
wake of coronavirus-spurred campus closures, according to a
settlement proposal filed in New York federal court.

Students brought a putative class action last year, alleging the
Ivy League school deprived them of in-person instruction, access to
campus facilities, student activities and other benefits for which
they had paid tuition and fees. Certain refunds the school had
already provided were insufficient, according to the complaint
filed.

U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman trimmed the students' tuition
claims, but said they were able to reclaim all the fees paid.

Under the deal announced, the university will return more than $8.5
million in fees and pay an additional $4 million so the plaintiffs
don't seek to revive the tuition claims, according to a lawyer for
the students, Roy T. Willey IV.

Reuters, Columbia University to Pay $12.5 Mln to Settle COVID-19
Refund Claims:

At least 261 lawsuits have been filed against U.S. colleges and
universities over their alleged failure to refund tuition and fees
when the pandemic forced them into remote learning, according to
the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner. [GN]

CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Issokson Class Status Bid Due March 7, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Issokson v. Connecticut
General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-30070 (D. Mass), the
Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order on motion for
extension of time as follows:

   -- The Plaintiff shall identify any expert(s) to be used in
      connection with his motion for class certification by
      January 31, 2022.

   -- Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification by
      March 7, 2022, and Defendants shall file oppositions by
      March 28, 2022.

   -- A hearing on the motion for class certification is
      scheduled for June 13, 2022 at 11:00 a.m.

   -- Fact discovery, other than requests for admission, shall
      be completed by August 15, 2022.

   -- The Plaintiff shall designate and disclose expert
      witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by
      September 12, 2022.

   -- The Defendants shall designate and disclose expert
      witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by October
      10, 2022.

   -- Expert depositions shall be completed by November 7, 2022.

   -- Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by December 5,
      2022, and oppositions shall be filed by January 3, 2023.

   -- A hearing on any dispositive motions is scheduled for
      February 21, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Connecticut General Corporation, doing business as, Cigna, provides
insurance services. The Company offers medical, dental, behavioral
health, and vision plans, as well as prescription drug benefit
plans and health advocacy programs.[CC]

CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Rain Class Status Bid Due March 7, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Rain v. Connecticut
General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-30115 (M.D. Mass.),
the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order on motion for
extension of time as follows:

   -- The Plaintiff shall identify any expert(s) to be used in
      connection with her motion for class certification by
      January 31, 2022.

   -- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class
      certification by March 7, 2022, and Defendants shall file
      oppositions by March 28, 2022.

   -- A hearing on the motion for class certification is
      scheduled for June 13, 2022 at 11:00 a.m.

   -- Fact discovery, other than requests for admission, shall
      be completed by August 15, 2022.

   -- Plaintiff shall designate and disclose expert witnesses
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by September 12,
      2022.

   --  Defendants shall designate and disclose expert witnesses
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by October 10, 2022.

   -- Expert depositions shall be completed by November 7, 2022.

   -- Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by December 5,
      2022, and oppositions shall be filed by January 3, 2023.

   -- A hearing on any dispositive motions is scheduled for
      February 21, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.

Connecticut General Corporation, doing business as, Cigna, provides
insurance services. The Company offers medical, dental, behavioral
health, and vision plans, as well as prescription drug benefit
plans and health advocacy programs. Connecticut General serves
customers throughout the United States.[CC]


CURRY COUNTY, OR: Detention Center Faces Suit Over Booking Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
krqe.com reports that the Curry County Commission and Curry County
Detention Center is facing a class action lawsuit following a
controversial 'inmate booking fee'.

Eric Dixon represents Perry Furgason. They are suing the curry
county detention center. His client says when he was booked, they
took money directly from his wallet to pay a booking fee without
his permission.

"It's really shocking actually," Dixon said, "I had a client that
went in, and they said you've got to pay a booking fee and he said
he didn't want to pay the booking fee."

The county charges $20 per inmate as a booking fee to be processed
into the jail. Dixon is looking for other people who were booked
into the jail and had to pay the fee. He says this is not a common
practice in New Mexico.

"In my experience its quite extraordinary you don't see something
like this come around very much."

The Curry County Commission passed an ordinance in 2014 allowing
the detention center to charge the processing fee, but Dixon says
they shouldn't have been allowed to reach into Fergason's wallet
and take the cash out.

"I mean if somebody did that you out on the street it would be a
crime."

According to the detention center administrator, its common
practice for the inmate's cash on their person to be put in their
system in an account which they have access to while incarcerated.
The money is returned upon release, but 20 dollars is taken to pay
that booking charge.

Eric Dixon is asking a judge for an injunction banning the curry
county detention center from asking for the fee. Dixon is also
asking that the inmates get their money back. [GN]

D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

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

Höegh 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

Citrix Systems, Inc. (CTXS)
Class Period: 1/22/2020 - 10/6/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-ctxs-2/

StoneCo Ltd. (STNE)
Class Period: 3/11/2021 - 11/16/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-stne/

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]

DALLAS JONES: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Feb. 7, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order
granting stipulation regarding briefing and hearing schedule on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows:

   1. The Defendants shall have until January 5, 2022, to file
      their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification.

   2. The Plaintiffs shall have until January 24, 2022, to file  
      their reply in support of their motion for class
      certification.

   3. The hearing for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
      shall be held on Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

NFP Retirement offers investment advisory services.

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

DESKTOP METAL: Bragar Eagel Probes for Possible Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Desktop
Metal, Inc. ("Desktop" or the "Company") (NYSE: DM) on behalf of
Desktop stockholders. Our investigation concerns whether Desktop
has violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other
unlawful business practices.

On November 8, 2021, Desktop Metal announced an independent
investigation resulting from an internal whistleblower complaint
concerning the Company's EnvisionTec subsidiary. On this news,
Desktop Metal's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 4.24%, to
close at $8.81 per share on November 9, 2021. Then, on November 15,
2021, the Chief Executive Officer of EnvisionTec resigned, and
Desktop Metal disclosed compliance issues with shipments from
EnvisionTec resulting in Food and Drug Administration regulatory
activity.

On this news, Desktop Metal's stock price fell $1.19 per share, or
14.84%, to close at $6.83 per share on November 16, 2021.

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

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

DESKTOP METAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM) resulting from
allegations that Desktop Metal may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Desktop Metal 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-2205.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: After the market closed on November 8, Desktop
Metal announced an independent investigation resulting from an
internal whistleblower complaint concerning the company's
EnvisionTec subsidiary. On November 15, the CEO of EnvisionTec
resigned and the company disclosed compliance issues with shipments
from EnvisionTec resulting in FDA regulatory activity.

Shares of Desktop Metal stock fell 7% in intraday trading on
November 9, 2021, after the initial disclosure, and dropped over 5%
in aftermarket hours trading following the subsequent disclosures
on November 15, 2021.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. 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.

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

DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Markovits Stock Investigates Data Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, a law firm experienced in data breach
cases, is investigating claims on behalf of victims of a data
breach involving data in possession of DNA Diagnostics Center
including Social Security number and/or payment card information.
DNA Diagnostics Center is located 1 DDC Way, Fairfield, OH 45014.

WHAT HAPPENED?

DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER DATA BREACH CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION
According to the Notice of Data Breach Incident DNA Diagnostics
Center posted on its website, "impacted individuals may have had
their information, such as Social security number or payment
information, impacted as a result" of the Data Breach. "On
August 6, 2021, DNA Diagnostics Center detected potential
unauthorized access to its network, during which there was
unauthorized access and acquisition of an archived database that
contained personal information collected between 2004 and 2012."
"The impacted database was associated with a national genetic
testing organization system that DDC acquired in 2012."

It its reporting to the Maine Attorney General, DNA Diagnostics
Center indicated that approximately 2,102,436 individuals' Social
Security numbers and/or payment information were affected in the
Data Breach.

WHAT INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED IN THE DATA BREACH?

DNA Diagnostics Center stated that the following information was
included in the data breach,

Social Security numbers, and/or, Payment information.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE DNA DIAGNOSTICS
CENTER DATA BREACH?

If you would like to have a free, confidential consultation with an
attorney to learn more about your rights and potential legal
remedies in response to the DNA Diagnostics Center Data Breach,
please contact Markovits, Stock & DeMarco attorney Terry Coates at
(513) 651-3700, email us at msd@msdlegal.com, or submit a Case
Evaluation request through the form below.

https://apps.web.maine.gov/online/aeviewer/ME/40/0d530517-178f-4144-abc5-ac77b10c30af.shtml
[GN]

DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Time to File Class Cert-Related Bids Extended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. The Dutchess
County Department of Public Works, et al., Case No.
7:17-cv-09121-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern
entered an order granting letter motion for extension of time as
follows:

  -- The parties shall file the papers pertaining to the
     contemplated motion for class certification in accordance
     with the following schedule:

     (1) the moving papers shall be served, not filed, on
         January 7, 2022;

     (2) the opposition papers shall be served, not filed, on
         January 28, 2022; and

     (3) the reply papers, if any, shall be served on February
         4, 2022.

  -- The parties shall file all motion documents on the reply date,
February 4, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EHrMtv at no extra charge.[CC]

EASTON DIAMOND: Court Stays Class Cert. Briefing in Wisdom Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY WISDOM, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. EASTON DIAMOND
SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:18-cv-04078-DSF-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer
entered an order that:

   1. The Parties' Joint Stipulation to Stay Class Certification
      Briefing is granted;

   2. The class certification briefing deadlines in this matter
      are stayed until after the Ninth Circuit issues its en
      banc decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc.
      v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021); and

   3. Upon reaching an agreement to resolve this matter, or
      within seven days of the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in
      Olean, whichever is earlier, the Parties will notify the
      Court and, if necessary, provide proposed dates for a
      revised class certification briefing schedule.

   4. The parties are to file status reports every 90 days.

Easton is a manufacturer of baseball and softball equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3puCPQ6 at no extra charge.[CC]

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Suit Over Banana Boat Sunscreen Sprays
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims certain Banana Boat sunscreen sprays have been
contaminated with undisclosed benzene, a known human carcinogen.

The lawsuit out of Connecticut says that no mention of benzene is
made anywhere on the sunscreens' labels as either an active or
inactive ingredient. The case contests that consumers would thus
never expect the Banana Boat products to contain a "widely
recognized and incredibly dangerous substance" such as benzene.

The suit contends that consumers have been misled by the
defendants, Banana Boat makers Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC;
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC and Sun Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and have
overpaid for the sunscreens given the presence of benzene renders
the products "in no way safe for humans and . . . entirely
worthless."

"Consumers expect the ingredient listing on the packaging and
labels to accurately disclose the ingredients within the Products,"
the complaint reads. "However, Defendants' advertising and
marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the
Products contain benzene, which Defendants do not list or mention
anywhere on the Products' packaging or labeling."

According to the filing, benzene has been recognized as a
carcinogen for roughly a century and has been categorized by the
FDA as a Class 1 solvent that "should not be employed in the
manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products
because of [its] unacceptable toxicity." The FDA has noted that if
the presence of benzene is unavoidable in order to produce a drug
that provides a "significant therapeutic advantage," its
concentration should be limited to two parts per million (ppm), the
complaint relays.

In light of the danger posed by exposure to benzene, recent
research that revealed the presence of the substance in Banana Boat
sunscreens is "particularly concerning," the lawsuit argues.
Central to the complaint is a study published by analytical
pharmacy Valisure LLC that reportedly detected benzene in a variety
of sunscreen and after-sun products. According to the suit, the
Valisure study, which did not include every single Banana Boat
product, revealed "widespread benzene contamination" among certain
of the defendants' Banana Boat sunscreen products, including:

Banana Boat UltraMist Deep Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Clear Spray
SPF 4;
Banana Boat Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen C-Spray SPF 100;
Banana Boat Ultra Sport Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF 100;
Banana Boat Kids Sport Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50;
Banana Boat Protective Dry Oil Clear Sunscreen Spray with Coconut
Oil SPF 15;
Banana Boat Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen Spray SPF 50+; and
Banana Boat Ultra Defense Ultra Mist Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF
100.

The lawsuit notes that because the majority of the sunscreen
products tested by Valisure did not contain benzene, its presence
is not unavoidable in the production of sunscreens. Thus, it is
possible for the defendants to have manufactured the above-listed
Banana Boat items without any benzene, meaning the presence of the
substance is likely due to contamination during the manufacturing
process, the suit attests.

The case claims the defendants' failure to warn consumers about the
presence of benzene in its sunscreen products is "false,
misleading, and deceptive."

The proposed class action detailed on this page was initially filed
in New York federal court before it was voluntarily dismissed and
re-filed on November 29 with an additional plaintiff in Connecticut
District Court. [GN]

EURO PHARMA: Class Action Lawsuit Over Pain Reliever Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a troubled
proposed class action has come to an end in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs lawyers and Euro Pharma recently told the court they
reached a settlement that will only cover plaintiff Michael Dotson
but not the users of Terry Naturally pain reliever he had sought to
represent. Financial terms weren't included in the Nov. 12 filing.

Terry Naturally's curcumin supplements reduce inflammation in the
body but do not reduce muscle soreness associated with exercise,
lawyers at The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman alleged in a class
action complaint last year.

They said the company should have disclosed that curcumin has not
been proven to relieve muscle soreness, but a federal judge in Los
Angeles was skeptical of their claims. He tossed their second
amended complaint in May but allowed them to file another one.

On July 22, Judge Andre Birotte tossed that third amended
complaint, with prejudice. That didn't stop Friedman from appealing
the decision to the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 10.

"Again, the (third amended complaint) alleges that the product
stated that it would provide pain relief for 'occasional muscle
pain due to exercise or overuse,'" Birotte wrote.

"Plaintiff tested this theory by taking three capsules daily for
one week (as recommended by Defendant's packaging) while exercising
for one-half hour, five times that week. After exercising,
Plaintiff experienced muscle soreness and pain, and thus concluded
that the product did not remove, alleviate get rid of, reduce or
otherwise affect Plaintiff's exercise induced muscle soreness and
pain.

"After this one-week trial, Plaintiff stopped using the product.
Once again, Plaintiff fails to allege why these parameters are
sufficient to prove falsity."

Studies on curcumin cited in the complaints baffled Birotte, who
wrote they fail to show why pain relief was impossible to achieve.

"The studies cited by Plaintiff show that taking curcumin 'may
result in enhanced recovery by reducing inflammation and preventing
muscle damage associated with exercise over long periods of time
spanning from weeks to months,'" the decision says.

"Plaintiff appears to take issue with the 'preventative wording and
how this suggests future pain relief as opposed to immediate, but
again, the products make no claim of immediate pain relief after
one week of exercising." [GN]

EVOLVE MORTGAGE: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Medina Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA MEDINA, v. EVOLVE
MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01338-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by May 11, 2023. Discovery motions must be filed
      and heard prior to this date.

   2. The parties shall have until July 10, 2023 to file and
      have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings.

   3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, September
      11, 2023 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16
      is required.

   4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, September 19,
      2023 at 08:30 AM.

   5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 −- Private

      Mediation. The parties shall have until May 25, 2023 to
      conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file
      with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five
      days after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the
      Court of their settlement efforts and status.

   6. The Plaintiff shall have until December 12, 2022 to file
      and have heard any class certification motion.

Evolve Mortgage is a provider of on-shore outsourced mortgage
services and a complete software platform to support full digital
eMortgages.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31n7XJz at no extra charge.[CC]

EXETER FINANCE: Preclusion of Third Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR RIVERA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXETER FINANCE CORP.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01057-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Michael
E. Hegarty entered an minute order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's "Motion to Preclude Class-Related Discovery,
to Preclude a Third Motion for Class Certification, and to Limit
Individual Discovery."

Exeter Finance Corporation an auto finance company. The Company
offers loan packages to car owners, dealers, and investors.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EttA9g at no extra charge.[CC]

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Kastern Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER KASTERN, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00273-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certify the following class:

      "All persons (a) with a Wisconsin address, (b) to which
      Financial Recovery Services, Inc. sent, or caused to be
      sent, a written debt collection communication, (c) in
      connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (d)
      that CompuMail, Inc. printed and mailed, or had printed
      and mailed, (d) where Financial Recovery Services, Inc.
      provided CompuMail, Inc. with information contained in the
      debt collection communication between July 1, 2020 and
      July 31, 2020;"

   2. appointing her as the representative for the proposed
      class; and

   3. appointing Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC and Lien Law
      Offices, LLP as counsel for the proposed class.

