/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220729.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 145

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Faces McKissack Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Ualat Labor Code Suit Goes to N.D. California
AMERICAN FAMILY: Order on Time Extension Bid Entered in Loch
AMERILODGE GROUP: Court Sends Mannor's ADA Suit to Arbitration
AMNEAL PHARMA: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 15

ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
BAUER HOCKEY: Class Status Deadlines Extended in Barber
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Baccari
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Deadline to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Stayed
CREDIT AGRICOLE: Class Settlement to be Heard on October 4

DEJA VU PIZZA: Ct. Tosses Hoffman's Bid to Certify Driver Class
DEL-ONE FEDERAL: Suit Over Misleading Overdraft Notice Can Proceed
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Rejects PAGA Claims in Gau Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 1
MATSUO ELECTRIC: Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 15

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bafford Appeals Final Judgment in ERISA Suit
PUSHPAY USA: Class Settlement in Blankers Suit Wins Initial OK
RCI HOSPITALITY: $2.2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 12
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Perlin's Deceptive Ad Suit Goes to Trial

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Supreme Court Reverses J&J $120MM Verdict


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Faces McKissack Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE MCKISSACK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02296-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via
thyroidectomy, the suit asserts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
         700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (888) 215-7834
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

AMERICAN BOTTLING: Ualat Labor Code Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOASH UALAT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY, KEURIG
DR. PEPPER INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 22CV012252, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 18,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-04184 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
overtime wages, failure to provide off-duty meal periods, failure
to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide adequate wage
statements, and unfair competition and unlawful business
practices.

The American Bottling Company is a beverage company based in Plano,
Texas.

Keurig DR. Pepper Inc. is a producer and distributer of hot and
cold beverages, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Daniel Whang, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

               - and –

         Bradley D. Doucette, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: bdoucette@seyfarth.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Order on Time Extension Bid Entered in Loch
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joan Loch v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00213 (W.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order on motion
for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification, which plaintiff filed on June 29,
2022.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Because the Court has not yet held the preliminary pretrial
conference, the existing briefing schedule is struck and will be
reset at the July 27, 2022 telephonic preliminary pretrial
conference.

Apart from this, the court is not pleased by plaintiff's refusal to
agree to a one-week extension unless defendant acquiesced to a
tolling agreement. This court's preliminary pretrial conference
order will order that "the parties and their attorneys must at all
times treat everyone involved in this lawsuit with courtesy and
consideration.

American Family, also abbreviated as AmFam, is an American private
mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto
insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life, health, and
homeowners coverage as well as investment and retirement-planning
products.[CC]

AMERILODGE GROUP: Court Sends Mannor's ADA Suit to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN MANNOR, Plaintiff, v. AMERILODGE GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-11378 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Stephen J.
Murphy, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion to
strike affirmative defenses and grants the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration.

Mannor sued Amerilodge Group under the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. After the Defendant amended
its answer to the Plaintiff's FLSA claim, the Plaintiff moved to
strike affirmative defenses two and thirteen under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f). The Defendant then moved to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Both motions were
opposed by the non-moving parties. When the Court consolidated the
Plaintiff's cases, the parties stipulated that the Plaintiff's
complaints involved common questions of law and fact, and that the
Court's resolution of the motion to compel arbitration would apply
to both complaints.

The Defendant owns, manages, and operates hotels across Michigan,
Indiana, and Ohio. On June 22, 2019, the Plaintiff accepted the
Defendant's job offer as an Assistant General Manager at a Michigan
Holiday Inn Express & Suites.  During the Plaintiff's onboarding
process, the Defendant provided her with employment and human
resource documents. The three relevant documents included the
Amerilodge Group Employee Handbook, the Terms of Use and Consent to
Electronic Signature, and the Contract Between Employee and
Amerilodge Group, LLC and Acknowledgment and Acceptance of Employee
Handbook. The Defendant issued the documents through its Paymaster
iSolved system where the documents were always available and
accessible to the Plaintiff.

The Handbook outlines the Defendant's employment practices and its
current policies and rules. The Handbook makes two things clear:
(1) only the Defendant may "modify or terminate any of its policies
or rules at any time with or without notice," and (2) "nothing in
the Handbook constitutes a contract or an offer to enter into a
contract." By signing the Consent, the Plaintiff agreed to receive
all employment documents electronically. She also agreed that her
electronic signature was the legal equivalent of her written
signature on "any associated employment documents." The Plaintiff
executed the Consent on July 1 and never withdrew it.

The Acknowledgment is a two-part document. Part one, titled
"Contract Between Employee and Amerilodge Group, LLC and
Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Employee Handbook," contains an
arbitration agreement, a severability clause, and a class-action
waiver. It also includes signature lines for the employee,
witnesses, and the Defendant to physically sign. Relevant in the
case, a copy of the agreement is attached to the Handbook's final
two pages.

Part two of the Acknowledgment, titled "Acknowledgment and
Receipt," states: "Employee has read and understood the content and
any requirements or expectation of the attached document: Handbook
Acknowledgement. Employee access to an electronic copy of the
document and agrees to abide by the document guidelines as a
condition of employment." Accordingly, the "Handbook
Acknowledgement" refers to part one of the Acknowledgment as
previously described. Like part one, part two includes signature
lines for the employee to place their electronic signature.  

On July 1, and again on October 24, the Plaintiff executed the
Acknowledgment. By placing her electronic signature on the
"Acknowledgment and Receipt" (part two), the Plaintiff confirmed
that she had read and understood the "Handbook Acknowledgment"
(part one) and agreed "to abide by the document." But neither the
Plaintiff nor the Defendant physically signed part one of the
Acknowledgment.

After completing her training and onboarding procedures, the
Plaintiff worked as an AGM and "performed her duties excellently."
In early 2021, a medical professional diagnosed the Plaintiff with
a digestive disorder that required her to work "a set schedule to
avoid complications with her health." The Defendant allegedly
denied the Plaintiff's request for a "set schedule" and instead
"proffered an ultimatum -- take an involuntary indefinite unpaid
leave of absence or be demoted."

The Plaintiff later filed the present lawsuit. She alleged the
Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying AGMs as exempt from
overtime compensation. She contended that her primary
"nonmanagerial labor" duties entitled her, and other AGMs, to
overtime pay. The Plaintiff therefore brought her FLSA claim in her
individual capacity and "on behalf of all other AGMs" under the
FLSA's opt-in collective action provision. She further claimed that
her digestive disorder qualifies as a disability and that the
Defendant's "adverse employment actions" were discriminatory, a
failure to accommodate, and retaliatory under the ADA.

                        Motion to Strike

The Plaintiff requested that the Court strikes affirmative defenses
Two and Thirteen in the Defendant's amended answer. Judge Murphy,
however, says both requests lack merit.

Defense Two provides: "Plaintiff's claims, and some or all the
claims of the putative collective class, are barred by the
existence of an arbitration agreement containing class and
collective action waivers such that this case must be litigated
individually and in arbitration." The Plaintiff argued that the
arbitration agreement is unenforceable because neither the Handbook
nor the Acknowledgment created a valid arbitration contract.