According to the complaint, from July 1, 2020 through July 31,
2020, Financial Recovery disclosed information about Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's alleged debt, as well as materially identical
information about approximately 4,833 other Wisconsin consumers and
their respective alleged consumer debts, to a third-party mail
vendor, CompuMail, Inc.

CompuMail then used the information Defendant transmitted to it to
print and mail debt collection letters to Plaintiff and the 4,833
other alleged debtors, in connection with Defendant's efforts to
collect consumer debts. With this in mind, Plaintiff alleges that
by communicating with CompuMail regarding her alleged debt, and the
alleged debts of the approximately 4,833 other Wisconsin consumers
-- including by disclosing, for example, the existence of the
alleged debts, the amounts of the alleged debts, the alleged
creditors of the alleged debts, and other related information, to
CompuMail -- Defendant violated section 1692b(c) of The Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

On July 20, 2020, CompuMail, on behalf of Defendant, printed and
mailed a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES, LLP
          15692 Highway 63 North
          Heyward, WI 54843
          Telephone: (715) 634-4273
          E-mail: mlien@lienlawoffices.com

FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy
Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, v.
FirstGroup America, Inc., Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc.,
and John Does 1-20, Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that the class
certification motion deadline be extended by four weeks, and the
briefing schedule be adjusted accordingly as follows:

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class        February 11, 2022
     Certification:

  -- Defendants Opposition to            March 18, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum:       April 8, 2022

Pursuant to the Court's May 4, 2021 Calendar Order, the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is currently due January 14, 2022;
Defendants' response in opposition to class certification is due
February 18, 2022; and Plaintiffs' reply in support of class
certification is due March 11, 2022.

A brief extension of these deadlines is necessary to allow
sufficient time for relevant document discovery (which is underway
after extensive negotiations between the parties) and depositions
(which are in the process of being scheduled), and in light of the
upcoming holidays, the Plaintiffs say.

FirstGroup is a private sector provider of public transport.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ybvZD5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George M. Reul, Jr., Esq.
          FREKING MYERS & REUL
          600 Vine Street, Suite 900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-721-1975
          Facsimile: (513) 651-2570
          E-mail: greul@fmr.law

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Brandon McDonough, Esq.
          Chloe A. Raimey, Esq.
          Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-256-3200
          Facsimile: 612-338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  bmcdonough@nka.com
                  craimey@nka.com
                  mthomson@nka.com

FOLGERS COFFEE: Sued for Misrepresenting Amount of Coffee Per Can
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cronkleton, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports
that a Cass County man is the latest to sue Folgers Coffee Co. and
its parent company The J.M. Smucker Co. challenging the accuracy of
the serving sizes and quantity listed on Folger's coffee canisters.
Mark Smith filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Kansas
City seeking class action status contending that Folgers and
Smucker have "grossly misrepresented the number of cups of coffee"
that can be made from its canisters. Smith contends that the
canisters do not contain enough ground coffee to make the number of
services listed on the canisters. "It is a classic and unlawful
bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend
more money for less than the advertised amount of coffee they
believe they are purchasing," he said according to the lawsuit.
Folgers has sought to have the class action claims dismissed,
contending in part that it offers two recommended methods for
achieving the best results when making coffee.

One makes a single serving by using 6 ounces of cold water and 1
tablespoon of coffee. That is the method based on the plaintiff
lawsuits. The other method makes a pot of 10 servings by using 60
ounces of water and a half cup of ground coffee. That method uses
less coffee, Folgers contends. Based on mathematical calculations,
the lawsuit contends that 42 varieties of Folgers coffee canisters
contain enough ground coffee on average to make only 68.29% of the
number of servings promised on the packaging. The lawsuit is the
latest in several similar lawsuit echoing similar claims against
Folgers and J.M. Smucker Co. Several of those cases have been
consolidated to into a multidistrict litigation in federal court in
Kansas City. Because consumers have different preferences for
making coffee, Folgers uses the words "up to" when talking about
how much coffee a canister would make, according to court
documents. A federal judge earlier this year agreed with Folgers in
one of the cases, finding that: "'Up to' a certain number of cups
of coffee would lead a reasonable consumer to expect that the
actual number of coffee cups produced could be less. 'Up to' is not
a guarantee that the number of cups will be reached." [GN]

FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Averts Class Action Over PPP Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fountainhead, a U.S. Small Business Administration-approved,
nationwide, nonbank lender for small-to-midsized businesses, on
Nov. 3 announced it has prevailed in a lawsuit brought by Elizabeth
M. Byrnes, Inc.

In May 2020, the Los Angeles business filed a lawsuit accusing
Fountainhead of fast-tracking its most lucrative Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) loan requests and ignoring small loans
until the loan program was exhausted. The business also sought to
assert its claims on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
businesses.

Fountainhead has vigorously maintained that the lawsuit was
meritless - especially since over 93% of Fountainhead's first round
PPP borrowers were in the smallest loan size category per the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act and over
98% of Fountainhead's 2021 PPP borrowers were in the smallest loan
size category. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, in Los Angeles, granted Fountainhead's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

"We are thrilled that the Court correctly dismissed this baseless
suit," said CEO and Founder, Chris Hurn. "The plaintiff attempted
on three different occasions to fashion a complaint that could
survive a motion to dismiss, but was unable to do so."

"The legislative and regulatory rollout of PPP was a chaotic time
for all PPP lenders, but we at Fountainhead are proud that we
overcame those challenges, working tirelessly over countless days
and nights to save hundreds of thousands of small businesses in
need. The allegations brought by the plaintiff misrepresent
everything Fountainhead stands for as an SBA lender. We see the
dismissal with prejudice as a clear victory and are pleased to put
this distraction to rest, so we can focus fully on helping small
businesses across the nation prosper and grow through our SBA 7(a),
SBA 504 and our conventional loans" said Hurn.  

For more information on Fountainhead, or ways to grow your
small-to-midsized business, visit FountainheadCC.com.

                      About Fountainhead

Founded in 2015, Fountainhead is one of 14 U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) approved nationwide, nonbank, direct
commercial lending firms specializing in funding commercial real
estate projects and providing growth financing for
small-to-midsized businesses utilizing SBA 7(a), SBA 504, and low
LTV conventional loans. The nonbank lender is the largest
SBA-approved nonbank lender in the Southeast, the largest SBA
lender based in Florida, and was recently named the ninth-fastest
growing firm in Orlando. The team at Fountainhead has been involved
in financing more than $24 billion in total projects over their
careers, making them one of the most experienced teams in
commercial lending to owners of small-to-midsized businesses. [GN]

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Seeks to Settle Female Inmates' Photos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
examiner.org an Ohio county is seeking to settle a federal lawsuit
over photographs taken of intimate tattoos of up to 682 female
detainees for $2.5 million.

Franklin County commissioners agreed to the settlement, which must
be approved by a federal judge.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2013 on behalf of women who
were arrested for minor offenses between May 23, 2011 and April 30,
2014. Photos were taken of their tattoos on or near their intimate
body parts when they were booked into the county jail.

The jail stopped the practice in April 2014.

Each woman is estimated to receive $2,735 under the plan. A third
of the settlement would cover attorney fees, costs and expenses.

According to documents, the settlement does not include men,
detainees charged with felonies or those who had tattoos
photographed that were not in an intimate area.

Under terms of the settlement, the county would admit no
wrongdoing. The sheriff's office would be required to destroy the
photos and cease taking intimate tattoo pictures of misdemeanor
detainees. [GN]

GAOTU TECHEDU: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds Investors of the December 20, 2021 Deadline to File a
Lead Plaintiff Motion in a Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Morgan Stanley for securities law
violations regarding trading in Gaotu Techedu Inc. ("Gaotu" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GOTU) from March 22, 2021 through March 29, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

According to the complaint, Defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley traded while in possession of material non-public
information and that: (1) Defendants obtained the material
non-public information pursuant to their agreements with Archegos
Capital Management's ("Archegos") and as a result of their serving
as prime brokers of Archegos. (2) Defendants knew, recklessly
disregarded, or should have known that they owed a fiduciary duty,
or obligation arising from a similar relationship of trust and
confidence, to Archegos to keep the information confidential. (3)
Nevertheless, while in possession of material, non-public adverse
information, Defendants collectively sold billions of dollars'
worth of Gaotu Techedu Inc. (GOTU) shares.

During one week in late March 2021, investment banks Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley traded on inside information by selling large
amounts of GOTU stock based on then publicly undisclosed
information obtained through their relationship with troubled
multi-billion dollar family office Archegos Capital Management.

On this news, shares of Gaotu Techedu Inc. stock fell over 60%
during the week of March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 20, 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 Gaotu securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/gaotutecheduinc-gotu-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-446/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Amrita Roopchand Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Amrita
Roopchand, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24199-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature of 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: Julio Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Julio Martinez,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24181-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature of 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: Karina Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Karina Martinez,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24196-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature of 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: Paredes Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Bruno Eseban
Ullauri Paredes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24205-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature of 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: Reenie Roopchand Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Rennie
Roopchand, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24200-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).

The nature of 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


GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Loses Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILIND DESAI, v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02327-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order that:

   -- dismissing in part count III;

   -- granting in part Defendant's motion to exclude;

   -- striking certain opinions of Defendant's expert; and

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification

The Court determines that Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain
Count III for breach of contract based on title fees.

On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff
Milind Desai alleges that Defendant Geico Casualty Company failed
to pay actual cash value as defined in his auto-insurance policy
after an accident rendered the vehicle a total loss.

The Plaintiff moves for class certification under Rules 23(b)(2)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant
opposes and seeks to exclude the opinions of an expert on which
Plaintiff relies to support his motion.

GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dtOf0O at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAC POWER: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN ZIMMER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated within the State of
Louisiana, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01659-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan
entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for enlargement of the time frame for filing motion for class
certification.

The deadline for filing a motion for class certification will be
set forth in the Scheduling Order to be entered in this case.

Generac produces and distributes power equipment.

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

GENERAL MOTORS: Must File Bid to Junk Nalley Suit by Jan. 12, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY NALLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04174-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the
Court entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time
as follows:

   1. GM shall file its Motion to Dismiss by January 12, 2022;

   2. Plaintiff shall file his Response to GM's Motion to
      Dismiss by January 26, 2022;

   3. GM shall file its Reply by February 9, 2022; and

   4. The Plaintiff shall file his Class Certification Motion 60
      days after a ruling on GM's Motion to Dismiss.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GpOqa8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Keen, Esq.
          2839 Paces Ferry Rd SE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 751-1162
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Ben.keen@beasleyallen.com

GOFUNDME INC: Judge Responds to ADA Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that on Nov. 29,
a Southern District of New York judge responded to an Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint filed by a blind Bronx, New
York man against GoFundMe Inc., encouraging the parties to find an
early resolution. The complaint, filed just before Thanksgiving,
alleged that the online fundraising platform's website is not fully
accessible to the plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired
users.

The lawsuit explains that when the plaintiff browsed the
defendant's website in August 2021, he was unable to access certain
parts of it. In particular, the plaintiff pointed to limited screen
reader functionality, like its failure to read full blocks of text,
describe images, and its skipping over certain pages.

The class action states claims under the ADA and the New York City
Human Rights Law. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the
putative nationwide class, seeks declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and compensatory damages, including statutory and punitive
damages.

The court's Nov. 29 order stated that "[i]n the Court's experience,
the vast majority of cases involving such claims are resolved early
-- often without even an initial pretrial conference." As such,
Judge Jesse M. Furman instructed the parties to file a joint letter
answering various questions about the litigation and the parties'
efforts to settle it.

Specifically, the parties must describe what discovery and what
settlement discussions have taken place and whether there is
anything the court can do to facilitate resolution, among other
things. The plaintiff has 100 days to file the submission or the
parties must do so jointly two weeks after GoFundMe appears in the
case.

The plaintiff is represented by Mizrahi Kroub LLP. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Troutman Pepper Attorneys Discuss UK Supreme Ct. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Austin Jenkin II, Esq., Ronald Raether, Esq., and Angelo
Stio III, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in an article for JDSupra,
report that on November 10, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court
issued a decision in Lloyd v. Google LLC, UKSC2019/0213 (Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom), recognizing that the loss of control
of personal data by consumers alone is insufficient to establish
damages to enable a claimant to show he had the "same interest" in
a claim to pursue a representative action on behalf of 4.4 million
Google users who allegedly had their internet activity tracked
without their knowledge or consent. In other words, the Court found
that each member of the proposed class would need to prove his/her
individual damages, thus precluding the use of a representative
action. In this regard, the U.K. Supreme Court's rejection of the
claimant's loss of control of data damage theory is analogous to
similar theories that U.S. district courts have rejected as
insufficient to satisfy the predominance requirement to certify a
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). See e.g., McGlenn v.
Driveline Retail Merch., Inc., No. 18-cv-2097, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9532, *29-30 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021) (finding the plaintiff
has not satisfied the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3)
because there was insufficient evidence that a number of
individuals suffered a compensable injury); Fero v. Excellus Health
Plan, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 3d 724, 744 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding no
predominance where the "[p]laintiffs have failed to offer any
classwide theory as to how any alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions by BCBSA caused any injury to [the] [p]laintiffs").

Factual Background

In Lloyd, consumer activist Richard Lloyd, with the financial
backing of the commercial litigation funder Therium Litigation
Funding, IC, alleged that from June 2011 through February 2012,
Google bypassed iPhone users' default privacy settings and
collected their web browsing data without consent in violation of
DPA 1998 Section 4.4. [1] Mr. Lloyd sought to recover damages on
his own behalf and as a representative of every iPhone user in
England and Wales, totaling approximately 4.4 million people.

Recognizing that U.K. law does not allow class-action litigation in
the field of data privacy matters, Mr. Lloyd tried to pursue a
representative action on behalf of all iPhone users from Wales.
Specifically, Mr. Lloyd invoked Rule 19.6 of the U.K. Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR 19.6), which permits an individual to pursue a
claim on behalf of one or more persons who have the same interest.
Mr. Lloyd contended, among other things, that the same interest
requirement under CPR 19.6 was present because damages under DPA
1998 could be award on a uniform basis for loss of control of
personal data without the need to investigate any circumstances
particular to any individual. Mr. Lloyd argued that compensation of
the sum of £750 to each class member was the appropriate
compensation and therefore sought a judgment of just over £3
billion for the loss of control of data.

To pursue his claims against Google, a Delaware corporation, U.K.
law first required Mr. Lloyd to seek the court's permission to
serve Google with the lawsuit. Google opposed Mr. Lloyd's
application on the basis that the lawsuit had no real likelihood of
success, and therefore, permission should be denied. First, Google
argued that uniform damages were not available because DPA 1998
required a finding of each individual's direct damages from the
breach. Second, Google argued that because DPA 1998 required a
finding of each individual's direct damages from the breach, the
members of the class and Mr. Lloyd could not share the "same
interest" in their claims against Google under CPR 19.6 to proceed
on a representative basis. Google prevailed on both of its
arguments in The High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, but
it had both of its argument rejected upon review by the Court of
Appeal. The matter was then taken on appeal to the U.K. Supreme
Court.

The Supreme Court's Decision

In its decision, the U.K. Supreme Court reviewed the history of CPR
19.6 and focused on "the same interest" element of the
representative claim. The Court held that while CPR Rule 19.6 could
be used to determine if each individual in the class had suffered
loss of control of personal data, it could not be used to award
damages to each of the individuals. The Court stated that if the
matter was bifurcated, the representative model could be used to
determine that each class member's rights under DPA 1998 were
violated, but it could not be used to award damages for the
violation. The Court noted that Mr. Lloyd did not request this
bifurcation model, commenting that this likely occurred because it
would not generate a financial return for Mr. Lloyd and his
financial backer.

The Court then examined Section 13 of DPA 1998 and held that
individuals are only entitled to damages under the act if they can
show they suffered damages as a direct result of the violation. The
Court stated that DPA 1998 required "proof of material damage or
distress" by each individual for the individual to recover under
the act. The Court held that because individual showings of damages
were required, Mr. Lloyd's attempt to pursue the claims on a
representative basis failed.

As summarized by the Court, Mr. Lloyd's arguments failed because
"the Claimant (Mr. Lloyd) [sought] damages under section 13 of the
DPA 1998 for each individual member of the represented class
without attempting to show that any wrongful use was made by Google
of personal data relating to that individual or that the individual
suffered any material damage or distress as a result of a breach."

Takeaway

Lloyd's recognition that damages under DPA 1998 can only be awarded
when an individual has suffered distinct harm is consistent with
other European jurisdictions that require evidence of specific
damages or emotional distress to pursue a claim under DPA 1998. It
also is analogous to U.S. courts' recognition that class treatment
in a security incident case can be defeated where there are
questions on whether a number of plaintiffs have suffered any
compensable injury.