Judge Muprhy holds that the Plaintiff's arguments are misplaced. He
says an affirmative defense that is "inadequate to withstand
scrutiny on a dispositive motion, will only be stricken when the
defense has no possible relation to the controversy." As it stands,
the Defendant's arbitration defense bears directly on the
Plaintiff's claims and Defendant followed the relevant Civil Rule
requirements. Put simply, it would be premature for the Court to
determine the arbitration agreement's validity in a motion to
strike. Thus, Judge Murphy denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike
affirmative defense two.

Defense Thirteen provides: "to the extent overtime is owed, it is
owed on a half-time basis as Plaintiff and the putative class were
paid on a salary basis that was intended to compensate them for all
hours worked." Defense Thirteen invokes the fluctuating workweek
methodology first outlined in Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v.
Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 580 (1942). The Labor Department later issued
an interpretive rule that allows an employer to use the FWW method
to compute an employee's overtime compensation in some cases. Under
the FWW method, an employee who agrees to receive a fixed salary
but whose hours fluctuate weekly, has a right to overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 at one-half their
regular rate of pay.

The Plaintiff argued that Defense Thirteen contravenes Sixth
Circuit authority that rejects the "retroactive application of the
half-time FWW method in FLSA misclassification cases." But she
neither cited a case nor has the Court found any such controlling
Sixth Circuit precedent. And other Circuits have applied the FWW
method when calculating a misclassified employee's retroactive
overtime wages.

Given the current proceeding's early stage, Judge Murphy says he is
not positioned to find whether the FWW method is the appropriate
mechanism for calculating the Plaintiff's potential damages. Even
if the FWW method does not apply, the insufficiency of Defense
Thirteen is not clearly apparent and the Court will therefore deny
the motion to strike.

                  Motion to Compel Arbitration

To resolve a motion to compel arbitration, the Court must
determine: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; (2) the
agreement's scope; (3) whether Congress intended any federal
statutory claims asserted to be non-arbitrable; and (4) whether to
stay the proceedings if some claims are not arbitrable.

The Plaintiff disputed only the first factor. Rather than
presenting specific facts, she contended that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable because (1) there was no agreement, (2)
there was no mutuality of obligation, and (3) because of the
mandatory cost-splitting requirement.

Judge Murphy rules that the Plaintiff cannot, and does not, claim
that she was unaware of the arbitration agreement. Even without any
physical signature, her continued employment is enough to show she
accepted the arbitration agreement. Second, although the Handbook
contains a copy of the arbitration agreement, the Acknowledgment is
a distinct document from the Handbook. What is more, the Defendant
is seeking to enforce the arbitration agreement through the
twice-signed Acknowledgment rather than the copy in the Handbook.
And unlike the Handbook, the Acknowledgment contains no contractual
disclaimer or illusory language. Third, given the Plaintiff's lack
of evidence, Judge Murphy says he simply cannot determine whether
the cost-splitting provision would deter the Plaintiff or other
similarly situated individuals from vindicating their FLSA or ADA
rights.

Finally, the Court must enforce an arbitration agreement according
to its terms, "including terms providing for individualized
proceedings." By electronically signing the Acknowledgment, the
Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her FLSA and ADA claims. And the
Plaintiff waived her right to bring any class or representative
action. "Employees who do not sign individual arbitration
agreements are free to sue collectively, and those who do sign
individual arbitration agreements are not." Because all claims
under the agreement are referred to arbitration, and neither party
requested only a stay, Judge Murphy dismisses the complaint and
orders the Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims on an individual
basis.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p89d7z3 from Leagle.com.


AMNEAL PHARMA: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CHINTU PATEL,
CHIRAG PATEL, BRYAN M. REASONS, PAUL M. BISARO,
ROBERT L. BURR, ROBERT A. STEWART, KEVIN BUCHI,
PETER R. TERRERI, JANET VERGIS, GAUTAM PATEL,
TED NARK, EMILY PETERSON ALVA, JEAN SELDEN
GREENE,DHARMENDRA J. RAMA, and AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
SOMERSET COUNTY: LAW DIVISION
Docket No. SOM-L-1701-19

Civil Action
(CBLP Action)

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

This notice is for all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Class A common stock of Amneal
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Amneal") from May 7, 2018 through May 5,
2021, inclusive (the "Settlement Class").  The full definition of
the Settlement Class, including the identity of certain persons and
entities that are excluded from the Settlement Class, is set forth
in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

Please read this notice carefully; your rights MAY be affected by a
class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 4:32 of the New Jersey
Court Rules and an Order of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County, Law Division (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiff Cambridge Retirement System
has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $25,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement") on behalf of the Settlement Class, that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on August 15, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern
Time, before the Honorable Kevin M. Shanahan either in person in
Courtroom 301 of the Somerset County Courthouse, 20 North Bridge
Street, Somerville, NJ 08876, or by telephone or videoconference
(in the discretion of the Court) for the following purposes:  (a)
to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated March 28, 2022 (the "Stipulation") is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class and should be
finally approved by the Court; (b) to determine whether a judgment
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Stipulation
should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against
Defendants; (c) to determine whether the Settlement Class should be
certified for purposes of the Settlement; (d) to determine whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement
is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (e) to determine
whether the motion by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (f) to consider
any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Amneal
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91234, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-866-615-0973.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.AmnealSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no
later than September 26, 2022, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Claim Form.  If you are a Settlement 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 connection with the Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than July 25, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net
proceeds of the Settlement.  Please note: If you exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you may be time-barred from asserting
the claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than July 25, 2022, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, AMNEAL, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator.  Visit
www.AmnealSecuritiesLitigation.com or call toll-free 866-615-0973.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Class Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

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

Amneal Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91234
Seattle, WA 98111
1-866-615-0973
info@AmnealSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.AmnealSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County, Law Division


ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN MARTINEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.
v. ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00171-JCB-KNM
(E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge K. Nicole Mitchelle entered an order
that:

  -- the unopposed motion to voluntarily withdraw class
certification motion is granted.

  -- the Motion for Class Certification filed on May 4, 2022 is
     withdrawn.

Anderson County is a county in the U.S. state of Texas. Located
within East Texas, its county seat is Palestine. As of the 2020
United States census, the population of Anderson County was
57,922.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vbfjLR at no extra charge.[CC]

BAUER HOCKEY: Class Status Deadlines Extended in Barber
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barber v. Bauer Hockey,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00742 (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Samantha D.
Elliott entered an endorsed order granting motion to extend time to
class certification deadlines.

The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bauer Hockey is a Canadian manufacturer of ice hockey equipment,
fitness and recreational skates and apparel. Bauer produces
helmets, gloves, sticks, skates, shin guards, pants, shoulder pads,
elbow pads, hockey jocks and compression underwear, as well as
goalie equipment.[CC]

CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Baccari
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BACCARI, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. CARGUARD
ADMINISTRATION, INC., Case No. 22-CV-1952 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Wendy Beetlestone, J. entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. The Defendant's shall Answer or otherwise respond to the
       Complaint no later than July 11, 2022.

   2. Any amended complaint shall be filed by August 29, 2022.

   3. All fact discovery shall be completed by December 29,
      2022.

   4. Any expert reports are due no later than January 12, 2023.

   5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by April
      3, 2023.

CarGuard is an administrator of vehicle service contracts.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PymtBJ at no extra charge.[CC]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Deadline to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skrandel v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-80826 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order that the deadline for
Defendant to respond to the motion for class certification is
stayed pending resolution of the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to
seal the Plaintiff's unredacted motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states contract -- other contract.

Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation which
operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores. As of
2020, Costco was the third largest retailer in the world, and the
world's largest retailer of choice and prime beef, organic foods,
rotisserie chicken, and wine as of 2016.[CC]


CREDIT AGRICOLE: Class Settlement to be Heard on October 4
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement with Credit Agricole S.A. and Credit Agricole CIB
(collectively, "Credit Agricole") on May 9, 2022. The information
below has been updated for this Settlement. Please review the Court
Documents section for information on the previous settlements. If
you have already submitted a claim, no additional claim needs to be
submitted to participate in this Settlement.

The information contained on this web page is only a summary of
information presented in more detail in the Notice of Proposed
Class Action Settlement, October 4, 2022 Fairness Hearing Thereon,
And Settlement Class Members' Rights (the "Notice"), which you can
access by clicking here. Since this website is just a summary, you
should review the Notice and Settlement Agreement for additional
details.

Your Legal Rights Could Be Affected Whether You Act Or Do Not Act.
Please Read The Notice Carefully.

IF YOU TRANSACTED IN EURIBOR PRODUCTS BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2005 THROUGH
MARCH 31, 2011, INCLUSIVE, (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES


SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM To be eligible for a payment from the
Settlement with Credit Agricole, Claim Forms must be postmarked no
later than November 3, 2022.

Note, if you already timely submitted a valid proof of claim and
release pursuant to the previous settlements with Barclays, HSBC,
and Duetsche Bank and JPMorgan and Citi, you DO NOT need to submit
a new Proof of Claim and Release to participate in this
Settlement.

If you did not file a Claim Form with the previous settlements, and
if you do not file a Claim Form by November 3, 2022, you will not
be eligible to receive any money from the Settlement Fund.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF If you do not wish to be bound by the terms of
this Settlement with Credit Agricole, you must submit a written
request for exclusion – received or postmarked – no later than
August 23, 2022

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT Any objections to the proposed Settlement
with Credit Agricole must be filed no later than August 30, 2022.

SETTLEMENT HEARING A hearing will be held on October 4, 2022 at
3:45pm at the United States District Court Southern District of New
York, Courtroom 11D, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Settlement.

Anyone wishing to attend the Settlement Hearing must include a
written notice of the intention to appear with their Objection, and
filed, no later than August 30, 2022.
Any change by the Court of the Distribution Plan, the time and
place of the Fairness Hearing, or any other matter and all further
orders or requirements by the Court will be posted on this website
as soon as practicable.

It is important that you refer to this website as no other notice
may be published of such changes.

What is this case about?

Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants
Barclays plc, Barclays Bank plc, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup,
Inc., Citibank, N.A., Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. (f/k/a
Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.), Credit
Agricole S.A., Credit Agricole CIB, Deutsche Bank AG, DB Group
Services (UK) Ltd., HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, ICAP plc,
ICAP Europe Limited, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Societe Generale SA, and UBS
AG (collectively, "Defendants") agreed, combined, and conspired to
rig Euribor and fix the prices of Euribor Products. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants did so by using several means of
manipulation. For example, Plaintiffs allege that panel banks that
made daily Euribor submissions to Thomson Reuters falsely reported
banks' costs of borrowing to financially benefit their Euribor
Products positions. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants
requested that other Defendants make false Euribor submissions on
their behalf to benefit their Euribor Products positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants continuously conspired to
fix the prices of Euribor Products in the over-the-counter market
to financially benefit their own Euribor Products positions. In
addition to coordinating Euribor submissions and agreeing on where
to price Euribor Products, Plaintiffs allege that, in order to
effectuate their manipulations of Euribor and Euribor Products
during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in "pushing cash,"
transmitted false bids and offers, used derivative traders as
submitters, and rigged bids and offers for Euribor Products.

Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories,
including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act
("CEA"), the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), and common law.

Credit Agricole has consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs'
allegations and maintains they have meritorious defenses to the
claims of liability and damages made by Plaintiffs.

What are Euribor Products?

"Euribor Products" means any and all interest rate swaps, forward
rate agreements, futures, options, structured products, and any
other instrument or transaction related in any way to Euribor,
including but not limited to, New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange
("LIFFE") Euribor futures contracts and options, Chicago Mercantile
Exchange ("CME") Euro currency futures contracts and options, Euro
currency forward agreements, Euribor-based swaps, Euribor-based
forward rate agreements, and/or any other financial instruments
that reference Euribor.
Commodities Brokers and other Nominees: Please visit the
Institutional E-Filing page of this website.

If you have questions, you may call the Euribor Settlement Help
Line at 800-492-9154, or email info@Euriborsettlement.com


DEJA VU PIZZA: Ct. Tosses Hoffman's Bid to Certify Driver Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashleigh Hoffman,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. Deja vu
Pizza, LLC, d/b/a Papa John's Pizza, Harold Rose, Doe Corporations
1-10, and John Doe 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00006-DMT-CRH (D.N.D.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel M. Traynor entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class for conditional certification.

The Court said,"Hoffman generally alleges there were other delivery
drivers, and they were not paid according to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). However, Hoffman must provide some factual
basis that potential plaintiffs exists "that are more
than mere allegations." The information the Court has been given is
merely allegations, and Hoffman has failed to meet her burden to
certify the class. The Plaintiff should not be permitted to go on a
fishing expedition to seek out others who might wish to join."

On January 14, 2022, Hoffman filed a Complaint against the
Defendants. Hoffman notes the the Defendants are current or former
owners or operators of multiple Papa John's locations in North
Dakota and Wisconsin. Hoffman states she was an employee of the
Defendants and seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have
worked at Defendants' stores. Hoffman alleges she, and other
workers like her, were not adequately reimbursed as delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses. On this basis, she
alleges the Defendants failed to pay delivery drivers the mandated
minimum wage as required by the FLSA.

Specifically, delivery drivers are required to provide cars, which
the drivers are required to maintain and pay for operable, safe,
and legally compliant automobiles. Hoffman alleges the Defendants
require delivery drivers to incur or pay job-related expenses such
as automobile costs and depreciation, gasoline, automobile
maintenance, cellphone costs, GPS charges, and other equipment
necessary to complete their job. According to Hoffman, the
Defendants pay delivery drivers a per-delivery reimbursement
payment that is less than the IRS standard business mileage rate.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OnQS4w at no extra charge.[CC]


DEL-ONE FEDERAL: Suit Over Misleading Overdraft Notice Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEL-ONE FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION; DOES 1-10. Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01433-SB (D. Del.),
Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware denies Del-One's motion to dismiss Miller's regulatory
and consumer-fraud claims, allowing the claims to proceed to trial.
Judge Bibas concludes Miller plausibly argues Del-One's opt-in
notice about its overdraft policy is misleading and confusing.