Indeed, Lloyd reaffirmed that class-action litigation seeking to
assert data privacy rights is unlikely to succeed in the U.K. While
the Lloyd Court's holding did not bar the representative model
altogether, it did remove the economic incentive in pursuing claims
on such a basis when direct damages are nonexistent or difficult to
establish in a uniform manner.

Of course, it is possible that the Lloyd decision could spur the
U.K. Parliament to pass a class-action litigation regime for data
privacy rights. The Lloyd Court's holding recognizes that such a
regime, as currently exists for competition law, could be enacted
by legislation. It also could spur greater regulatory action by the
ICO in matters where there are DPA 1998 or GDPR violations, but no
distinct damages. If Parliament passes legislation or the ICO is
motivated to initiate more regulatory actions, it could eliminate
the security that the Lloyd decision currently provides to
businesses. [GN]

GREEN ROSE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Vega Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR VEGA v. GREEN ROSE
GREEN LEAF CARE, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-01331-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), as follows:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by September 22, 2022. Discovery motions must be
      filed and heard prior to this date.

   2. The parties shall have until November 21, 2022 to file and
      have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings.

   3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, January 23,
      2023 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
      required.

   4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, January 31,
      2023 at 08:30 AM.

   5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 -- Private
      Mediation. The parties shall have until October 6, 2022 to
      conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file
      with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than 5 days
      after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court
      of their settlement efforts and status.

   6. The Plaintiff shall have until April 25, 2022 to file and
      have heard any class certification motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3doAyAs at no extra charge.[CC]

IDAHO: Supreme Ct. Challenges Decision in Kindergarten Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Devin Bodkin at IdahoEdNews.org 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 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 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.

Stay with Idaho EdNews for more on this developing story.

This article was originally posted on IdahoEdNews.org on November
22, 2021. [GN]

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

InnovAge Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: INNV)
Class Period: InnovAge common stock purchased pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO").
Deadline: December 13, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/innv.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's IPO was materially false and
misleading and omitted to state: (1) that certain of InnovAge's
facilities failed to provide covered services, provide accessible
and adequate services, manage participants' medical situations, and
oversee use of specialists; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including
by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; (3) that, as a
result, there as a significant risk that CMS would suspend new
enrollments pending an audit of the Company's services; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading (NASDAQ: HEPS)
Class Period: D-MARKET ADRs purchased pursuant or traceable to the
Company's July 1, 2021 initial public stock offering ("IPO")
Deadline: December 20, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/heps.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the IPO (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of
the IPO: (1) That D-Market had suffered a sharp deceleration in
operational and sales growth as consumers retreated from e-commerce
offerings in 2Q21; (2) That D-Market's revenue growth had decreased
to just 5% year-over-year growth in 2Q21, over 90% below the most
recent growth rate highlighted in the Registration Statement; (3)
That D-Market's GMV growth had decreased to just 38% year-over-year
growth in 2Q21, less than half the most recent growth rate
highlighted in the Registration Statement; and (4) that as a result
of the foregoing, at the time of the IPO, the Company's business
and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the
IPO Registration Statement.

Gaotu Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GOTU)
Class Period: March 22, 2021 - March 29, 2021
Deadline: December 20, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/gotu

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley traded while in
possession of material non-public information. The complaint also
alleges that Defendants: (1) obtained the material non-public
information pursuant to their agreements with Archegos Capital
Management's ("Archegos") and as a result of their serving as prime
brokers of Archegos; (2) knew, recklessly disregarded, or should
have known that they owed a fiduciary duty, or obligation arising
from a similar relationship of trust and confidence, to Archegos to
keep the information confidential; and (3) while in possession of
material, non-public adverse information, collectively sold
billions of dollars' worth of Gaotu shares.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

INSTADOSE PHARMA: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Instadose Pharma Corp. (OTC: INSD) resulting from
allegations that Instadose Pharma may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Instadose Pharma 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-2217.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 23, 2021, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a temporary suspension in the
trading of Instadose Pharma Corp. securities due to concerns
regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the
company in the marketplace. The SEC specifically noted stock price
and volume increases of Instadose stock unsupported by the
company's assets and financial information, trading that may be
associated with individuals related to a control person at the
Company, and operations at the Company's Canadian affiliate.

Shares of Instadose Pharma stock fell more than 13% in intraday
trading on November 23, 2021.

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

INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Quinn Emanuel to File Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan plans to file a shareholder class action against IAG for
alleged breaches in updating the market about its exposure to
business interruption claims resulting from the pandemic.

The law firm is inviting shareholders who bought IAG stock between
March 11 to November 20 last year to register their interest in the
class action, which it intends to file in the Supreme Court of
Victoria before the end of the year.

Quinn Emanuel Partner Damian Scattini says COVID-19 was declared a
global pandemic on March 11, yet IAG policies relied on the
outdated Quarantine Act as the foundation for its pandemic
exclusion clause.

"For years it sold policies with a useless exclusion," he said.
"Then, when the pandemic hit, instead of admitting its error, IAG
doubled down, misleading the market about its true exposure."

An IAG spokesman says the insurer is aware that Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan has announced that it intends to file action,
but it has not yet been served with any legal proceedings.

The class action follows the resolution of the first Insurance
Council of Australia test case, which was announced in July last
year to look at the validity of Quarantine Act exclusion wordings.

The NSW Court of Appeal on November 18 ruled insurers could not
rely on the repealed legislation to exclude business interruption
claims for COVID-19 disruptions.

IAG shares entered a trading halt on November 19 and the following
day the company announced a $750 million capital raising and that
it intended to recognise an $865 million post-tax provision as a
result of the court's decision.

Quinn Emanuel says IAG shares resumed trading 7% lower than the
November 18 closing price and the loss in market capitalisation was
about $800 million.

"Unlike others, IAG did not reveal the extent of its exposure if
they were wrong, and that is why the market was shocked, because
they had said 'we have got this covered'," Mr Scattini told
insuranceNEWS.com.au.

IAG in late July had set aside around $100 million for potential
claim costs impacts from business interruption and other lines,
declaring it a conservative position as it held the view that there
was an effective exclusion.

The class action will allege breaches of stock exchange continuous
disclosure obligations and misleading and deceptive conduct, with
the law firm noting it "was always likely" that the courts would
find the exclusion clauses were ineffective, despite the industry
position that pandemics were never meant to be covered. [GN]

JAGUAR LAND: Turbocharger Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood at CarComplaints.com reports that a Land Rover
turbocharger lawsuit has been dismissed after seven plaintiffs
claimed the turbochargers failed a few years after purchasing the
vehicles and most owners paid their own money for repairs or
replacements.

However, two plaintiffs allege they couldn't afford the repairs
which means their vehicles are not fully functional.

The Land Rover turbocharger lawsuit includes these vehicles
equipped with 2-liter Ford EcoBoost engines, "one of the continuing
legacies of Ford's brief ownership of Land Rover from 2000-2008."

2012-2017 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
2015-2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport
2013-2015 Land Rover LR2

According to the class action lawsuit, the turbocharger forces air
into the engine to help a smaller engine perform more like a larger
engine. But the plaintiffs claim Land Rover used lighter and less
durable materials when building the turbos compared to previous
engines.

The turbo lawsuit alleges Land Rover used a single piece for the
turbocharger instead of a two-piece component, and the automaker
also allegedly placed the turbo deep into the engine and powertrain
compared to previous vehicles.

Land Rover allegedly concealed the turbocharger problems when the
plaintiffs purchased their vehicles but allegedly knew the turbos
would fail after the warranties expired.

No plaintiff alleges their turbocharger failed within the time or
mileage limitations of the warranty or governmentally mandated
warranties.

Land Rover Turbo Failure Lawsuit Dismissed
Land Rover filed a motion to dismiss the turbo failure lawsuit and
argued express warranty claims should be dismissed because the
plaintiffs don't allege the turbos failed within the time or
mileage limits of the express warranties.

However, the plaintiffs do allege the turbocharger defect was
latent. But Judge John Michael Vazquez ruled, "latent defects
discovered after the term of an express warranty cannot serve [as]
a basis for a claim for the breach of an express warranty."

"As a result, Plaintiffs' allegations as to a latent defect also do
not sufficiently support a breach of express warranty claim." -
Judge Vazquez

The plaintiffs also contend the Land Rover turbochargers were
"inherently defective at purchase" and this is allegedly different
from a latent defect.

According to the plaintiffs, dealerships should have repaired the
turbochargers under the express warranties when the plaintiffs
presented their vehicles for service within the warranty periods.

However, the judge found the plaintiffs do not appear to have had
complaints about their turbochargers or problems associated with
the turbochargers during those dealer service visits.

The judge says there was no "presentment for service" for the
turbochargers during the warranty periods as required by the
limited warranty.

The plaintiffs also allege Land Rover knew or should have known the
turbochargers would prematurely fail and the automaker should have
disclosed the problem or issued a recall to ensure the turbos
didn't fail. However, the judge ruled nothing in the class action
lawsuit leads to such an inference.

The turbocharger class action alleges there was an increase in
turbo warranty claims and customer complaints within the first few
years of selling the vehicles.

But the judge ruled the plaintiffs admit their turbocharger
failures did not occur within the "first few years," and the judge
found most of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
incidents did not occur within the first few years.

Once the express warranty claims were dismissed, the judge moved on
to implied warranty claims related to the Land Rover
turbochargers.

According to the judge:

"As discussed, Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that their
turbochargers failed within express warranty limitations.
Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a breach of any
implied warranties. Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranties claim,
therefore, is dismissed without prejudice."

A Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim was also dismissed because the
plaintiffs fail to state breach of express or implied warranties.

Other dismissed claims include breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims because none of the plaintiffs purchased their
vehicles directly from Jaguar Land Rover.

The Land Rover turbocharger lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey: Flynn-Murphy, et al., v.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Seeger Weiss LLP, and Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. [GN]

JENNMAR CORPORATION: Stacey, Allen Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLIE STACY and CLIFFORD
ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. JENNMAR CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, INC., JENNMAR CORPORATION OF
EAST VIRGINIA, INC., JENNMAR CONSTRUCTION TOOLS, LLC, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00015-JPJ-PMS (W.D.Va.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a)
      and (b)(3) with three subclasses for the VMWA, VWPA, and
      Virginia common law claims;

   2. appointing them as class representatives;

   3. appointing Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC and The Spiggle
      Law Firm, PLLC as class counsel;

   4. approving the proposed notice of this action and opt-out
      form;

   5. producing the names, last known mailing addresses, last-
      known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations,
      shift assignments, and dates of employment of all putative
      plaintiffs within fifteen days of the Order; and

   6. distributing the Notice and forms via first class mail to
      all members of the certified class.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 3,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31yXUkp
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-Mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
          THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
          Arlington, VA 22206
          Telephone: (202) 449-8527
          Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
          E-Mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          North Carolina State Bar No. 55014
          THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
          Arlington, VA 22206
          Telephone: (202) 449-8527
          Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
          E-Mail: rtucci@spigglelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin P. Fryer, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1415
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: (980) 282-1900
          Facsimile: (980) 556-7183
          E-Mail: bfryer@fordharrison.com

               - and -

          K. Maxwell Bernas, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          1300 19th Street, NW, Suite 420
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 719-2047
          E-Mail: kmbernas@fordharrison.com

JOHNSON UTILITIES: Settles Racketeering Class Action for $10MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a proposed $10 million settlement of
a class-action racketeering lawsuit against a water and wastewater
utility in Pinal County would provide refunds to customers.

A Nov. 19 motion filed on behalf of Johnson Utilities and various
co-defendants and the customers who sued Johnson asked a federal
judge to approve the settlement.

The Casa Grande Dispatch and the Arizona Republic reported on the
settlement on Nov. 29.

The lawsuit alleged that Johnson conspired to unlawfully increase
its rates by using a lobbyist to bribe a now-former Arizona
Corporation Commission member.

The settlement states that it isn't an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any party in the case.

The lawsuit included information from a related criminal case that
ended in 2018 when jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Prosecutors decided against retrying the case.

The motion said the settlement would cover only about half of
customers' actual financial damages but was fair because of the
risk of losing such a case.

Under the settlement, current customers would receive refunds up to
$172.50 through credits on their bills while ex-customers would be
mailed checks.

EPCOR, which bought Johnson's assets in January, is not a party to
the lawsuit but has agreed to distribute the refunds, the motion
said. [GN]


KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Thomas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKE THOMAS, et al., v.
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01860-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order
extending the briefing schedule.

Plaintiffs' December 6, 2021 deadline to respond to the Motion to
Exclude is extended two weeks to December 20, 2021; and
Defendant's deadline to respond to the opposition to the Motion to
Exclude is extended to January 5, 2022.

The Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC is a San Francisco,
California, based hotel and restaurant brand owned by IHG Hotels &
Resorts since 2015.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31pxFNw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Robert J. Dart, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq.
          Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
          Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARD & SMITH, LLP
          633 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Michael.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com

LAUREATE GROUP: Class Settlement in McDaniel Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYMONE MCDANIEL v. THE
LAUREATE GROUP INC, LAYTON TERRACE V LLC, Case No. 20-cv-1870-bhl
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered a final order
approving settlement as follows:

   1. The Court's previous provisional appointments of Symone
      McDaniel as Class Representative and Walcheske & Luzi LLC
      as Class Counsel, and its provisional certification of the
      Proposed Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective are made final.

   2. The parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
      Settlement, is granted.

   3. Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Plaintiff's Service
      Award, is granted.

   4. The Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees, is
      granted.

   5. The payments to the Settlement Class, including members of
      the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective, are approved. The
      funds should be distributed in a manner consistent with
      the Settlement Agreement.

   6. All settled claims are dismissed subject to the terms of
      the Settlement Agreement.

The Laureate Group Inc was founded in 1969. The company's line of
business includes the operation of apartment buildings.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IDi6mb at no extra charge.[CC]

LEE'S SUMMIT: Seeks to Remove Female Tech Specialists from Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY SPATZ, et al., v.
LEE'S SUMMIT R-7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 4:20-CV-00448-RK (W.D.
Mo.), the Defendant Lee's Summit moves for modification of the
Court's November 30, 2021 order granting in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification.

Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court remove female
Technology Specialists from the conditionally certified class,
because the two named plaintiffs within that employee
classification (Nancy Spatz and Jill Besanceney) had settled their
claims before the Court entered its order.

Ms. Spatz and Ms. Besanceney effectively settled their claims
before the Court conditionally certified a class, and but for the
fact that their counsel had an arbitration soon after the November
9 mediation, they likely would have signed their settlement
agreements and dismissed their claims before the date of the
Court's order. Because they have settled their claims though, they
cannot serve as class representatives. The Court should therefore
modify its November 30 order so that the class will consist only of
Elementary Assistant Principals, the Defendants contend.

The Lee's Summit R-7 School District serves parts of Lee's Summit,
Kansas City, Missouri, rural eastern Jackson County and the
entirety of Unity Village, Greenwood, Lake Winnebago, and Lake
Lotawana in the State of Missouri.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xSNBn6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George E. Kapke, Jr., Esq.
          KAPKE & WILLERTH L.L.C.
          The Chape1 Ridge Law Building
          3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64064
          Telephone: (816) 461-3800
          Facsimile: (816) 254-8014
          E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com

               - and -

          Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
          KLAMANN LAW FIRM
          4435 Main Street, Suite 150
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 421-2626
          Facsimile: (816) 421-8686
          E-mail: ajs@klamannlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Joseph Hatley, Esq.
          Stephanie Lovett-Bowman, Esq.
          Brian Peterson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 474-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
          E-mail: jhatley@spencerfane.com
                  slovettbowman@spencerfane.com
                  bpeterson@spencerfane.com

LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Response to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCDONOUGH v. LEOPOLD &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00375 (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting
motion for extension of time to file response/reply.

The Defendant Trinity Financial Services, shall file its response
to Plaintiff's motion to certify Class on or before Dec. 24, 2021.


The suit alleghes violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

Leopold & Associates focuses on commercial and residential mortgage
foreclosure, bankruptcy, enforcement of creditors' rights,
evictions, and loss mitigation .

Trinity Financial is an independent and wealth management firm.[CC]

LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Probes Firm for Possible Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against
LifeStance Health Group ("LifeStance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
LFST) on behalf of LifeStance stockholders. Our investigation
concerns whether LifeStance has violated the federal securities
laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business practices.