Miller opened a checking account with Del-One. When she did,
Del-One had her sign an opt-in notice about its overdraft policy.
Under that policy, Del-One customers can "overdraft" their accounts
in two ways. If someone buys something without enough money in her
account, Del-One may pay out of its own pocket, then charge a fee
for that small "loan."  

But sometimes, Del-One charges a fee even when the customer has
enough money. That is because it considers future payments, like a
monthly water bill or mortgage payment. Subtracting out those
upcoming bills, Del-One calculates the customer's "available"
money. If she spends more than that, Del-One charges her an
overdraft fee -- even if she deposits the money to cover the future
payments and Del-One never shells out anything.

Under a federal regulation, Del-One must clearly explain in its
opt-in notice the reasons it charges overdraft fees. But Miller
found that notice ambiguous: She did not know that the bank
factored in upcoming bills when deciding whether she had enough
money in her account. Upset, she brought a class action against
Del-One for violating the regulation and Delaware's Consumer Fraud
Act.

Del-One moved to dismiss both claims.

Miller says that because Del-One's opt-in notice did not explain
its overdraft policy clearly, Del-One has violated a federal
regulation. Del-One suggests that the Court should not judge the
text of that notice in isolation. Even if that notice was
ambiguous, Del-One says, two other documents that it gave Miller
clearly explained its overdraft policy.

Judge Bibas says he cannot consider those documents. He explains
they are not integral to Miller's complaint. Indeed, she does not
even mention them. Nor could they be integral, even if she had.
Under the federal regulation Miller flags, Del-One must provide
customers with "a notice in writing segregated from all other
information, describing its overdraft service." Thus, all relevant
information about Del-One's overdraft policy must be in that one
"separate" document. Information in other documents is "irrelevant
to whether the segregated document adequately explains Del-One's
overdraft policy."

Del-One's opt-in notice defines an overdraft as "when you do not
have enough money in your account to cover a transaction, but
Del-One pays it anyway." According to Judge Bibas, Miller reads
this definition to mean that "Del-One uses the actual balance and
money in the account to calculate whether an overdraft has
occurred" without factoring in upcoming bills. Del-One says it
pulled the language in its notice straight from the template in the
regulation. "Because the government surely understands the many
reasons financial institutions charge overdraft fees, it must have
intended for the template to cover practices like Del-One's," Judge
Bibas says.

According to Judge Bibas, the notice does not accurately "described
Del-One's overdraft service" in a "clear and readily
understandable" way. He also points out the regulation's text does
not point one way or the other. Importantly, it does not require
Del-One to quote the template verbatim. It compels only a
"substantially similar" notice. Indeed, the regulation stresses the
notice should provide "a brief description of the financial
institution's overdraft service." If a bank charges overdraft fees
only when the customer spends more money than she has in her
account, the model language might be accurate. But when, as in the
case, a bank looks at upcoming payments to calculate overdrafts,
the template might not be, Judge Bibas says.

Judge Bibas further points out that even if the template (as used
in the case) is ambiguous, Del-One says it cannot be held liable
for using the government's suggested language. It points to the
statute underlying the regulation, which shields banks from
liability for "any failure to make disclosure in proper form if
they utilized an appropriate model clause." Because it used the
template, it says, it cannot be liable.

But Judge Bibas says Del-One confuses form with substance. Del-One
might be shielded from a lawsuit about the notice's configuration,
such as whether it: provided a reasonable opportunity for the
consumer to affirmatively consent to the overdraft policy; provided
the notice in writing; or properly segregated the notice from all
other information. Challenges to each of those requirements would
be challenges to the notice's "shape" or "configuration." But
Miller's argument -- that Del-One's use of the model language
failed to accurately "describe its overdraft service" -- challenges
its substance. Thus, Del-One is not shielded from Miller's
regulatory claim.

Miller also asserts Del-One violated Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act.
That Act bans any "deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,
or misrepresentation" in the provision of services. Miller casts
the ambiguous opt-in notice as a misrepresentation: Del-One
suggested it would only charge overdraft fees when Miller did not
have enough money in her account, but its policy was not so
limited.

Del-One pushes back. It reminds the Court that the other account
documents might provide the full picture of its overdraft policy.
But the Court has declined to look at those documents.
Alternatively, it says, this claim repackages a breach-of-contract
argument. Miller, it says, really protests "that Del-One charged
her overdraft fees that were not authorized" by the opt-in notice.
And labeling that as a fraud claim would be impermissible because
claims "based entirely on a breach of contract" must be brought "in
contract and not in tort."

But that argument, Judge Bibas says, rewrites Miller's complaint;
she does not argue Del-One broke some promise to her. Instead, she
says Del-One "failed to disclose" important information about its
overdraft policy. That is a classic fraud argument, not a
breach-of-contract one. So this claim may proceed too.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrypapxp from Leagle.com.

David W. deBruin -- ddebruin@gawthrop.com -- NAPOLI SHKOLNIK LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; Elaine S. Kusel, Sherief Morsy, McCUNE WRIGHT
AREVALO, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Loren R. Barron -- lbarron@margolisedelstein.com -- MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Defendants.

HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Rejects PAGA Claims in Gau Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD SCOTT GAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HILLSTONE
RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08250-SVK (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants Hillstone's motion
for partial judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs' claim
under the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004, California Labor
Code Sections 2698 et seq.  Judge van Keulen also denies the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the Complaint to substitute
a new plaintiff.

Gau is a former employee of the Los Altos Grill restaurant in Los
Altos, California, which is operated by Hillstone. Gau alleged on
behalf of a putative class that Hillstone failed to provide
employee meal and rest breaks, and comply with other requirements
under California law.

On March 31, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification. In addition to the Plaintiff's class claims,
the Plaintiff along with his wife Brandi Foster-Gau, sue under
PAGA. All Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
magistrate judge.

Now before the Court is Hillstone's motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings on the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim, which the Plaintiffs
oppose. The matter is suitable for determination without oral
argument.  

                            Gau Case

In the time period relevant to the case, Hillstone operated 17
full-service restaurants in California. From 2013 to June 2020,
Plaintiff Gau worked as a server at Hillstone's Los Altos Grill
restaurant, which is located in this District. Plaintiff Foster-Gau
was employed at Los Altos Grill from 2014 to June 2020.  

On Sept. 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class and representative
action in Santa Clara County Superior Court for various Labor Code
violations and for civil penalties under PAGA. Following service of
the Complaint, Hillstone filed an Answer on Nov. 18, 2020. On Nov.
23, 2020, Hillstone removed the case to the Court. The Court
subsequently denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Following discovery relating to class certification, Plaintiff Gau
moved to certify a rest period class and a meal period class. On
March 31, 2022, the Court denied the motion for class
certification. At a subsequent Case Management Conference, the
Court set a deadline of May 31, 2022 for a stipulation or motion to
dismiss the PAGA claim. On May 31, 2022, Hillstone filed the
present motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on the
Plaintiffs' PAGA claim.

                           Klugh Case

On March 27, 2020, another former Hillstone employee, Isabella
Klugh, sued Hillstone in California state court in a case entitled
Klugh v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. 20STCF12299. Klugh sought civil penalties
under PAGA on the ground that Hillstone had failed to timely pay
all wages owed at the time of her separation from employment with
Hillstone.

An April 20, 2022 first amended complaint in the Klugh case also
sought civil penalties under PAGA for Hillstone's alleged failure
to provide: (1) pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours;
(2) pay for accrued vacation upon separation; (3) required sick
pay; (4) rest breaks; (5) uninterrupted meal and second meal
breaks; (6) timely payment of all wages owed; and (7) accurate
itemized wage statements and compliance with recordkeeping
requirements. Both Klugh's original complaint and her first amended
complaint were preceded by PAGA notice letters to California's
Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  

On April 6, 2022, the parties in Klugh filed a stipulation
requesting court approval of a settlement pursuant to PAGA. On
April 20, 2022, the state court entered an order granting approval
of the settlement. The Court's order confirmed approval of the
settlement as to "the Aggrieved Employees," who were defined in the
settlement agreement as "all current and former non-exempt
employees of Hillstone who were employed in the State of California
at any time during the PAGA Settlement Period," which in turn was
defined as the period from Jan. 1, 2019, to the date the Court
approves the settlement.

In the April 20, 2022 order approving the settlement, the Court
found that "each Aggrieved Employee, in accordance with the
Settlement, releases all Released Claims against the Released
Parties."

On April 20, 2022, the state court also entered judgment in the
Klugh case.

                   Request for Judicial Notice

In support of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, Hillstone
asked the Court takes judicial notice of (1) four PAGA notice
letters to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA")
(Exs. 1, 3, 8, and 9 to Dkt. 78); and (2) five documents filed in
the Klugh case (id. at Exs. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7). The Plaintiffs do
not address or oppose Hillstone's Request for Judicial Notice.

Judge van Keulen finds that Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to
Hillstone's Request for Judicial Notice are court records, which
are properly the subject of judicial notice. Accordingly, she
grants Hillstone's unopposed Request for Judicial Notice. In so
doing, she notices only the existence of the filings in the
administrative and state court proceedings does not credit the
truth of any fact recounted or matter asserted in the documents.

              Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Hillstone argues it is entitled to judgment on the Plaintiffs' PAGA
cause of action because (1) the Plaintiffs' claim for PAGA
penalties for the period prior to April 20, 2022 is barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion because it was released as part of the
settlement of the PAGA claims in Klugh; and (2) the Plaintiffs lack
standing to bring a PAGA claim for the period after April 20, 2022
because they were no longer employed by Hillstone at that time.
Hillstone also argues the Plaintiffs should not be permitted to
amend their complaint to resuscitate the PAGA claim.

The Plaintiffs counter that their PAGA claim is not barred by claim
or issue preclusion. They also argue that, even if the Court agrees
the Plaintiffs lack standing for a PAGA claim arising after the
Klugh settlement, they should be permitted to find a substitute
plaintiff.

                        Claim Preclusion

Hillstone argues that the Gaus' PAGA claim is precluded by the
settlement and judgment in Klugh. Claim preclusion bars
re-litigation of any claims that were raised or could have been
raised in an earlier action. Under California law, claim preclusion
applies if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2)
between the same parties or their privies (3) after a final
judgment on the merits in the first suit.

Judge van Keulen holds that (i) the first requirement for claim
preclusion is satisfied because Klugh and this case involve the
same claim; (ii) the doctrine of claim preclusion applies to
Plaintiffs' successive PAGA claim; (iii) the Plaintiffs do not, and
cannot, dispute that the state court judgment satisfies the
requirement under the claim preclusion doctrine for a final
judgment on the merits; and (iv) the Plaintiffs have offered no
sound policy reasons why the court-approved settlement in Klugh
should not be given the claim preclusive effect to which it is
entitled. Accordingly, Judge van Keulen concludes the Gaus' PAGA
claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

                        Issue Preclusion

Hillstone's motion is based on claim preclusion, but the Plaintiffs
spend much of their opposition addressing the doctrine of issue
preclusion. Claim preclusion provides that "a final judgment
forecloses successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or
not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier
suit," whereas issue preclusion "bars successive litigation of an
issue of fact actually litigated and resolved in a valid court
determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue
recurs in the context of a different claim." As a result, except to
the extent discussed, Judge van Keulen finds that the Plaintiffs'
arguments about issue preclusion do not address and are not
relevant to the claim preclusion doctrine upon which the
Defendants' motion is based, which is a different doctrine with
different requirements.

                            Standing

Hillstone argues that if the Klugh settlement is entitled to
preclusive effect as to claimed Labor Code violations for the time
period covered by the settlement and judgment in that case (i.e.,
Jan. 1, 2019 to April 20, 2022), the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim must be
dismissed because their employment with Hillstone ended in June
2020 and therefore they do not have standing to sue for Labor Code
violations occurring after April 20, 2022. The Plaintiffs do not
directly dispute that they do not have standing to sue for
post-termination violations.

Judge van Keulen rules that the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim for the
period through April 20, 2022 is precluded. The Plaintiffs do not
have standing to sue under PAGA for violations occurring after
April 20, 2022 because they were no longer employed by Hillstone at
that time. Moreover, substitution at this stage would prejudice
Hillstone in that the Court's denial of the motion for class
certification, which took significant Court time and resources,
rested, in part, on Plaintiff Gau's inadequacy as a class
representative, upon which the Defendant has presumably relied in
litigating the case. Accordingly, Judge van Keulen denies the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the Complaint to substitute
a new plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p98jdrt from Leagle.com.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 1
------------------------------------------------------
If you transacted in BBSW-Based Derivatives(1) from January 1, 2003
through August 16, 2016, inclusive, then your rights will be
affected, and you may be entitled to a benefit.  This Notice is
only a summary of the proposed settlements and is subject to the
terms of the Settlement Agreements(2)2 and other relevant
documents.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice.  The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights
in connection with eight proposed settlements ("Settlements")
between Plaintiffs and (1) JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (collectively, "JPMorgan"); (2) Westpac Banking
Corporation ("Westpac"); (3) Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd. ("ANZ"); (4) Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("CBA"); (5)
National Australia Bank Limited ("NAB"); (6) Morgan Stanley and
Morgan Stanley Australia Limited (collectively, "Morgan Stanley");
(7) Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Group AG ("Credit Suisse");
and (8) BNP Paribas, S.A. ("BNPP"), Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche
Bank"), Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"), The Royal Bank of Scotland
plc (n/k/a NatWest Markets plc) ("RBS"), and UBS AG ("UBS") in the
action titled Dennis et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., No.
16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action").