LifeStance is one of the nation's largest providers of virtual and
in-person outpatient mental health care for children, adolescents
and adults experiencing a variety of mental health conditions.

On August 11, 2021, LifeStance announced financial results for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2021. The company reported a $70
million net loss in the second quarter and issued third quarter
guidance that missed estimates as healthcare companies struggle to
retain physicians suffering burnout by the COVID-19 pandemic.

On this news, LifeStance's stock price fell $10.16 per share, to
close at $11.71 per share August 12, 2021.

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

LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Lightning Emotors, Inc ("Lightning Emotors") (NYSE:
ZEV) between May 7, 2021 and August 16, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lightning-emotors-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21450&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Lightning Emotors, Inc NEWS - ZEV NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the Company
would record a substantially greater net loss per share in the
second quarter of 2021 compared to the second quarter of 2020 and
would pull its full year guidance for the remainder of 2021; (ii)
accordingly, the Company materially overstated its financial
position and/or prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Lightning Emotors, you have until December 15, 2021 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Lightning Emotors securities
between May 7, 2021 and August 16, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lightning-emotors-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21450&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

LUCKIN COFFEE: July 22, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE LUCKIN COFFEE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:20-cv-01293-JPC-JLC

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

TO: All persons and entities (and their beneficiaries) that
purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depository Shares
("ADSs") of Luckin Coffee Inc. between May 17, 2019 through July
15, 2020, inclusive ("Class"). Certain persons and entities are
excluded from the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated October 20, 2021 ("Stipulation")
and the Settlement Notice described below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED

BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ("Court"), that Sjunde
AP-Fonden and Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund (together,
"Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the Class;
and (b) Luckin Coffee Inc. (in Provisional Liquidation) ("Luckin"),
have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned action
("Action") for $175,000,000 in cash ("Settlement"). The Settlement,
if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on July 22, 2022 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable John P. Cronan at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312,
Courtroom 12D, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Luckin, the
other defendants named in the Action, and certain other related
parties, and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation (and in the Settlement Notice described below) should
be entered; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be
approved. Any updates regarding the hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website
for the Action, www.LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary
of the information contained in the detailed Notice of (I) Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Settlement Notice"). If
you have not received a copy of the Settlement Notice, along with
the Claim Form, in the mail, you may obtain copies of these
documents by: (i) contacting the Claims Administrator at In re
Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 5887, Portland, OR 97228-5887,
1-855-535-1824, info@LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com; or (ii)
downloading them from the website for the Action,
www.LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Class Counsel's
websites, www.blbglaw.com and www.ktmc.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than March
15, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in
the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Class Counsel and Luckin's Counsel such that they are received no
later than June 24, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice. As this Class was previously
certified by the Court for purposes of negotiating and implementing
a settlement and, in connection therewith, Class Members had the
opportunity to exclude themselves from the Class, the Court has
exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity for
exclusion in connection with the settlement proceedings.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, LUCKIN, OR
LUCKIN'S COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

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

In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 5887
Portland, OR 97228-5887
1-855-535-1824

info@LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com

All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel:

Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
1-610-667-7706
info@ktmc.com

DATED: November 30, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
URL: www.LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN]

MALAYSIA: Parties in Water Cuts Lawsuit Seek Documents From Govt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An MP and 809 residents who sued the federal government and others
over water cuts last year want the authorities to provide documents
on their probe into the pollution of Sungai Gong in Selangor.

In their discovery application, PKR's Wangsa Maju MP Tan Yee Kew
and the residents said these documents are important in the
upcoming High Court trial.

"The government, in its defence statement, has made references to
some documents which we have no knowledge of.

"Thus, it is important for these documents to be handed to us in
the interest of justice," she said.

Among the documents they are seeking are those on checks conducted
on factories around Sungai Gong, trial documents related to the
court case against the directors and manager of a workshop, Yip
Chee Seng & Sons Sdn Bhd, and official reports on the Sept 3, 2020
Sungai Gong pollution.

Tan and the residents filed the suit in the High Court in April
against Yip Chee Seng & Sons, the state authorities and the federal
government over water disruptions in the Klang Valley that lasted
four days from Sept 3 last year.

They want a court declaration that the workshop was liable for
negligence, and that the public authorities, including the state
and federal governments, had breached their statutory duties in not
maintaining water quality.

They are also seeking damages for their hardship and suffering
during the disruption.

Also named as defendants are the menteri besar, Selayang municipal
council, Selangor Water Management Authority (LUAS) and the
irrigation and drainage department.

The other defendants are the National Water Services Commission
(SPAN), the Environmental Quality Council, the environment
department, the environment and water minister, Air Selangor and
Pakar Scieno TW Sdn Bhd.

The federal government, in its defence, said its officers conducted
investigations at Yip Chee Seng & Sons on March 17 and 18, 2020,
and found no hazardous waste being dumped into the river.

Neither did the officers find any effluent in the workshop during a
check on Sept 3, 2020. They only found used oil filters,
lubricating oil and used car batteries.

Yip Chee Seng & Sons' four directors and a manager were charged in
the Selayang sessions court last year with committing mischief by
causing hazardous waste to flow into the rivers and are awaiting
trial.

Air Selangor and SPAN have also sought to strike out the suit.

Air Selangor said it should not be held liable over the water cuts
while SPAN said the disruptions were not within its control.

SPAN said Tan and the residents had no legal standing to file the
suit. [GN]

MARIANI PACKAGING: Ct. Enters Initial Pretrial Conference Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRENTON LODAHL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARIANI PACKAGING
CO., INC., Case No. : 3:21-cv-00540-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge William M. Conley entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order a follows:

   -- Amendments to Pleadings is due on Jan. 19, 2022.

   -- Motion for Conditional Certification of Class is due on
      March 19, 2022.

   -- Motion to Certify Class under Rule 23 is due on Aug. 19,
      2022.

   -- Dispositive Motions is due on Feb. 17, 2023.

   -- Settlement Letters is due on Jan. 30, 2023.

   -- Motions in Limine is due on July 14, 2023.

   -- Responses is due on July 28, 2023.

   -- Final Pretrial Conference is set for Aug. 8, 2023 at 4:00
      PM.

   -- Jury Selection and Trial is set for Aug. 21, 2023 at 9:00
      AM.

Mariani Packing provides food products. The Company specializes in
growing, drying, processing, and packaging dried fruit snacks and
ingredient.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31Cuwdc at no extra charge.[CC]

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC: Police Dept. Sued for Exposing Vital Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WSOCTV.com News reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit claims
that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department sent personal info
to businesses.

A resident said officers gave out vital information after car
crashes despite being ordered not to in 2016.

It isn't the only lawsuit regarding the issue.

Action 9 reported on a lawsuit about one year ago.

Drivers said their information was given to lawyers and body shops
for marketing purposes despite federal law specifically banning it.
CMPD said it stopped doing this in 2020. [GN]



META PLATFORMS: Users Await Settlement Checks in BIPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Riley O'Neil, writing for WROK News Talk 1440, reports that you may
have been asking yourself the same question. You took part in the
class-action suit against Facebook, you were told that your side
would be receiving nearly $400 each, but so far you've seen
nothing.

So, what's the deal? Are you ever going to see that money? And, if
you do, will you be taking a photo of yourself like these people
(please, say no):

It Looks Like You Will Get A Facebook Settlement Check, But It's
Going To Take Longer Than You Thought

That check from Facebook for violating Illinois law by cataloging
faces without user's permission hasn't been sent out yet, and by
the looks of the situation, it could still be a while.

In case you've forgotten, Facebook users in Illinois sued Facebook
claiming that its "Tag Suggestions" feature and other features
involving facial recognition technology, violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). That law says companies
can't collect, store, or give out "biometric data," which includes
things like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice
and getting consent.

The $650 million settlement that was agreed upon allowed for
payments of $200-$400 to claimants in the lawsuit, depending on the
number of valid claims that were filed.

The Court Finally Decided That $345 Would Go To Each Of The 1.6
million Illinoisans Taking Part In The Lawsuit

When the settlement was announced, the criteria for receiving a
payment was:

-- Illinois Facebook user, located in Illinois
-- Must have been a resident of Illinois for at least 183 days (six
months)
-- User for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after
June 7, 2011
-- Claims must be filed by November 23, 2020

Greg Bishop, writing for TheCenterSquare.com, says that final
approval of the settlement happened back in April of this year, but
problems with dispersing the funds began when two members of the
class-action suit appealed the payout, which prevents payments from
being made to anyone.

What's The Bottom Line? Are You Getting The Money Or Not?
The answer is yes, but . . . I wouldn't make any immediate plans
for the money.

TheCenterSquare.com:

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.
[GN]


MLD MORTGAGE: Dyes Seek Time Extension of Class Cert. Related Bids
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER AND LINDA DYE, et.
al. v. MLD MORTGAGE INC., dba THE MONEY STORE, Case No.
1:19-cv-03304-ELH (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order extending deadlines related to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in furtherance of Settlement:

Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the Plaintiffs' deadline
to file their motion for class certification is December 13, 2021.

Following the Court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss, the
exchange of initial discovery, and additional significant document
exchange, including the loan files identifying the great majority
of the members of the classes alleged in the Complaint, the
Parties' Counsel opened new settlement discussions.

On December 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs authorized, and issued, a
settlement demand to Defendant encompassing Plaintiffs' individual
and class claims.

The Parties agree that a short extension of the deadlines to file
the motion for class certification would be conducive to allow
Defendant to evaluate Plaintiffs' settlement demand without
Plaintiffs incurring attorneys' fees and costs preparing a motion
that may be mooted if a settlement agreement is reached.

To this end, that Parties agree that an extension of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification deadline to January 14, 2022, with
commensurate extensions for each of the remaining deadlines
associated with the Motion for Class Certification, is appropriate
to accommodate the parties' settlement communications.

Mld Mortgage provides financing services. The Company offers
mortgage finance, refinance, and renovation loan.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rFEV2u at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

MONDELEZ INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Fudge Cookie Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Berg, writing for Law360, reports that the company behind
the Oreo cookie and Ritz cracker brands shouldn't be advertising
its Oreo Fudge Cremes as "fudge covered" because the product
doesn't contain essential fudge ingredients, according to a
proposed class action in New York federal court. [GN]

NATHAN CAIN: Court Enters Case Management Order in Amos Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL AMOS, et al., v.
NATHAN BURL CAIN, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00030-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), the Hon. Judge Jane M. Virden entered an order case
management order as follows:

   1. Initial Disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. p. 26(a)(1)

      The parties will exchange initial disclosures regarding
      class certification issues pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
      on or prior to February 11, 2022.

   2. Amendments to Pleadings and Joinder of Parties; Responses
      to Pleadings and Pending Motions

      The deadline to file any motions to amend the pleadings or
      to join additional parties is December 17, 2021. This date
      is the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings
      regardless of whether the case is in the class
      certification stage or the merits stage. The deadline for
      Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint is
      January 14, 2022. The deadline for defendants to respond
      to Brymon Hamp's motion for TRO in the Lang is January 14,
      2022.

   3. Class Certification Discovery and Scope

      Discovery prior to class certification must be sufficient
      to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements
      of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied. Until
      the issue of class certification is resolved, counsel must
      give priority to discovery directed to the class
      certification issue.

   4. Discovery Plan and Deadlines

      a. Expert witnesses for class certification, if any, shall
         be disclosed, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
         Procedure 26, by March 15, 2022, for Plaintiffs' side,
         and by May 20, 2022, for the Defendants' side.

      b. Discovery must be completed by July 1, 2022.

      c. Daubert motions challenging the parties' class
         certification experts must be filed by July 22, 2022.

      d. Plaintiffs' side motion for class certification and
         memorandum shall be filed by August 26, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pwAiVJ at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Extension of Class Cert. Reply Brief Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIO AND ROSA
CONTRERAS, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY, KEITH AND TERESA
MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, and JENNIE MILLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS LLC
(N/K/A XOME HOLDINGS LLC), a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and SOLUTIONSTAR FIELD SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. e2:16-cv-00302-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Parties
submit their stipulated motion to extend the deadline for
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief.

Pursuant to the Court's May 19, 2021 Stipulation and Order
Extending Deadlines, the Court reset and extended all the class
certification briefing and fact discovery deadlines and set the
deadline for filing of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification for December 29, 2021.

The current deadline of December 29, 2021 falls just six weeks
after Defendants filed their 30-page Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and includes three
intervening winter holidays. In order for Plaintiffs to properly
address and adequately respond to each 14 of the numerous issues
raised in Defendants' Opposition, Plaintiffs require a modest
amount of additional time to prepare and file their Reply brief.

This Stipulation to extend the deadline for filing of Plaintiffs'
Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification by 14 days to
January 12, 2022, is timely and is made with good cause and without
prejudice to, or waiver of, any rights or defenses otherwise
available to the Parties in this Action. The Parties therefore
respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for the
filing of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification by 14 days to January 12,
21 2022.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dx7wcq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
                  dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Nick Styant-Browne, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO L.L.P.
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com
          nick@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Mark D. Lonergan, Esq.
          Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq.
          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          Loren W. Coe, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: jbs@severson.com
                  mdl@severson.com
                  mks@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com
                  lwc@severson.com

NATROL LLC: Scarpo Sues over Mislabeled Memory Tablet Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT SCARPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-01979 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled its Cognium Products as containing clinically studied
ingredient for memory.

According to the complaint, in all of its marketing materials,
Natrol claims that its "Natrol Cognium Memory" ("Cognium Memory")
and "Natrol Cognium Memory Extra Strength" ("Cognium Memory Extra
Strength") (collectively the "Cognium Products") provide improved
memory and recall. To make matters worse, to deceptively imply
scientific significance and credibility, the Cognium Products'
packaging also states that the Cognium Products contain the "#1
most clinically studied ingredient for memory," says the suit.

Based on Natrol's representations, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated California consumers like him purchased Cognium Products
to improve their memory. Indeed, these efficacy claims are the only
reason a consumer would purchase the Cognium Products.

Natrol's alleged advertising claims, however, are provably false,
misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public because
reliable scientific evidence, including expert opinion and
scientific studies, shows that the so-called active ingredient in
the Cognium Products, silk protein hydrolysate, is no more
effective than a placebo at improving memory.

Natrol LLC wholesales and distributes prescription, proprietary
drugs, and toiletries. The Company provides beauty, digestive
health, and energy support products. Natrol serves customers in the
State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               -and-

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               -and-

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Kevin Hulick, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY &
          LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile (216) 696-3924
          Email: sscott@spanglaw.com
                 khulick@spanglaw.com

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Court Enters General Pretrial Management Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ONANEY POLANCO, as Parent
and Natural Guardian of A.D., and ONANEY POLANCO
Individually, v. MEISHA PORTER, in her Official Capacity as the
Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10176-AJN-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara
Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as
follows:

   1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
      must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
      discovery set by the Court.

   2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
      requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
      after the need for such an application arises and must
      comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
      Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

   3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
      conferences are not required, but may be requested where
      counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
      may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

   4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
      proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
      extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
      compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses' Individual
      Practices.

   5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses'
      Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are
      limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments.

   6. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order
      on any defendant previously served with the summons and
      complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons
      and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must
      file proof of such service with the Court.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GrG95E at no extra charge.[CC]


NIFTY GATEWAY: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Cruz
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAEL CRUZ v. NIFTY
GATEWAY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10035-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management including scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 636(b) (1)(A):

   -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
      related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
      to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for
      injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class
      certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to
      Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual
      Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website
      at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

   -- Parties and counsel are cautioned: Court conferences and
      hearings may be conducted by teleconference,
      videoconference, or in person.

   -- Teleconferences are held on the Court's AT&T line. If a
      teleconference is scheduled, the parties are directed to
      call (888) 557-8511 and enter the access code 7746387 a
      few minutes before the scheduled time and further set
      forth in this Order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31sFjXj at no extra charge.[CC]

NISSAN NORTH: Parties in Kemp Suit Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAKEITA KEMP, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Case No. 3:19-cv-00854
(M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending
the current scheduling order to extend the discovery and class
certification deadlines (including related expert disclosure
deadlines) by 30 days.