The Settlements have been proposed to resolve a class action
lawsuit concerning the alleged manipulation of the Bank Bill Swap
Rate ("BBSW") and the prices of BBSW-Based Derivatives from January
1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive.  JPMorgan, Westpac,
ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank,
RBC, RBS and UBS each has denied and continues to deny each and
every claim asserted against them in the Action and deny having
engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law of any kind
whatsoever.  They have agreed to the Settlements solely to avoid
the continuing cost and burden of, and expense associated with,
continued litigation.  Accordingly, the Settlements may not be
construed as an admission of any wrongdoing by JPMorgan, Westpac,
ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank,
RBC, RBS or UBS.  The Settlements will provide the following
amounts for the benefit of qualifying members of the Settlement
Class (see below) who transacted in BBSW-Based Derivatives from
January 1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive:

JPMorgan Settlement:

$7,000,000

Westpac Settlement:

$25,000,000

ANZ Settlement:

$35,500,000

CBA Settlement:

$35,500,000

NAB Settlement:

$27,000,000

Morgan Stanley Settlement:

$7,000,000

Credit Suisse Settlement:

$8,875,000

BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC,

RBS and UBS Settlement:

$40,000,000

TOTAL: $185,875,000

If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and Release form
to potentially get benefits.  You may exclude yourself from one or
more of the Settlements, or object to one or more of the
Settlements.   The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide
whether to approve the Settlements (see below).

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased,
acquired, sold, held, traded or otherwise had any interest in
BBSW-Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2003 through
August 16, 2016, inclusive.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are
(i) the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent
of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant; and (ii) the United States Government.

You may contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold,
held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in BBSW-Based
Derivatives.  If you are not sure you are included, you can get
more information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mail Notice
and other important documents, at www.BBSWSettlement.com
("Settlement Website"), via email at info@BBSWSettlement.com or by
calling toll-free 1‑877-308-3241.

What Is the Nature of This Action?
Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January 1, 2003 through
August 16, 2016, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the
manipulation of BBSW and the prices of BBSW‑Based Derivatives.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did so by using several means of
manipulation.  For example, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
coordinated manipulative, uneconomic transactions of Prime Bank
Bills during the daily BBSW "Fixing Window" in order to move the
published BBSW rate in a direction that benefitted their BBSW-Based
Derivatives trading positions and that inter-dealer brokers,
intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and
derivatives markets, assisted Defendants' effort to manipulate
BBSW.  Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various
theories, including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange
Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
common law.

JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse,
BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS each has consistently and
vigorously denied and continues to deny each and every allegation
of any wrongdoing that has or could have been asserted by or on
behalf of Plaintiffs.  JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan
Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS
further deny they have violated, in any way and to any degree,
inter alia, the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968,
and any claim available under U.S. common law, and maintain that
they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in this
Action.  JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit
Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS each entered into its
respective Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs, despite believing
that it is not liable for the claims asserted against it, solely to
avoid the continuing cost and burden of, and business interruption
associated with, the Action.

What Do the Settlements Provide?
Under the Settlements, JPMorgan agreed to pay $7,000,000, Westpac
agreed to pay $25,000,000, ANZ agreed to pay $35,500,000, CBA
agreed to pay $35,500,000, NAB agreed to pay $27,000,000, Morgan
Stanley agreed to pay $7,000,000, Credit Suisse agreed to pay
$8,875,000 and BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS have agreed to
pay an aggregate $40,000,000 for the benefit of the Settlement
Class.  Under the terms of their respective Settlements, JPMorgan,
Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP,
Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS have each agreed to provide
Plaintiffs with certain cooperation materials solely for use in
connection with the prosecution of the Action against non-settling
Defendants or to provide notice of the Settlements to the
Settlement Class. If the Court approves the Settlements, potential
members of the Settlement Class who qualify and submit valid and
timely Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the
Net Settlement Funds.  The Settlement Agreements, available at the
Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed
Settlements.  The method of distributing the Net Settlement Funds
to Authorized Claimants will be determined in accordance with a
Distribution Plan, which will be submitted to the Court by Class
Counsel (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP) before the below deadlines to object or to request
exclusion from one or more of the Settlements.  The proposed
Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release form will be
posted on the Settlement Website at the time they are submitted to
the Court for approval on or about August 3, 2022.  The exact
amount each qualifying Settling Class Member will receive from the
Net Settlement Funds cannot be determined until (1) the Court
finally approves the Settlements; (2) the Court determines to
approve certain fees and expenses identified in the full Settlement
Agreements to be deducted from the Settlement Funds; and (3) the
number of participating Class Members and the amount of their
claims are determined pursuant to the Distribution Plan approved by
the Court.  In addition, each Settling Class Member's share of the
Settlement Fund will vary depending on the information the Settling
Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form.
The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a
Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

How Do You Request a Payment?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and
Release form to the Settlement Administrator (A.B. Data, Ltd.) at
the address set forth below that is postmarked no later than
January 16, 2023.  

BBSW Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173031
Milwaukee, WI 53217

You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release form on the Settlement
Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a
Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order
approving the Settlement Agreements, and you will not be eligible
to share in the Net Settlement Funds.

How Do You Request Exclusion or Object to the Settlements?
All requests to be excluded from one or more of the Settlements
must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Mail Notice (available on the Settlement Website) and must be sent
in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the
U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within
five (5) or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement
Administrator in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Mail Notice not later than September 2, 2022.  All objections to
one or more of the Settlements, including objections to Class
Counsel's requests for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be made in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Mail Notice (available on the
Settlement Website) and must be filed with the Court and received
by Class Counsel and counsel for JPM, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB,
Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and
UBS no later than September 2, 2022.

All requests for exclusion and objections must comply with the
requirements set forth in the Mail Notice and the Notice Orders
issued by the Court.  If you exclude yourself from one or more of
the Settlements, you will not be bound by the respective Settlement
Agreement(s) and may independently pursue claims at your own
expense.  However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be
eligible to share in the Net Settlement Funds or otherwise
participate in the Settlement(s) for which you have sought to be
excluded.  If you chose to remain in the Settlement Class and the
Court approves the Settlements, you will be bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlements and any judgments or other orders
entered by the Court with respect to the Settlements.  

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing concerning the Settlements
on November 1, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 21B of the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York 10007, to consider whether to approve the
Settlements and to consider a request by Class Counsel, which
represent all Settlement Class Members, for an award of attorneys'
fees of no more than one-third of the Settlement Funds for the
Settlements and for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses
in the amount of no more than $1,250,000.  Class Counsel may also
seek additional awards of fees, and reimbursement of costs and
expenses in connection with services provided after the Fairness
Hearing.  Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses will be available on the Settlement
Website on or about August 18, 2022.  The Representative Plaintiffs
may seek an award from the Settlement Fund of no more than $75,000
as reimbursement of their own expenses and compensation for their
time devoted to this litigation.  To the extent approved by the
Court, the foregoing payments will be deducted from the Settlement
Funds for the Settlements before any distributions are made to the
Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have
to.  You may enter an appearance through an attorney if you so
desire, but you do not have to.  For more information, call
toll-free 1-877-308-3241 or visit the website
www.BBSWSettlement.com.  The time and date of the Fairness Hearing
may be continued from time to time without further notice, and you
are advised to confirm the time and location if you wish to attend.
As soon as practicable after any change in the scheduled date,
time or venue, such change will be posted on the Settlement
Website.

(1) "BBSW-Based Derivatives" means any financial derivative
instrument that is based or priced in whole or in part in any way
on the Bank Bill Swap Rate ("BBSW") or in any way includes BBSW as
a component of price (whether priced, benchmarked and/or settled by
BBSW), entered into by a U.S. person, or by a person from or
through a location within the U.S., including, but not limited to:
(i) Australian dollar foreign exchange ("FX") derivatives,
including Australian dollar FX forwards (also known as "outright
forwards" or "outrights"), Australian dollar FX swaps (also known
as "currency swaps"), Australian dollar currency options,
Australian dollar futures contracts (such as the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange ("CME") Australian dollar futures contract) and options on
such futures contracts; (ii) BBSW-based interest rate derivatives,
including interest rate swaps, swaptions, forward rate agreements
("FRAs"), exchange-traded deliverable swap futures and options on
those futures, 90-day bank accepted bill ("BAB") futures and
options on those futures, and other over-the-counter ("OTC")
contracts or publicly traded vehicles that reference BBSW; (iii)
Australian dollar cross-currency swaps; and (iv) any other
financial derivative instrument or transaction based in whole or in
part on BBSW, or that in any way incorporates BBSW as a component
of price, or is alleged by Representative Plaintiffs in this Action
to be based in whole or in part on BBSW, or to in any way
incorporate BBSW as a component of price.  For the avoidance of
doubt, BBSW-Based Derivatives do not include: (i) any BBSW-based
deposits or loans, including floating rate notes, deposit-taking
facilities, and commercial loans that are priced or call for
payments due, in whole or in part, based on BBSW, including
Australian dollar deposits and loans ("BBSW-Based Deposits or
Loans"); or (ii) any negotiable certificates of deposit ("NCDs")
and bank accepted bills ("BABs") issued and accepted by Prime Banks
(collectively, "Prime Bank Bills") or Prime Bank eligible
securities. "Prime Banks" means the banks designated by AFMA as
prime banks during the Settlement Class Period.

(2) The "Settlement Agreements" means the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with JPMorgan entered into on November 20, 2018, the
Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
JPMorgan entered into on March 1, 2021, and the Second Amendment to
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with JPMorgan entered
into on January 13, 2022; the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with Westpac entered into on March 1, 2021 and the
Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Westpac entered into on January 13, 2022; the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with ANZ entered into on December 10, 2021;
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with CBA entered into
on December 10, 2021; the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
with NAB entered into on December 10, 2021; the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with Morgan Stanley entered into on October
1, 2021 and the Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with Morgan Stanley entered into on January 13, 2022;
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Credit Suisse
entered into on January 21, 2022; and the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS entered
into on April 29, 2022.


MATSUO ELECTRIC: Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 15
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.

Settlements Have Been Reached by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs,
Through Their Attorneys Led by CourtAppointed Counsel, the Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, LLP, with Some of the Defendants in an Antitrust
Class Action Lawsuit Involving Capacitors

In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D.
Cal.)

What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that certain defendants engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of
aluminum, tantalum, or film capacitors ("Capacitors"). Plaintiffs
allege that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy involving
Capacitors, they and other direct purchasers paid more for
Capacitors than they would have absent the alleged conspiracy.
Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

Who can submit a claim?
The settlements include all persons and entities in the United
States—excluding those who filed a timely opt-out of the
litigation class in accordance with the terms of the 2019 Notice of
Certification of Class of Direct Purchasers of Capacitors—that
purchased Capacitors (including through controlled subsidiaries,
agents, affiliates or joint-ventures) directly from any defendant
or subsidiary, agent, affiliate, or joint venture of a defendant at
any time between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2013, where the
Capacitors were billed to or shipped to the purchaser's address in
the United States (the "Settlement Class"). The period for opting
out of the litigation class has now closed.

Who represents the Settlement Class?
The Court has appointed the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP
(www.SaveriLawFirm.com) to represent the Settlement Class. You may
also retain your own counsel at your expense.

Who are the Settling Defendants?
Settlements have been reached with defendants Matsuo Electric Co.,
Ltd. ("Matsuo"); Nippon Chemi-Con Corp. ("NCC"); and United
ChemiCon, Inc. ("UCC"; NCC and UCC collectively "Chemi-Con"; Matsuo
and Chemi-Con collectively, the "Settling Defendants") in partial
settlement of the class action lawsuit (the "Settlement
Agreements"). The Settling Defendants expressly deny Plaintiffs'
allegations. Plaintiffs are still pursuing claims against other
defendants who have not yet settled. Other defendants have
previously settled with Plaintiffs. More details are
available in the Long-Form Notice available at the Settlement
Website (www.CapacitorsAntitrustSettlement.com),

What does the settlement provide?
The Settlement Agreements provide for the payment of USD
$165,000,000 to the Settlement Class. As explained in greater
detail in the LongForm Notice available at the Settlement Website;
(a) Matsuo will pay $5,000,000; and (b) Chemi-Con will pay
$160,000,000. Plaintiffs' counsel appointed by the Court, the
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, will ask the Court to approve a
deduction of $200,000 from the Settlement Fund to reimburse
expenses for notifying Settlement Class members of the settlement.
The attorneys representing the Settlement Class will also ask the
Court to approve payment of $66,000,000 (40% of the Settlement
Fund) in attorneys' fees, payable upon the Court's approval of the
requested fees. Class Counsel will also seek up to $4,000,000
(approximately 2.42% of the Settlement Fund) to reimburse incurred
litigation costs and expenses. Class Counsel will also ask the
Court to approve service awards of up to $100,000 each to
compensate the Class Representatives for
their work on behalf of the Class.

Settlement Funds will be distributed to Settlement Class members
upon approval by the Court, after deducting any attorneys' fees and
reimbursement for costs and expenses approved by the Court.

What are my rights?
To receive a share of the Settlement Fund, you will need to sign
and mail a Claim Form. A copy of the Claim Form is available at the
Settlement Website. You may also call the claims administrator at
1-866-903-1223 for a paper Claim Form.

You may submit a completed Claim Form by: (1) uploading it online
via the Settlement Website, by no later than July 29, 2022 at 11:59
p.m., Pacific Time; or (2) mailing a completed Claim Form to the
Claims Administrator, In re Capacitors Antitrust Lawsuit, at P.O.
Box 2563, Faribault, MN 55021-9563, postmarked no later than July
29, 2022.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement
Agreements, you must exclude yourself in writing by July 29, 2022,
in the manner described in part 20 of the Long-Form Notice
(available on the Settlement Website). If you do not exclude
yourself from the lawsuit, you will not be able to sue, or continue
to sue, the Settling Defendants with respect to the legal claims in
this case. If you do nothing, you will be bound by the Settlements
if approved by the Court.

If you wish to comment on or disagree with any aspect of the
proposed settlements, you must do so in writing no later than July
29, 2022. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California will hold a Fairness Hearing at 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 on September 15, 2022
at 10:00 a.m. If there are objections or comments, the Court will
consider them at that time. You may appear at the hearing, but you
do not have to.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

This is a Summary Notice. For more details, call toll free
1-866-903-1223, or visit www.CapacitorsAntitrustSettlement.com. You
may also write to the Claims Administrator, In re Capacitors
Antitrust Lawsuit, P.O. Box 2563, Faribault, MN 55021-9563.