Both Parties agree to moving these deadlines by 30 days each, with
the new deadlines as follows:

  -- Class Certification Discovery             Jan. 14, 2022
     Cut-Off

  -- Deadline to file Motion for               Feb. 28, 2022
     Class Certification

  -- Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures            Feb. 28, 2022
     and reports due for any experts
     to be relied upon in support of
     Motion for Class Certification

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to                April 4, 2022
     produce class certification
     experts for deposition

  -- Deadline to file Opposition               May 23, 2022
     to Motion for Class
     Certification

  -- NNA's expert disclosures and              May 23, 2022
     reports due for any experts
     to be relied upon in Opposition
     to Motion for Class
     Certification

  -- Deadline for NNA to produce               June 27, 2022
     class certification experts for
     deposition

  -- Deadline to file Reply in                July 25, 2022
     support of Motion for
     Class Certification

  -- Class Certification hearing              TBD

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31o2K4d at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, pro hac vice
          BURSOR &FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, pro hac vice
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com
                  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
          9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 250-6114
          E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net

Counsel for the Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan
Motor Co., Ltd.

          Brigid M. Carpenter, Esq.
          Anthony F. Schlehuber, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 726-7341
          E-mail: bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com
                  aschlehuber@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          E. Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
          S. Vance Wittie, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE
          & REATH LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 357-2503
          E-mail: paul.cauley@faegredrinker.com
                  vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq.
          Matthew Jacob Adler, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE
          & REATH LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7521
          E-mail: matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com
                  paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Ct. Enters Intial Pretrial Order in Johansen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOHANSEN v. THE
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00036-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows:


  -- Class Certification Motion due is due on July 29, 2022.

  -- Joinder of Parties is due on March 3, 2022.

  -- Motions to Amend is due on Jan. 3, 2022.

  -- Initial Disclosures is due on Nov. 23, 2021.

  -- Discovery (Fact) is due on April 15, 2022.

  -- Primary Expert is due on May 30, 2022.

  -- Rebuttal Expert is due on 6/30/2022.

  -- Settlement Demand is due on April 15, 2022.

  -- Response to Settlement Demand is due on April 29, 2022.

  -- Mediation Deadline is on May 2022.

Northwestern Mutual is an American financial services mutual
organization based in Milwaukee.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31usP10 at no extra charge.[CC]

OLUBUNMI AKINTOYE: Court Enters General Pretrial Management Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEJUOSHO OLUSINA ADEWALE,
v. OLUBUNMI ADEOLA AKINTOYE, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-09485-JPC-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:

   1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
      must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
      discovery set by the Court.

   2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
      requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
      after the need for such an application arises and must
      comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
      Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

   3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
      conferences are not required, but may be requested where
      counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
      may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

   4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
      proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
      extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
      compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses' Individual
      Practices.

   5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses'
      Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are
      limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments.

   6. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order
      on any defendant previously served with the summons and
      complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons
      and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must
      file proof of such service with the Court.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oy41yh at no extra charge.[CC]


OWLET INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Nov. 30 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of: (a) purchasers of
the securities of Owlet, Inc. (NYSE: OWLT) between March 31, 2021
and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b)
held Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation common stock as of June 1,
2021 and were eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting on
July 14, 2021.

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Owlet, Inc. you may,
no later than January 18, 2022, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in of
Owlet, Inc.

According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

   -- Owlet was reasonably likely to be required to obtain
marketing authorization for the Smart Sock because the FDA
concluded it was a medical device;

   -- as a result, Owlet was reasonably likely to cease commercial
distribution of the Smart Sock in the U.S. until it obtained the
requisite approval; and

   -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

Contact:

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

PELICIA HALL: Court Enters Class Certification Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PELICIA E. HALL, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-DMB-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), the Hon. Judge Jane M. Virden entered a class certification
scheduling order as follows:

   I. Initial Disclosure Under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)

      The parties will exchange initial disclosures regarding
      class certification issues pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
      on or prior to Jan. 20, 22.

  II. Amendments to Pleadings and Joinder of Parties; Responses
      to Pleadings and Pending Motions

      The deadline to file any motions to amend the pleadings or
      to join additional parties is December 15, 2021. This date
      is the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings
      regardless of whether the case is in the class
      certification stage or the merits stage. The same deadline
      applies to motions to join parties (except as to those
      parties, if any, joined as a consequence of the grant, if
      any, of class certification).

III. Class Certification Discovery and Scope

      Discovery prior to class certification must be sufficient
      to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements
      of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied.

  IV. Discovery Plan and Deadlines

      Again, this discovery plan and deadlines relate only to
      the class certification stage. Discovery limitations are
      on a "per side” basis, as there is deemed to be only a
      single Plaintiffs' side and a single Defendants' side in
      this consolidated action. The parties are ordered to
      complete all discovery related to class certification as
      follows:

      1. Expert witnesses for class certification, if any, shall
         be disclosed, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
         Procedure 26, by March 15, 2022, for Plaintiffs' side,
         and by May 20, 2022, for Defendants' side.

      2. Discovery must be completed by July 1, 2022.

      3. Daubert motions challenging the parties' class
         certification experts must be filed by July 22, 2022.

      4. Plaintiffs' side motion for class certification and
         memorandum shall be filed by August 26, 2022, and shall
         not exceed 30 pages; the response by Defendants' side
         is due 14 days thereafter and will not exceed 40 pages;
         and any reply by Plaintiffs' side will be due 7 days
         after Defendants' response and will not exceed 10
         pages.

      6. Pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of
         Evidence, the attorney-client privilege and the work-
         product protections are not waived by any disclosure
         connected with this litigation. Further, the
         disclosures are not waived in any other federal or
         state proceeding.

   V. Class Certification Hearing

      The class certification hearing, if any, will be set by
      separate notice.

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

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Peloton Interactive,
Inc.. (NASDAQ: PTON)

Shareholders who purchased shares of PTON during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/peloton-interactive-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=21711&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: December 9, 2020 to November 4, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Defendants repeatedly, falsely
assured investors that the Company's positive results and growth
would continue after the pandemic. In addition, during the Class
Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements about the
amount of inventory that Peloton held, and touted the Company's
ability to keep its inventory levels in line with substantial,
sustained demand. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations,
Peloton common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

DEADLINE: January 18, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/peloton-interactive-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=21711&from=5

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of PTON during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is January 18, 2022. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]

PURPLEBRICKS GROUP: May Face Class Action Over Holiday, Pension Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
thebusinessdesk.com reports that a pressure group says it is ready
to take legal action against agents including Solihull-based
Purplebricks.

Contractors for Justice (C4J) is pursuing a proposed Group
Litigation Order against certain online estate agents such as
Purplebricks on behalf of hundreds of former workers hired as
self-employed estate agents.

The premise of the claim is that, in law, these self-employed
agents were in effect employed for the purposes of holiday pay and
pension contributions being owed by the company to the individual.

The claim is for as much as 20.7% of each person's total earnings
from the companies that C4J is set to pursue.

C4J has announced it now has enough claimants "to trigger the legal
process against Purplebricks."

A C4J statement says: "Claimants now number in the hundreds and the
current cohort will be 'sealed' and pre-action papers submitted to
the courts from 14th December. Any potential claimants that are
considering joining the action have until midnight on 14th December
to submit their intention to proceed via the C4J website."

Each individual submission is anonymous and is accepted on a no
win-no fee basis. C4J says that if the claim is not successful,
there will be no legal fees to pay.

Individual claims could be worth tens of thousands of pounds, it
said.

It has been reported that the C4J GLO may be worth over £20m in
compensation payments.

"I'm frankly amazed at the take up," said C4J spokesman Peter
Fletcher.

"From the day that we announced that we were supporting formerly
self-employed estate agents in a claim to recompense their holiday
pay and statutory pension contributions, my team have been
inundated with interest from hundreds upon hundreds of Purplebricks
agents in particular.

"Our case is clear. Companies that masquerade their staff as
self-employed in order to save themselves huge sums in employment
costs will end up simply funnelling that cash back to the
individuals that have lost out by being part of such schemes.

"We are now full to the brim with potential claimants and will be
shutting the door on this first cohort of petitioners on 14th
December. It's possible that there will be a second cohort at some
point in the future but far from certain that this will be possible
or needed."

A statement from Purplebricks said: "We have always taken legal
advice in regards to our model - and the advice is very clear that
there is no legal basis for this potential action. The service we
offer our customers is completely unaffected." [GN]

QUALITY ASSET: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Escalera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIA ESCALERA, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. QUALITY ASSET
RECOVERY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-14604-KMW-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew J. Skahill entered a scheduling order as follows:

   -- Telephone Status Conference is set for Feb. 4, 2022 10:30
      AM.

   -- Amended Pleadings is due by Jan. 31, 2022.

   -- Pretrial Factual Discovery is due by May 4, 2022.

   -- The motion for class certification and dispositive motions
      shall be filed with the Clerk no later than June 20, 2022.

Quality Asset is a collection agency located in Gibbsboro, New
Jersey.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GBy6TV at no extra charge.[CC]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vargas Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julian Vargas, et al., v.
Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., Inc., et al., Case No. e
2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff
Vargas's motion for class certification.

The Court certifies the following class:

   "All legally blind individuals who visited a Quest patient
   service center in the United States between January 1, 2018
   through December 31, 2019 (the "Class Period"), and were
   denied full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities,
   privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to Quest's
   failure to make its e-check-in self-service kiosks
   independently accessible to legally blind individuals.

The Court certifies Vargas as class representative, and appoints
the law firms Nye, Stirling, Hale and Miller, LLP and Handley,
Farah & Anderson, PLLC as co-class counsel.

The Court said, "This is a civil rights action against a party
charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination based on the use
of a specific auxiliary aid or service, and is a prime candidate
for 23(b)(2) certification. The only real questions are whether the
three-finger swipe has resolved Plaintiffs' claims such that the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) claim for injunctive
relief will become moot and whether the kiosks must be
independently accessible. The Court found in its MSJ Order that
Plaintiffs' ADA claim is not moot because disputed issues of fact
exist. Vargas's proposed nationwide class is therefore suitable for
23(b)(2) certification.

Moreover, the Unruh Act provides for $4,000 in minimum statutory
damages for each violation. Although $4,000 is not such a large
bounty that it is likely to drive all 6,000 potential California
sub-class members to court, the statutory damages plus attorneys'
fees available for prevailing plaintiffs renders individual actions
a viable alternative to a class action. Under these circumstances,
a class action is not superior to other available methods for
adjudicating the Unruh Act claim. Vargas' motion to certify a
damages sub-class is therefore denied, the Court adds.

Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IkHU69 at no extra charge.[CC]

RCI HOSPITALITY: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYTE FIGUEREDO-CHAVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RCI
HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-21733-KMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's expedited motion to conditionally certify
collective action and facilitate notice to putative collective
members.

This case arises from a dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (FLSA). The Plaintiff works as an exotic dancer
(Entertainer) at Tootsie’s Cabaret, an adult entertainment club
that is owned and operated by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff claims that "Defendants have a longstanding policy of
misclassifying their employees as independent contractors." As a
result of this policy, Plaintiff alleges that she was only
compensated in the form of tips from club patrons and, therefore,
was deprived of compensation under the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify a collective action
comprised of similarly situated Entertainers pursuant to section
16(b) of the FLSA.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32U4MZZ at no extra charge.[CC]

RE 2U: Pirani, OCERS Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE 2U, INC. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION,
Case No. 8:19-cv-03455-TDC (D. Md.), the Plaintiff Pirani along
with Additional Named Plaintiff Oklahoma City Employee Retirement
System (OCERS) ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and 23(b)
      (3);

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Exchange Act Class
      Representatives and appoint OCERS as Securities Act Class
      Representative pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and

   3. appointing Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Rule 23(g).

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

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Fiyyaz Pirani and Lead Counsel for the
Class, are:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Emma Gilmore, Esq.
          Villi Shteyn, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  egilmore@pomlaw.com
                  vshteyn@pomlaw.com

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Fiyyaz Pirani, are:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

Counsel for Additional Named Plaintiff Oklahoma City Employee
Retirement System and Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Fiyyaz
Pirani and for the Class, are:

          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          Lara Goldstone, Esq.
          James T. Christie, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: jjohnson@labaton.com
                  mrogers@labaton.com
                  lgoldstone@labaton.com
                  jchristie@labaton.com

REALPAGE INC: Deadline for Expert Reports Extended to Dec. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HOVANKY & NIGEL
JACKSON, v. REALPAGE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00586-JAG (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to extend the deadline for expert reports
regarding class certification as follows.

   -- The deadline for opposing experts regarding class
      certification is extended to December 22, 2021, and the
      deadline for rebuttal experts related to class
      certification is extended to January 21, 2022.

   -- All other deadlines in the Pretrial Order, as amended,
      remain unchanged.

The Court has previously granted motions to extend case deadlines
in this case.

RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software for the multifamily, commercial,
single-family and vacation rental housing industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dtkBJ7 at no extra charge.[CC]

REDWIRE CORP: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Redwire Corp. (NYSE: RDW) resulting from
allegations that Redwire may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Redwire 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-2214.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: During market trading hours on November 10,
2021, Redwire Corporation announced it would not be releasing Q3
2021 earnings that day as previously scheduled, and did not provide
any explanation for the delay. After the market closed, Redwire
announced that the delay was due to claims by an employee of
accounting issue and that its Audit Committee would commence an
investigation into those claims.

Shares of Redwire stock fell more than 16% in intraday trading on
November 10, 2021.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. 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.[GN]


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Holding Info Sessions on PFOA Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
news10.com reports that the Village of Hoosick Falls is holding
information sessions to answer questions and help residents fill
out PFOA class action settlement paperwork. Stephen Schwarz, the
lead attorney in the settlement, and other legal counsel will be
available in person at the Armory (80 Church Street) in Hoosick
Falls.

$34M settlement reached over PFOA contamination in Bennington
Info sessions:

December 2 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
December 3 from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.
December 4 from 9 a.m. to noon

The meeting will be in the court room/meeting room of the Armory.
The village said legal counsel could also have access documents
and/or information residents may be trying to track down, such as
water and sewer bills, county tax bills, etc.

PODCAST: On the Story with Trishna Begam: PFOA Settlement
The $65.25 million PFOA contamination class action settlement was
reached with Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, Honeywell
International and 3M in July 2021. [GN]

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Court Certifies Work Specialist Class in Gibbs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE GIBBS v. SEDGWICK
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Case No. 6:21-cv-00202-GAP-GJK
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered an order:

   1. granting motion to certify class;

   2. approving outlined procedure;

   3. approving the notice and the consent to join form;

   4. staying case pending further order of the Court.

The Court said, the parties agree that "[i]ndividuals who held the
position of Return to Work Specialist in the Workforce Absence
business division in the relevant time period and were classified
as exempt are sufficiently similarly situated with respect to their
job requirements and pay provisions to support conditional
certification of the class." Given that this standard is "fairly
lenient,” Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208,
1218 (11th Cir. 2001), the Court will grant conditional
certification. This does not preclude Sedgwick's ability to later
move to decertify this class."

Sedgwick Claims provides claims and productivity management
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozWBdC at no extra charge.[CC]

SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Huang Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUER HUANG, LIANQIN LU,
GLORIA PEREZ MENDEZ, CLARA FLORES, REYES PEREZ GUERRERO, ARAGON
CARDOSO CRUZ, and MAXIMINO RAYMUNDO, on behalf of themselves, and
on behalf others similarly situated in the Proposed FLSA Collective
and Potential Rule 23 Class, and HUI ZHEN HUANG, JUAN LI, and HAI
HUA ZHAI, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf others similarly
situated in the Potential Rule 23 Class, v. SHANGHAI CITY CORP
d/b/a Joe's Shanghai, EAST BROTHER CORP d/b/a Joe's Shanghai,
SHANGHAI ORIGINAL INC d/b/a Joe's Shanghai, KIU SANG SI a/k/a
Joseph Si a/k/a Joe Si, YIU FAI FONG, TUN YEE LAM a/k/a Peter Lam,
GUI BING SHI, SOLOMON C LIOU, and WILLIAM KO,Case No.
1:19-cv-07702-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

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

   2. appointing them as class representatives;

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

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

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

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EE3DDV
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Local Groups May File Suit Over Bail Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------
localmemphis.com reports that back in July, a group of Shelby
County residents rallied for bail reform. They said too many
low-risk inmates were being held in jail because they couldn't
afford bail.

Now, some of those organizations helping are moving forward with
their demands.

They refuse go unheard.

The Wharton Law Firm, ACLU of Tennessee and activist organization,
Just City, sent a demand notice to Shelby County for bail reform.

"It lists out what we think are the problems in the money bail
system in Shelby County," said Josh Spickler, Just City Executive
Director.

Spickler said prior to having trial, many inmates are in jail
simply because they can't afford bail. He said that is
unconstitutional.

"Shelby County sets a price tag for people who want to get out of
the jail," said Spickler. "When they do that, there's absolutely no
effort to determine whether the person can afford to pay that or
not. That is a key part of the system by law and by constitutional
standard . . . . You cannot detain people simply because they're
poor."

In fact, Spickler said it violates state law.

"State law requires us to consider release before we consider other
ways of making sure you come to court. Those ways mean keeping you
in jail. Money bail is the last option by law," said Spickler.

A demand letter to the county comes after more than a year of
research into Shelby County's justice system.

ACLU's Andrea Woods said it is time to explore other options for
low-risk inmates.

"Instead of imposing upfront bail requirements, which actually
don't do very good at ensuring court appearance and keeping the
community safe, judges should consider things like widespread court
reminders, transportation assistance, the ability to appear in
court remotely if possible, and unsecured bonds - which is
basically a bail amount that you only ever owe if you fail to
appear in court or make a mistake," said Woods, ACLU Criminal Law
Project Staff Attorney.

"The studies show that when people get out on pretrial release,
they are less likely to come back into the system once that case is
disposed. It's a win-win if we get this right," said Spickler.

They also said it does less harm to families and saves the county
money.

"We're not asking for a complete reinvention of the wheel, we're
asking for a new approach to the system is already in place," said
Woods. "We really hope what's next is a serious conversation with
the folks who have the ability to change the system."

If not, the three groups plan to file a class action lawsuit.

They are requesting a response from Shelby County before the end of
December.

ABC 24 reached out to the county. In a statement, Shelby County's
Mayor Office said, "Our current money bail system is a function of
state law and our judicial system. We support reform that reduces
the criminal justice system's reliance on cash bail. A person
should be held in detention because they pose a risk to public
safety, not because they are poor." [GN]

SILVERBACK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 4 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 4, 2022 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the securities of Silverback Therapeutics, Inc.
("Silverback" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SBTX) in connection with
Silverback's December 3, 2020 initial public offering; and/or (ii)
Silverback securities between December 3, 2020 and September 10,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
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) Silverback common stock in
connection with the IPO; and/or (b) Silverback securities during
the Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights
and options please visit Silverback Therapeutics Inc. Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877)
779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

On or about December 3, 2020, Silverback conducted its IPO,
offering 11,500,000 shares of its common stock to the public at a
price of $21 per share for anticipated proceeds of approximately
$241,500,000.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that (i) Silverback's lead
product candidate SBT6050 was less effective than the Company had
represented to investors; and (ii) the Company had overstated
SBT6050's commercial and/or clinical prospects.

On September 13, 2021, Silverback issued a press release
"announc[ing] that interim data from the dose-escalation portion of
its Phase 1/1b clinical trial evaluating SBT6050 as a monotherapy
and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or
metastatic HER2-expressing or amplified solid tumors" were to be
presented from September 16-21, 2021. The accepted abstract
revealed that while there was a manageable safety profile for the
Company's experimental therapy, SBT6050 yielded only one partial
response among 14 HER2-positive solid tumors.

On this news, Silverback's stock price fell $4.54 per share, or
23.35%, to close at $14.90 per share on September 13, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 4, 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 Silverback Therapeutics, Inc.
securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and
options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/silverbacktherapeuticsinc-sbtx-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-454/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

SONY GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Strickland at tweaktown.com reports that Sony Interactive
Entertainment is being sued for alleged gender pay discrimination.

Ex-Sony employee Emma Lee Majo has filed a class action lawsuit
against the company that alleges widespread and global gender pay
gaps. Majo, who served 6 years as an IT Security Risk Analyst at
Sony, says that the billion-dollar firm favors males with
promotions an higher pay for the same jobs that women held.

"Sony tolerates and cultivates a work environment that
discriminates against female employees, including female employees
and those who identify as female. Female employees are subjected to
continuoing unlawful disparate treatment in pay and work
opportunities," the lawsuit claims.

These issues are endemic within Sony Interactive Entertainment's
core leadership and aren't isolated to any one region, the suit
alleges. "Sony's discriminatory employment practices, policies, and
procedures are centrally established and implemented at the highest
levels of Sony."

The suit also says that the issues are "not unique or limited to
any location" and they "apply uniformly and systematically to
employees throughout Sony"'

Majo and her counsel are seeking a laundry list of damages and
compensatory orders alongside court-ordered policy reform at Sony.
The lawsuit is calling for a jury trial.

The prayer for relief includes:

-- Statutory and civil penalties
-- Attorney's fees
-- Compensatory damages
-- General damages
-- Special damages
-- Punitive damages
-- All wages due
-- Liquidated damages
-- Prejudgment interest on unpaid wages
-- Declatory relief
-- Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief demanding Sony not
violate California Labor laws for paying female employees less than
males
-- Order forcing Sony to make new work programs aimed at promoting
gender pay equality
Order requiring Sony to equalize pay between men and women
-- Award of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and other damages
for lost compensation
Nominal damages [GN]


STREET TALK MIAMI: Faces Suit Over Improper Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATABAK EBRAHIMZADEH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABRAHAM "AVI" LEVY; STREET TALK
MIAMI INTERNATIONAL, INC.; GABRIELE "GAD"; ABECKASER, THE BILLION
BLOSSOMS, LLC; DAVID ZION KETER; 13 CAPITAL, LLC.; and ATN 1
EXPRESS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 726092/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Queens
Cty., Nov. 22, 2021) is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class
who are victims of the Defendants' fraudulent and illegal schemes
involving counterfeit goods, the collection of illegal debts, money
laundering, and other activities under the RICO Statute and the
associated common law claims.

According to the complaint, the Defendants marketed themselves as
sellers of a certain brand of nitril gloves, which upon purchase of
the same from the Defendants, the Plaintiff was made aware were in
fact counterfeit and of a quantity less than that which was
bargained. Upon rejection of the "nitril gloves," the Plaintiff was
allegedly defrauded of certain monies, which was covered,
laundered, and fraudulently transferred by various named
Defendants, causing the Plaintiff monetary damages.

STREET TALK MIAMI INTERNATIONAL, INC. is a business corporation
authorized to do business in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin S. Johnson, Esq.
          HAMRA LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1 Linden Place, Suite 207
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (646) 590 - 0571
          Email: kjohnson@hamralawgroup.com
                 kevinsjohnson1@outlook.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Illegan Scan of Drivers' Faces
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a new class
action lawsuit has accused automaker Subaru of illegally scanning
the faces of drivers in Illinois when the cars deploy the company's
DriverFocus distracted driving crash prevention system, allegedly
in violation of Illinois' biometrics privacy law.

On Nov. 29, attorneys Daniel O. Herrera and Nickolas J. Hagman, of
the firm of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, of Chicago,
filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago against Subaru.

The lawsuit was filed as a class action, on behalf of named
plaintiff Renee Giron, identified as a resident of Chicago.

The complaint focuses on Subaru's use of its DriverFocus system in
certain vehicles made by Subaru. These include the 2019-2022 Subaru
Forester, 2020-2022 Subaru Outback and the 2020-2022 Subaru
Legacy.

According to the lawsuit, the DriverFocus system uses a
near-infrared camera to monitor the driver's face and eyes to
ensure the driver is paying attention to the road. The system will
then "alert the driver with either a visual warning on the
vehicle's display system or audible warnings, or both," should it
determine the driver is distracted or drowsy.

The system is capable of recognizing the faces of up to five
registered drivers, according to the complaint, allowing it to
adjust various settings in the car to automatically suit the
driver's pre-set preferences.

To accomplish these comfort and crash prevention goals, the
complaint says, the DriverFocus system stores drivers' facial
geometry and retina/iris scans on an onboard computer. That
computer is, in turn, allegedly accessible through Subaru's
Starlink system, which Subaru can use to collect and access data
about the vehicle and the driver.

According to the complaint, that data is "automatically retrieved,
recorded, and transmitted to Subaru."

The complaint asserts this data collection and transmission
violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, because
Subaru scans drivers' faces and eyes, and collects and transmits
that information, without first securing written permission from
the drivers or without supplying drivers with written notices
concerning why the data is being collected, and how their biometric
identifying data will be used, stored, shared and ultimately
destroyed.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from
Cook County Record. You can unsubscribe at any time. Protected by
Google ReCAPTCHA.

According to the complaint, Giron has owned a 2020 Subaru Outback
since early 2020, and claims at no point since then has Subaru
attempted to notify her of the face scans that allegedly occur each
time she started her car, allegedly in violation of the BIPA law.

According to the complaint, Giron's attorneys sent a letter to
Subaru in April 2021, allegedly in an attempt to resolve her
BIPA-related claims. According to the complaint, those claims
remain unresolved.

The BIPA law has been used by a growing number of plaintiffs'
attorneys to launch potentially massive class action lawsuits
against businesses of all types and sizes operating in Illinois
since 2015.

The bulk of such lawsuits have, to date, targeted employers, who
may require workers to scan their fingerprints or other biometric
identifier to verify their identity when punching the clock at
work, or when accessing secure areas in a workplace.

However, many of the lawsuits have also taken aim at big tech
companies, including Facebook and Google, and at various other
companies that use some form of facial recognition technology in
their overall products or as part of a consumer marketing
campaign.

A number of recent lawsuits, for instance, have been filed against
cosmetics or eyewear companies that use virtual or augmented
reality technology to allow consumers to virtually try on makeup or
eyeglasses before purchasing them online.

The lawsuit against Subaru marks the first time the automaker has
been sued for its driver safety and crash avoidance systems.

The lawsuit seeks damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, as
allowed under the BIPA law. Individual violations have been defined
in other cases as each time a company's technology scans a
biometric identifier. In this case, that could mean each time a
resident of Illinois started their 2020-2022 Subaru vehicle, and
had their face scanned by the DriverFocus system.

The complaint seeks to expand the action to include any Illinois
resident who is a current or former owner of a 2020-2022 model
Subaru Outback, Forester or Legacy model vehicle.

The complaint estimates this could include thousands of Illinois
residents, placing many millions of dollars potentially at stake in
this case.

To date, typical BIPA settlements have netted hundreds of dollars
for most class members, while attorneys typically land fees worth
hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. [GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Has Until Jan. 14, 2022 to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion to extend further time to file
opposition.

The Defendants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade,
Inc., and Fredric Tomczyk shall have until January 14, 2022 to file
their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, says Judge
Bataillon.

The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

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.[CC]

TDL GROUP: Norton Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Anisha Visvanatha, Esq., and Ted Brook, Esq., of Norton Rose
Fulbright, disclosed that in Latifi v The TDL Group Corp.
(Latifi),1 the British Columbia Supreme Court struck portions of a
proposed class action claim alleging that a no-hire clause in the
standard Tim Hortons franchise agreements violates section 45 of
the Competition Act by unlawfully suppressing wages.

This decision is based on the fact that agreements between or among
employers regarding employees are treated as buy-side agreements.
In buy-side agreements (such as the no-hire clause at issue),
purchasers of a product (in this case employers) agree to fix the
price of products they purchase. Latifi also conforms with the
Competition Bureau's November 2020 statement clarifying that,
unlike in the United States, buy-side agreements are not caught by
the criminal provisions of the Competition Act as a result of 2009
amendments that removed the word "purchase" from the definition of
"agreements" under section 45.2

Latifi comes after the Federal Court's recent decisions in Mohr
(striking an action) and Jensen (declining certification).3

Background
In 2019, the plaintiff, representing employees of Tim Hortons
franchises, commenced a proposed class action alleging the no-hire
clause in Tim Hortons' standard franchise agreements prevented
franchisees from inducing employees to leave their employment at
other Tim Hortons locations without consent. The plaintiff alleged
the no-hire clause breached section 45 by unlawfully suppressing
wages, benefitting Tim Hortons' bottom line. The plaintiff also
alleged Tim Hortons committed civil conspiracy and/or the tort of
unlawful means in enforcing the no-hire clause. Tim Hortons brought
an application to strike the claim. The application was heard in
May 2021.

The decision
In a reasoned decision, Justice Sharma struck the Competition Act
portions of the claim, holding it was plain and obvious that the
plaintiff's claim that the no-hire clause violates section 45 is
bound to fail. Consistent with the Competition Bureau's guidance,
the court found that section 45 of the Competition Act does not
apply to the clause because it does not restrict output "for the
supply of a product." In reaching its decision, the court held
that:

Reading the words of section 45 in their "grammatical and ordinary
sense," Justice Sharma found that section 45 is intended to
prohibit agreements amongst competitors "with respect to a
product." On this basis, the court stated that it was "nonsensical"
to interpret section 45 in a way that assumes that the persons
captured could be simultaneously a competitor and a customer of a
product, as the plaintiff alleged.

Based on the legislative history of section 45 addressed in Mohr,
Justice Sharma confirmed that since "purchase" was removed from the
definition of "agreements" in 2009, section 45 does not apply to
buy-side agreements.

Key takeaways
Latifi is the latest in a consistent series of developments on the
treatment of buy-side agreements, including no-poaching, no-hire
and wage-fixing agreements, all of which confirm that buy-side
agreements are not caught under the criminal provisions of Canadian
competition law. Importantly, this represents a significant
difference between Canadian and US law in this area and companies
with cross-border operations where employee poaching is an issue
(in particular within a franchise or dealership system) may want to
consider taking a different approach in Canada than they take in
the US or other jurisdictions.

Footnotes
1 2021 BCSC 2183.
2 Competition Bureau statement on the application of the
Competition Act to no-poaching, wage-fixing and other buy-side
agreements - Canada.ca
3 2021 FC 488 and 2021 FC 1185. [GN]


TELEBRANDS CORP: Seeks to Modify Rash Class Cert Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER RASH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TELEBRANDS
CORPORATION, Case No. 5:21-cv-00998-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing
schedule on Rash's motion for class certification.

On December 2, 2021, Telebrands complied with Local Rule 7-19 by
contacting Michael Ram, counsel for Rash.

This is an alleged consumer class action in its early stages.
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Telebrands Corp.'s
motion to temporarily stay this action -- pending final approval of
a nationwide class settlement reached in a parallel state class
action, titled Gallo et al., v. Telebrands Corporation, Case
ESX-L-007123-21, in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Telebrands is an American direct response marketing company, and
the original creator of the "As Seen On TV" logo and category of
trade.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZUQS8Z at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Richardson, Esq.
          Valentine A. Shalamitski, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
          Telephone: (310) 312-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
          E-mail: jlr@msk.com
                  vas@msk.com

TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that TransUnion
LLC and TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions (TRADS) face
a proposed class action over their alleged sale or licensing of
expunged or sealed consumer background information to
people-search, background reporting websites who in turn sell the
data to the general public.

The 24-page complaint alleges TransUnion and TRADS have run afoul
of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by improperly
including in the data sold to third parties expunged criminal
records that were then published and sold by the
background-information sites and other clients. The suit says
TransUnion and TRADS in fact received from the plaintiffs legal,
court-ordered notice to remove their expunged records from those
that were sold/licensed, yet did nothing.

"Plaintiffs in this case come from a group of Texas-based, former
subscribers of an online expungement assistance service, whose
expunged or sealed records still appeared for sale on the
Background Websites anywhere from one to two years after notices
were provided demanding their immediate removal," the suit states.
"In each case, the notice provided included a court order of
removal from a Texas judge, which was not followed."

According to the filing, TransUnion and TRADS knew or should have
known that their licensees/clients were violating the FCRA and both
the Texas Expungement Removal Act and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and thus should have intervened to stop the alleged conduct.
Nevertheless, they failed to do so, the case alleges.

The lawsuit contends that TransUnion's release of expunged criminal
records to third parties amounts to a potentially criminal offense
given the knowing publication of expunged records for a profit is a
second-degree felony in Texas.

More broadly, the case claims TransUnion's apparent misconduct
completely undermines the expungement or record-sealing efforts of
all 50 states as a measure to remove or minimize the existence of a
criminal history as a barrier to employment, credit, housing and
insurance. As the lawsuit tells it, the proliferation of for-profit
background check companies has made it nearly impossible for an
individual to hurdle every logistical and financial obstacle to
ensure an expunged criminal record is kept out of the open.

"As a result of this 'Wild West' situation in the background
screening industry, expunged records can be, and are, available for
anyone to view for months or even years while, simultaneously,
remaining unknown and undiscoverable to the individuals reported
upon," the complaint says.

Per the suit, the websites that were caught selling the plaintiffs'
expunged records exist within a subcategory that "demands
heightened scrutiny and caution," in particular with regard to
their work with national credit reporting agencies like TransUnion.
These websites, the case says, disclaim that the federal FCRA
applies to them at all on the premise that none of the site's
subscribers use them to screen for employment, housing or credit,
i.e., activities that trigger statutory protection.

The lawsuit claims TransUnion and TRADS were aware the background
websites disclaim that they provide accurate data on consumers. It
is unlawful for a national credit bureau to participate and partner
with businesses that publish expunged and sealed records with such
frequency that they must disclaim the accuracy of their content,
the suit contends.

The lawsuit looks to cover all U.S. residents whose expunged or
sealed records were licensed or sold by TransUnion-TRADS for
eventual publication. [GN]

TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Briefing Schedule for Class Cert. Bid Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA HAAS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVELEX INSURANCE
SERVICES INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06171-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting joint
stipulation to continue briefing schedule on motion for class
certification as follows:

   -- Filing: April 4, 2022;

   -- Hearing deadline : June 13, 2022 1:30 PM;

   -- Reply: May 23, 2022;

   -- Opposition: May 2, 2022l

   -- All other dates and deadlines remain as previously
      scheduled; and

   -- No further extensions of the deadline to file a class
      certification motion will be granted.

Travelex provides travel insurance in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dq2uUm at no extra charge.[CC]

UNION BANK: Friedly Wins Bid for Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARALYN FRIEDLY, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNION BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-03105-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge
John M. Gerrard entered an order:

   1. adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and
      recommendation;

   2. granting the plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification, for the following opt-in class for
      collective action:

      "All hourly employees employed by Union Bank and Trust
      Company who received a bonus in connection with work
      performed in at least one week in which they worked over
      40 hours since May 19, 2018;"

   3. directing the defendant on or before January 5, 2022, to
      produce to the plaintiff, in electronic format, the last
      known mailing addresses and email addresses of individuals
      who currently work and/or previously worked for the
      defendant at any time during the three years prior to the
      filing of this case; and

   4. authorizing the plaintiff to send the mailed Notice and
      Consent forms and the reminder postcard, and the email
      Notice and Consent forms and email reminder notice, with
      the modifications identified and discussed by the
      Magistrate Judge, to all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

   5. setting the opt-in period for joining the conditional
      class to be 90 days from the sending of the Notice and
      Consent forms.

A copy of the Court's order https://bit.ly/32XExlp dated Dec. 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert. Filing Continued to Feb. 25, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MEDINA, as an
individual and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 18
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-07557-TJH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order that the Plaintiff's
deadline to file his motion for class certification shall be
continued from December 17, 2021 to February 25, 2022.

United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Willis
Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic and
international route network spanning cities large and small across
the United States and all six continents.

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


UNITED STATES: Court Junks Davis Suit w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE DAVIS et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02897-APM
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs may refile their Complaint, identifying plaintiffs
with live claims and providing assurance to the court that there
will be class members with live claims throughout the
course of the action. Any such amended complaint shall be filed by
December 24, 2021, the Court says.

The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible
for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole
releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its
jurisdiction.

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

UNITED STATES: Fails to Administer CARES Act, Ireland Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL CREAGER IRELAND; RAEVENE ADAMS; and DARCEAL TOBEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01049 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
failed to administer the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act).

According to the complaint, in the wake of the unprecedented public
health emergency and economic crisis caused by the COVID-19
pandemic the United States Congress sought to ensure that workers
affected by the pandemic would receive federal financial support.
It initially did so through the CARES Act enacted on March 27,
2020.

Nevertheless, between approximately June 12 and July 3, 2021, prior
to the end date of the "pandemic unemployment assistance" or PUA
program, recipients in 20 states had their benefits terminated
prematurely, when their states chose to end their administration of
the program, including Texas, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs were affected by this unlawful discontinuation of
benefits when the state of Texas terminated its administration of
the PUA program on June 26, 2021. The Defendant allegedly did
nothing to ensure that the affected recipients would receive
benefits notwithstanding their states' decision to cease
administering the program.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna Bocchini, Esq.
          314 E Highland Mall Blvd, Suite 401
          Austin, TX 78752
          Telephone: (512) 474-0007
          Email: abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org

                -and-

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Sheila Maddali, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          1 N LaSalle St., Suite 1275
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121
          Email: cwilliams@n-lan.org
                 smaddali@n-lan.org

               -and-

          Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Ryan E. Griffin, Esq.
          JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
          1629 K Street NW, Suite 1050
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 496-0500
          Email: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com
                 regriffin@jamhoff.com

               -and-

          Michael P. Persoon, Esq.
          DEPRES SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
          77 W. Washington St., Ste. 711
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2511
          Email: mpersoon@dsgchicago.com

UNITED STATES: Rabelo-Rodriguez Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YARIBEL RABELO-RODRIGUEZ,
et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as the
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No.
1:21-cv-23213-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an
order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
      and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to add named-Plaintiffs.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's argument on this
matter by again claiming that the Defendant has mischaracterized
the scope of the class to include aliens released by immigration
judges and federal court orders. However, Defendant does not
mischaracterize the scope of the class since the class definition
does not limit the class to those released by DHS under its own
volition. Further, even if the class was limited to those released
by DHS under its own volition, whether injunctive or declaratory
relief could apply to both arriving and non-arriving aliens would
require an interpretation of Jennings, which could yield different
outcomes for different class members. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
failed to meet the burden of satisfying the requirements of Rule
23(b)."

The joinder of 19 additional Plaintiffs at this stage would not
serve the interests of judicial economy. If the Court were to grant
the Motion to Add Named-Plaintiffs, the Defendant would be required
to gather the administrative record for Group 3. However, the
deadline for the Defendant to file the administrative record has
already passed, and Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is due on
December 6, 2021. Defendant would likely not have enough time to
compile an updated administrative record for Plaintiffs' summary
judgment motion. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs already had an
opportunity to join additional Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs'
Motion to Add Named-Plaintiffs is denied, the Court adds.

On September 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed this action against the
Defendant alleging that the Defendant's denial of permanent
residence to Plaintiffs and the proposed class was based on an
impermissible construction of the governing statute (Count I) and
that Defendant's denial of permanent residence to Plaintiffs and
the proposed class was done without reasoned and meaningful
consideration (Count II).

According to the initial complaint, the Plaintiffs are arriving
aliens or non-arriving aliens from Cuba who sought refuge in the
United States after the end of the special parole program for Cuban
nationals, colloquially referred to as the "wet-foot/dry-foot
policy."

DHS is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public
security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of
other countries. Its stated missions involve anti-terrorism, border
security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster
prevention and management.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dhiMiy at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered
a scheduling order upon consideration of Defendants' motion for an
extension of time, as follows:

   a. The Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification due on or before December 20, 2021.

   b. The certified list of the contents of the administrative
      records due on or before December 20, 2021.

   c. The parties shall meet and confer in accordance with Rule
      16.3 of the Local Civil and shall file a joint status
      report on or before December 20, 2021.

The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2HaxK at no extra charge.[CC]



UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: To Pay $1.85-M to Settle Retirement Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Devoun Cetoute at miamiherald.com reports that the University of
Miami has agreed to pay $1.85 million to settle a proposed class
action suit brought by its current and former employees over what
they say are exorbitant fees and poorly performing investment
options in the school's retirement plan, according to a filing in
Miami federal court. Apart from the $1.85 million, the employees
are also asking Judge Darrin P. Gayles to approve a deal that would
require certain protections of the university's $1 billion
retirement plan, which is composed of five different plans for the
more than 20,000 participants, according to the preliminary
settlement filed Nov. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. Bloomberg Law and Law 360 first
reported the settlement. These protections would include "only
prudent investments" in the plan, freezing certain fees for three
years after the effective settlement date and put the plans'
record-keeping services up for bid, the filing read. Fidelity or
TIAA-CREF, or both, serve or have served as the plan's
administrator, according to the court filing. The plaintiffs first
sued UM in April 2020 alleging the university violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), contending plan
participants had to pay excessive administrative and record-keeping
fees. Participants had paid over $100 per year for six years, the
suit says.

In a statement, UM said, "Although the University has agreed to
resolve the matter, it continues to believe that the claims and
allegations in the lawsuit are unfounded, and the settlement
involves no admission of liability or wrongdoing on behalf of the
University or any University employee." In an email sent to faculty
and staff dated Nov. 24, UM said it "denies any wrongdoing but
agreed to settle this case to avoid the high cost of legal fees and
to remain focused on its mission to transform lives through
education. . . . " If the settlement is approved by the court, UM
said in its email, plan participants "may receive an average
payment of less than $50." The attorneys for the plaintiffs did not
respond to a request for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by
Brandon Hill and Luis Cabassa of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa PA, Chad
Justice of Justice for Justice LLC and Michael McKay of McKay Law
LLC. The university also said the settlement approval and payment
process would be described in correspondence by the end of March
2022. [GN]

VAIL RESORTS: Plaintiffs Continue Efforts to Block Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
summitdaily.com reports that plaintiffs in the proposed class
action lawsuit filed against Vail Resorts have asked a judge to put
an emergency stop to settlement proceedings in three similar
lawsuits filed in California due to the impact they say it would
have on their case.

This marks the latest development in the ongoing case, which
alleges that Vail Resorts has been violating federal labor laws in
failing to pay reimbursements for equipment as well as compensation
for time staff members spend training, getting on the mountain and
gearing up before shifts.

The proposed class action lawsuit was filed in Colorado District
Court in December 2020 on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and
Mark Molina, who are current or former employees at Beaver Creek
Resort.

The case alleges that Vail Resorts violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as state labor laws in Colorado and eight
other states. The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class action
status to prosecute the case on behalf of a larger group or "class"
impacted by the allegations, which in this case are current and
former employees who worked for Vail Resorts over the past three
years.

"Vail Resorts is, and has always been, committed to treating its
employees fairly and in compliance with all applicable laws," Jamie
Alvarez, director of corporate communications for Vail Resorts,
wrote in a statement on behalf of the company.

The lawsuit has been chugging along, with 13 other plaintiffs from
various states joining the case, according to documents filed in
Colorado District Court. The plaintiffs' allegations include
improper compensation for time worked and improper reimbursement
for work-related expenses as well as "breach of contract and unjust
enrichment."

Things heated up over the summer when Vail Resorts notified the
court that it was preparing to settle three similar lawsuits filed
in California and then subsequently requested that the lawsuit
filed in Colorado be postponed for 90 days as the settlements
proceed.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case filed in Colorado pushed
back, saying Vail Resorts failed to notify them of the related
cases in a timely manner as required by the Civil Rules for the
District of Colorado. If the California cases are settled, the
company could then argue that the agreement should settle the
Colorado, as well, which the attorneys said is a blatant attempt to
get off easy.

Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted Vail
Resorts' motion to stay its case, a ruling to which the plaintiffs
filed a spirited objection last month. Neither of the two judges
working on the case had ruled on the objection as of Friday, Nov.
26.

Edward Dietrich, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Colorado case,
has declined to comment on the case's progression. Dietrich and
Benjamin Galdston are representing the plaintiffs, which now total
16.

Vail Resorts is currently represented by Jonathan O. Harris and
Raul Chacon Jr. of the firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart. Vail Resorts and its counsel have declined to comment on
the latest developments in the cases, as well.

Vail Resorts is involved in an ongoing proposed class action
lawsuit filed in Colorado District Court and is currently settling
three other similar lawsuits filed against the company in
California.

Now, Dietrich and Galdston have filed an "emergency motion" asking
Gallagher to stop the California settlement proceedings through a
special power afforded to him under the federal All Writs Act. The
act gives federal judges the authority to "issue all writs (formal
written orders) necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

The California settlement "was formulated, negotiated and
structured in a manner intended to divest this court of its
jurisdiction over the important federal Fair Labor Standards Act
collective and class claims at issue here," the attorneys stated in
the motion.

The totality of the situation merits an emergency injunction based
on three factors, they said.

First, their lawsuit was the first of the four cases to be filed in
a federal district court, and it was filed in the district where
Vail Resorts has headquarters. This, they say, makes it the most
appropriate jurisdiction in which to settle the matter.

Next, legal precedent shows that it is relevant to consider any
misconduct or "circumvented rules" when ruling on a request for an
emergency injunction, they wrote.

They allege that Vail Resorts acted improperly by waiting to file
the notice of related cases until the California cases were on the
brink of being settled.

They also allege that the company's lawyers got the judge to sign
off on postponing the Colorado case "under false pretenses" when
they told him that the settlement would be "subject to a 'rigorous
approval process' in federal court," according to the motion. This
is no longer true, given that Vail Resorts recently received
permission from a California district court judge to move
settlement proceedings into state court, Galdston and Dietrich
wrote.

Finally, "the (All Writs Act) authorizes courts to prevent parties
from 'pursuing an inadequate or collusive settlement in state
courts which would release the apparently stronger claims in the
instant (Colorado) case," they wrote in the motion.

"There is no 'emergency' here," attorneys for Vail Resorts shot
back in an objection to Dietrich and Galdston's motion.

"And there certainly is no emergency that warrants the
extraordinary relief plaintiffs seek. Plaintiffs merely attempt to
resuscitate arguments that the court already rejected when
plaintiffs opposed a stay in this case," Vail attorneys wrote in
the objection, which was filed.

The motions to intervene

Dietrich and Galdston also filed a motion to intervene in one of
the California-based cases on the grounds that a settlement would
"impair or impede" their ability to protect the interests of their
clients, according to the document filed in the U.S. District Court
of Eastern California on Nov. 2.

If the judge grants their motion, they would be allowed to
participate in a hearing in that case to make their arguments on
why they should be allowed to join.

If Dietrich and Galdston are allowed to join the California case,
they have announced their intentions to immediately file a motion
to dismiss it so that the Colorado case can move forward instead.
The California plaintiffs could then sign on to be a part of the
Colorado case and benefit from any future settlements reached in
that case.

However, the motion was rendered useless, as Vail Resorts made the
motion to move settlement proceedings out of the district court,
joining the three California cases to be settled under one case
that was filed in a state court in El Dorado County, California.
The motion was granted by a district court judge just a few days
after Dietrich and Galdston filed their motion to intervene.

Dietrich and Galdston filed a motion to intervene in that case,
too, submitting the document late. The El Dorado County judge
presiding over the case has yet to rule on the motion.

Whether it be in district court or state court, Dietrich and
Galdston say they have a "significant protectable interest" that
would be "impaired" if the settlements go forward and that their
clients' interests are not "adequately represented" by the parties
involved in the California cases, according to the latest motion to
intervene filed in state court.

They are not adequately represented by the California plaintiffs
because the Colorado case is stronger and contains broader claims
that would call for a more impactful settlement, Dietrich and
Galdston wrote in legal documents filed this fall.

Their significant interest is obtaining justice, which in the eyes
of their clients means back pay for all the time and expenses they
allegedly were not compensated for as well as changes to the
company's compensation policies, plaintiffs said in declarations
filed with their attorneys' opposition to postponing their case.

"The time has come for Vail Resorts to pay back its hourly
employees, and to change its future labor and pay practices so that
they will be in compliance with all applicable laws," Quint, one of
the three initial plaintiffs, wrote in his declaration.

"Vail Resorts disputes the merits of the existing litigation,"
Alvarez wrote in her statement on behalf of the company. "We value
the contributions of every employee and do our very best to bring
the employee experience to life through competitive wages,
comprehensive benefits and commitment to leadership development."
[GN]

VCA INC: Smith Sues over Mismanagement of Retirement Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SMITH; JACQUELINE MOONEY; ANGELA BAKANAS; and MATTHEW COLON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. VCA, INC.; and THE PLAN COMMITTEE FOR THE VCA, INC.
SALARY SAVINGS PLAN; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-09140 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2021) alleges violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by allowing unreasonable and excessive
recordkeeping and administrative fees to be charged to the
Plaintiff and other Plan participants.

The Plan's objectively unreasonable retirement plan service fees
cannot be justified. During the Class Period, the Plan paid as high
as $105 per participant annually for retirement plan services.
During the Class Period, reasonable retirement plan service fees
for a plan of this size would have averaged $38 per participant
annually. The Defendants' failures to monitor retirement plan
service fees and ensure their reasonableness breached the fiduciary
duties they owed to Plaintiffs, Plan Participants, and
beneficiaries. The Defendants did not engage in prudent
decision-making processes, as there is no other explanation for why
the Plan paid objectively unreasonable fees for retirement plan
services, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs were injured by the Defendants' alleged actions
because the Defendants permitted all Plan participants to be
charged excessive retirement plan service fees, which reduced
Plaintiffs' Plan account balances and caused them significantly
diminished investment returns.

VCA Inc. provides veterinary care services. The Company offers pet
health information, adoption, general care, and boarding and
grooming services. VCA operates in the United States and Canada.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               -and-

          Andrew Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

               -and-

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (510) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (510) 821-4474
          Email: mikerobert@robertslawfirm.us

               -and-

          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM
          PO Box 31909
          Chicago, IL 60631-9998
          Telephone: (510) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (510) 821-4474
          Email: erichschork@robertslawfirm.us

VIACOMCBS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 28 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 28, 2021 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the securities of ViacomCBS Inc. ("Viacom" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: VIAC: VIACA) between March 22, 2021 and March
29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

According to the complaint, Defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley collectively sold off billions of dollars' worth of
Viacom shares while in possession of material non-public
information they obtained pursuant to their agreements with, and
from serving as prime brokers for, Archegos Capital Management
("Archegos"). Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that they
owed a fiduciary duty, or obligation arising from a similar
relationship of trust and confidence, to Archegos to keep the
information confidential.

During March 2021, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley confidentially
learned that Archegos had failed, or was likely to fail, to meet a
margin call, requiring Archegos to liquidate its position in
Viacom. Trading on this non-public information, Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley avoided billions of dollars in losses on their
Viacom investments by selling Company securities in late March 2021
before the market learned of Archegos' difficulties. When this
information reached the market, the price of Viacom securities fell
sharply, damaging Company investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 28, 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 Viacom securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/viacomcbsinc-viaca-viac-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-452/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

VIACOMCBS INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 2, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara DeRosa v. ViacomCBS,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02965-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order granting ex parte application
to amend order as follows:

   -- Deadline to File Motion for Class       May 2,2022
      Certification:

   -- Opposition:                             May 25, 2022

   -- Reply:                                  June 17, 2022

   -- Hearing date:                           June 27, 2022

ViacomCBS is an American diversified multinational mass media and
entertainment conglomerate.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31B3KSe at no extra charge.[CC]

VIVINT SOLAR: Dekker Residential PPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERRIE DEKKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v.
VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., VIVINT SOLAR
DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC, DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. (), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All persons in California who entered into Version 1 of
      the Residential Solar Power Purchase Agreement with Vivint
      Solar;"

   2. appointing Gerrie Dekker as a representative for the
      proposed Class; and

   3. appointing Matthew J. Matern, Joshua D. Boxer, and Corey
      B. Bennett, of Matern Law Group, PC, as Class Counsel for
      the proposed Class.

Vivint Solar's primary "product" is not actually a solar panel
system, but the Residential Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), a
20-year agreement under which it charges customers a fee based on
how many kilowatt hour of electricity the solar system generates,
regardless of how much power a consumer actually uses.

The Plaintiff Dekker asserts two claims for relief: violation of
(1) Civil Code section 1671; and (2) Business & Professions Code
sections 17200 et seg. (UCL). The Plaintiff's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL") and Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claims are
predicated on her allegations that Vivint Solar violated section
1671 by imserting unlawful liquidated damages provisions in all
PPAs.

Vivint Solar is a leading solar panel consulting, designing and
installation company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xVxGUV
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          Kiran Prasad, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
          jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
          cbennett@maternlawgroup.com
          kprasad@maternlawgroup.com


W.B. HUNT: Court Enters General Pretrial Management Order in Cruz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAEL CRUZ, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. W.B. HUNT CO.,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10014-AJN-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management as follows:

   1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
      must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
      discovery set by the Court.

   2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
      requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
      after the need for such an application arises and must
      comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and sectopn 2(b) of
      Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

   3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
      conferences are not required, but may be requested where
      counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
      may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

   4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
      proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
      extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
      compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses Individual
      Practices.

   5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses
      Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are
      limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments.

   6. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order
      on any defendant previously served with the summons and
      complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons
      and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must
      file proof of such service with the Court.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m5zw19 at no extra charge.[CC]

WENDY'S CO: Faces BIPA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that two Wendy's
Co. franchise-owning companies violated the Biometric Information
Privacy Act by collecting employees' fingerprint scans without
their consent, according to a proposed class action filed in
Illinois state court.

The companies -- Wenzak Inc. and Wenzak Heartland Inc. -- also
failed to provide plaintiff Michael Bachmann and other employees a
retention schedule and guidelines for destruction of their
fingerprint data, according to a complaint Bachmann filed on Nov.
29. in the Illinois Circuit Court.

Bachmann worked as a Wenzak employee in Illinois until 2019,
according to the complaint. [GN]

WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Bid to Strike Expert Report Nixed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ELMY, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. WESTERN
EXPRESS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying as
moot the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendants' expert report
in support of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike Defendants' Expert Report in Support of Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on April
27, 2021, but inadvertently did not file their Motion until May 13,
2021.

On July 27, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, and expressly declined to consider the Motion to
Strike Defendants' Expert Report in Support of Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
reaching its ruling.

Western Express is an asset-based truckload carrier headquartered
in Nashville, Tennessee.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dva00r at no extra charge.[CC]

WISE MEDICAL: Seeks Reply Extension to Conditional Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA FORTIN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WISE MEDICAL
STAFFING, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01467-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendant files a motion for an additional extension of time to
respond to Plaintiff Amanda Fortin's Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Court previously granted Wise a two-week extension of time
through December 3, 2021, to file its opposition to Plaintiff's
Conditional Cert Motion. However, Wise, through counsel,
respectfully requests one (1) additional week, up to and including
December 10, 2021, to submit that opposition. The undersigned has
contacted counsel for Plaintiff three times regarding this request,
including by both phone and e-mail, but has not received a response
as of the time of this filing.

As for the reason for the additional extension, Wise seeks this
request to allow additional time to finalize the opposition in
light of counsel's recent workload in other cases, including
depositions and summary judgment briefing in separate matters, as
well as expedited discovery in another non-competition matter.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gj5WfY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendant Wise Medical Staffing, Inc., are:

          Anthony P. McNamara, Esq.
          Nancy M. Barnes, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          3900 Key Center
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, Ohio 44114
          Telephone: (216) 566.5578
          Facsimile: (216) 566-5800
          E-mail: Nancy.Barnes@ThompsonHine.com
                  Anthony.McNamara@ThompsonHine.com

ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
January 18, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Zhangmen Education
Inc. ("Zhangmen" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZME) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs or shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO").

Investors suffering losses on their Zhangmen investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

In June 2021, Zhangmen, an education company focused on providing
personalized online courses to K-12 students in China, conducted
its IPO, selling 4,166,450 ADSs at a price of $11.50 per ADS.

Then, on July 23, 2021, China revealed an extensive overhaul of its
education sector, prohibiting companies that teach the school
curriculum from making profits, raising capital or going public.
This effectively ended China's $120 billion private tutoring
industry.

On July 26, 2021, Zhangmen issued a release stating that these new
guidelines were likely "to have material impacts on our existing
business operations, financial condition and corporate structure."

Then, on November 19, 2021, Zhangmen announced that its independent
auditor had resigned.

On November 19, 2021, the Company's share price closed at $1.47 per
ADS, an 80% decline from the IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement failed to disclose that: (a) the People's
Republic of China ("PRC") authorities were in the process of
implementing sweeping new regulatory reforms on the private
education industry in China including, among others, prohibitions
on: (i) profit-making by private education companies, (ii) engaging
in core-curriculum tutoring on weekends and vacations, and (iii)
capital-raising by companies like Zhangmen; (b) the known risks,
events, and uncertainties noted in the Registration Statement were
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Zhangmen's
business; and (c) based on the foregoing, the statements in the
Registration Statement concerning Zhangmen's historical financial
performance, market demand, and industry trends were materially
incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Zhangmen ADSs pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
January 18, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff
if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class
action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this
class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: March 2022 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Siegal, writing for BGR, reports that as Zoom's popularity
skyrocketed last year, so did the concerns about the way it handled
user data. Those concerns resulted in a class action lawsuit. Zoom
was accused of improperly sharing personal information with third
parties and not doing enough to stop unwanted guests from joining
meetings they weren't invited to (aka Zoombombing). Following the
case, Zoom agreed to pay $85 million and improve its security
protocols. Now, the fallout of the Zoom class action suit
continues. Anyone that used Zoom between 2016 and 2021 can make a
claim for a cash payment of up to $25.

Zoom class action settlement terms revealed
The group that sued Zoom began sending emails to users eligible for
compensation on Nov. 29. Vice got a copy of the email, and you can
read part of it below:

If you are a Class Member who paid for a Zoom Meetings App
subscription, between March 30, 2016 and July 30, 2021, you are
eligible to file a claim for $25 or 15% of the money you paid to
Zoom for the core subscription (i.e., not including optional add on
features/support that customers may add to their subscriptions)
during that time, whichever is greater. For example, if you spent
$75 on a Zoom Meetings App subscription during the relevant time
period, 15% of $75 is $11.25. Because $11.25 is less than $25, your
claim will be treated as a claim for $25.

Of course, many of us didn't pay for Zoom. Instead, we dealt with
the time limit or mooched off of our friends that had premium
accounts. The good news is that free users can still receive $15.

If you want to participate in the class action settlement, you will
need to submit a claim form by March 5th, 2022. You can do so from
ZoomMeetingsClassAction.com. You can submit the form online or file
it by mail. If you would prefer to exclude yourself from the
settlement, you can do that on the website as well. The deadline to
exclude yourself is also March 5th, 2022.

It's also worth noting that the final approval hearing is scheduled
for April 7th, 2022. Do not expect to receive any money from Zoom
until the court has approved the settlement.

How did we get here?
As Vice notes, the settlement followed the report from Motherboard
about Zoom sending user data to Facebook even when the user didn't
have a Facebook account. The Zoom app was notifying Facebook
whenever a user opened the app, and would provide details about the
model of their device, the city they were located, the carrier they
were using, and their unique advertiser ID.

Hours later, Zoom removed the code that was sending data to
Facebook. The company confirmed at the time that the Facebook SDK
was collecting "unnecessary device data."

According to Vice, a Zoom spokesperson said in an email statement
regarding the settlement that "the privacy and security of our
users are top priorities for Zoom, and we take seriously the trust
our users place in us. We are proud of the advancements we have
made to our platform, and look forward to continuing to innovate
with privacy and security at the forefront." [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Might Pay $25 as Part of Privacy Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Peters at theverge.com reports that Zoom has reached a
settlement (PDF) in a class-action lawsuit over alleged privacy and
security issues, and if you used the videoconferencing app before
July, then you could be eligible to receive money as a result. The
company has agreed to pay $85 million while continuing to deny the
allegations and any liability.

There are two groups eligible to file a claim. If you paid for a
Zoom Meetings App subscription between March 30th, 2016, and July
30th, 2021, you can file a claim for $25 or 15 percent of what you
paid for that subscription (excluding optional add-ons). You're
entitled to whichever is greater.

THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE ZOOM FAILED TO PREVENT ZOOMBOMBING
The second bucket is much broader. If you aren't eligible for the
first group but you "registered, used, opened, or downloaded the
Zoom Meeting App" between March 30th, 2016, and July 30th, 2021,
you can file a claim for $15.

However, if you have only used Zoom with an "Enterprise-Level
Account" or a government account, you're excluded from the
settlement.

Claims must be submitted by March 5th, 2022. You can file a claim
online here or by mailing a completed claim form. However, payment
amounts "may increase or decrease" depending on how many people
submit claims, according to the settlement's website. The
settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court, and a
final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7th, 2022.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege Zoom shared users' information
with third parties in an unauthorized manner through SDKs and
marketplace apps, that it failed to prevent "unwanted meeting
disruptions by third parties" (aka "Zoombombing"), and that Zoom
misrepresented its end-to-end encryption (which the company has
since fixed). [GN]

[*] Australia's Class Action Reform Bill Faces Delay
----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hewett, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that class action lawyers and litigation funders can thank
maverick Coalition senators, the cross bench and competing
political priorities for a reprieve from the Morrison government's
determination to curb their lucrative business model.

Getting the Senate votes for its proposed reform of class actions
was always going to be difficult but the government had been
confident of its persuasive powers. The bill had passed the Lower
House after the government secured the backing of independent Zali
Steggall, hardly an automatic supporter.

But threats by two Liberal senators to vote against government
bills -- compounding the rushed confusion of the last parliamentary
sitting of the year and permanent uncertainty about cross bench
intentions -- led to the bill's delay until next year.

That thwarts the government's attempts to limit the share of any
financial payout going to litigation funders and lawyers. Unless a
judge could be convinced otherwise about what was fair and
reasonable, the changes would have meant a minimum of 70 per cent
going to class members - leaving 30 per cent for funder commissions
and legal fees.

The government also wanted to limit the use of "common fund orders"
requiring all members of a class action to pay a shared commission
for funding a claim unless they opt out. That is even if most
people do not give consent or even know of their potential
involvement given only one claimant, backed by at least six other
individuals, is required to file a claim on behalf of a whole
class.

Due to the numbers included, this can translate into magnificent
returns for international litigation funders which have flooded
into the Australian market as a result. More than 30 currently
operate here.

According to a report by King & Wood Mallesons, a record 63 class
actions were filed last financial year.

For businesses, shareholder class actions are a particular bugbear.
They have become increasing popular, due in part to Australia's
continuous disclosure laws. These laws made it relatively simple to
challenge companies on the basis they had not immediately disclosed
market sensitive information.

Companies and insurers regularly made this route even more
financially appealing by preferring to settle rather than take on
the reputational risks, distractions and uncertain outcome of a
court case.

Josh Fydenberg tried to curb the growth earlier this year by
ensuring continuous disclosure laws could only be used for class
actions if directors and officers had acted with "knowledge,
recklessness or negligence". This more closely aligns the
Australian system with the UK and the US by requiring a "fault
element" to succeed.

But the government was also determined to curb Australia's appeal
for litigation funders more generally.

Analysis by the Australian Law Reform Commission shows the median
return to class members without a funder is 85 per cent, falling to
51 per cent where a funder is involved.

The rationale for class actions has always been the need to allow
those wronged to seek justice or compensation in a way that
individuals cannot afford or are unlikely to pursue alone.

But the money at stake naturally ensures a particularly intense
battle to persuade independent MPs and crossbench senators of the
"principles" involved.

This time around, the bill's opponents warned Coalition reforms
would make it too financially difficult to pursue worthwhile cases
- producing the opposite effect of the government's stated
intention to give greater protection to class action members.

The use of common fund orders also received backing from Federal
Court Justice Jonathon Beach in November. He said a case involving
alleged overcharging of Queensland electricity consumers was an
argument against the alternative of "book building" used instead.
This requires funders to sign up claimants individually, with
Justice Beach complaining of the "unnecessary, costly and
inefficient delay of seven months" needed to get written consent
from 50,000 retail customers.

But employer groups like the Australian Industry Group welcomed the
governments' proposed reforms as a "fair and practical approach"
offering a lot more protection to plaintiffs.

"Many class action claims are being pursued on a speculative basis
with funding from litigation funding firms chasing excessive
investment returns," CEO Innes Willox said. "In addition to
protecting plaintiffs, the Bill will assist in addressing the huge
increases in business insurance costs of up to 600 per cent that
have resulted from the big increase in class action claims over
recent years."

Not surprisingly, Jan Saddler, head of class action at Shine
Lawyers, rejects this. Limiting the combined percentage returns to
funders and lawyers would mean only high-value claims would be
funded, she says, while others of lower value would never proceed.

"It's a defendant lawyer's dream come true," she argues, insisting
it encourages them to make it too costly for plaintiff lawyers to
continue. Employers point to the reverse occurring now -- where
businesses and insurers have to pay very high costs of defending
class actions, often several simultaneously, and mostly funded by
excessive commissions.

But nor does Saddler believe an end to common fund orders would
provide the relief businesses hope for, saying it increases the
likelihood of subsequent claims from those who did not sign up
originally. That means no certainty for companies in finalising a
case given duplication and the prospect of more rather than fewer
class actions.

Even without that complication, Saddler doesn't see a significant
reduction in cases due to changes to continuous disclosure laws.
It's no idle boast. Shine Lawyers filed three securities class
actions -- against a2 Milk, Nuix and Beach Energy.

The government is expected to bring back the bill in February but
it may be just as hard to get through the Senate ahead of an
election. Chalk up another win for the booming, well-resourced
class action industry. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***