This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise
terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the Settlement
Agreements available at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, by
contacting Class Counsel at 1-415-500-6800, by accessing the

Court docket in this case through the Court's Public Access to
Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, California, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Court holidays.

FOR INFORMATION: WWW.CAPACITORSANTITRUSTSETTLEMENT.COM
1-866-903-1223


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bafford Appeals Final Judgment in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephen Bafford, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Stephen Bafford, et al. v.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10219-ODW-E,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).

The class action is brought by members of an employee pension plan,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and state-law professional negligence
misrepresentation claims.

Northrop Grumman, plan sponsor, delegated administration of the
plan to an Administrative Committee, which in turn contracted with
Hewitt, a company that provided outside administrative services for
the plan. The Plaintiffs requested statements showing what their
monthly pension benefit would be, using participant-entered
assumptions. The statements mailed to plaintiffs by Hewitt grossly
overestimated the benefits to which they would be entitled, says
the suit.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Hewitt, the Committee, and Northrop had
breached their fiduciary duties and that the Committee had failed
to provide ERISA-required benefit information.

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Evelyn Wilson, Stephen H. Bafford,
Laura Bafford filed a
third amended complaint against Defendants Administrative Committee
of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, Alight Solutions LLC, and
Northrop Grumman Corporation.

On April 18, 2022, Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered a minute order
stating that in response to the Administrative Committee intention
to move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and in order for
the Court to rule on the Administrative Committee's attack on
Plaintiffs' pleading accurately and efficiently, the Court finds it
necessary to order Plaintiffs to amend their pleading to conform
with the Court's rulings in this case thus far.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint, which  shall omit (1) all factual allegations
and causes of action asserted against Alight and (2) all
allegations related to the assertion that the statements Defendants
sent Plaintiffs were inaccurate. As a result of this disposition,
the parties' Stipulation regarding the Administrative Committee's
Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint was denied as moot.

On May 16, 2022, a fourth amended complaint was filed by the
Plaintiffs.

On May 17, 2022, Judge Wright entered an order striking the Fourth
Amended Complaint, ruling that, "The Court's prior leave to amend
was simple in scope. The Fourth Amended Complaint violates this
Order. These allegations go outside the scope of the leave to amend
the Court previously granted. At this point, this case is not about
miscalculation; it is about failure to provide a statement,
regardless of what the numbers on the statement may be. If
Plaintiffs want to expand the scope of their case beyond this, they
must make a motion or other appropriate request. If Plaintiffs are
not going to make such a request, then they must follow the Court's
instructions and eliminate from their pleading all allegations
related to erroneous or mistaken benefit amounts.

The court directed the Plaintiffs to file an appropriately narrowed
amended complaint or an appropriate motion or request no later than
14 days, adding that failure to do so may lead to dismissal of the
case for lack of prosecution.

On May 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent not to
file a further complaint, and requested for entry of judgment in
the case.

For this reason, Judge Wright entered final judgment on June 1,
2022, in favor of Defendant Administrative Committee of the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan. Plaintiffs Stephen H. Bafford, Laura
Bafford, and Evelyn Wilson will take nothing from the Defendant and
their claims are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, Judge
Wright opined. The Clerk of the Court was also directed to close
the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Bafford, et al. v.
Administrative Cmte. of the Northrop Grumman Plan, et al., Case No.
22-55634, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on July 1, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Laura Bafford, Stephen H. Bafford and Evelyn L.
Wilson Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 8, 2022;

   -- Appellants Laura Bafford, Stephen H. Bafford and Evelyn L.
Wilson opening brief is due on August 29, 2022;

   -- Appellee Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman
Pension Plan answering brief is due on September 28, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHEN H. BAFFORD, et al., are represented
by:

          Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
          Susan Meter, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525

               - and -

          Teresa Renaker, Esq.
          Kirsten Gibney Scott, Esq.
          RENAKER HASSELMAN SCOTT LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 653-1733

Defendant-Appellee ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NORTHROP GRUMMAN
PENSION PLAN is represented by:

          Brett E. Legner, Esq.
          Andrew Rosenman, Esq.
          Nancy G. Ross, Esq.
          Kristin Silverman, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 701-8090

PUSHPAY USA: Class Settlement in Blankers Suit Wins Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AUDRA BLANKERS and W.B.T. ARNOLD, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PUSHPAY
USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01549-JHC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective
Settlement.

Judge Chun has considered the motion and the Parties' Agreement,
which sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement
of the Action. Based on the record, he tentatively finds, under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), that the Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Accordingly, Judge Chun grants the Parties' request for
certification of the following settlement Class for the sole and
limited purpose of implementing the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, subject to the Court's final approval: "All Sales
Development Representatives working for the Defendant during the
time period between March 1, 2018 and June 1, 2020 and who are
identified in the data the Defendant produced to the Plaintiffs'
Counsel."  

He also conditionally certifies the FLSA collective because
pleadings and declarations support the finding that the named
Plaintiffs are "similarly situated" to members of the class.

Judge Chun preliminarily appoints the Plaintiff's counsel, Werman
Salas P.C. and Crotty & Son Law Firm, PLLC as the Class Counsel. He
confirms Analytics LLC as the Settlement Administrator.

Except for revisions incorporated into the notice language, Judge
Chun finds that the proposed Class Notice meets the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, due process, and applicable
law. He directs the mailing and e-mailing of the Class Notice to
the Class Members in accordance with the schedule.

Within 10 calendar days of the Plaintiffs' motion, the Defendant
will provide class data to the Settlement Administrator.  

Within 10 calendar days of the Order, the Settlement Administrator
will mail and e-mail the Notice to the Class Members.  

The Class Members will have 45 calendar days after the Notice
mailing/e-mailing date (the "Objection/Opt-out Deadline") to submit
a written request for exclusion or a written statement objecting to
the Settlement. The 45-day deadline will be the postmark deadline
for mailed objections.

The Class Members will also have an opportunity to object to the
motion for attorney fees, litigation costs, and incentive awards
described below. reasonable, and adequate and should be finally
approved is scheduled for Oct. 21, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. at the United
States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 14106/Courtroom 14A,
Seattle, WA 98101.

The Class Counsel will file any motion for an award of attorney
fees or reimbursement of expenses or costs and any motion for an
Incentive Award on behalf of a Named Plaintiffs no later than Aug.
15, 2022. The Class counsel will mail the motion to all Class
Members within three calendar days of its filing with the Court.

A Motion for Final Approval of the Agreement, together with any
supporting declarations or other documentation, must be filed no
later than 14 days after the Objection/Opt-out deadline. The Class
Counsel will also mail the Motion for Final Approval to all the
Class Members who object to the Agreement or indicate that they
intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing.

The deadline for the parties to submit any responses to objections
will be 14 days after the Objection/Opt-out deadline.

Pending final determination of whether the Agreement should be
approved, (a) all proceedings in the Action unrelated to the
Agreement will be stayed, and (b) neither the Named Plaintiffs nor
any Class Member, either directly, representatively, derivatively,
or in any other capacity, will commence or prosecute against any of
the Releasees any action or proceeding in any court or tribunal
asserting any of the Class Released Claims.

Judge Chun further orders the parties to submit, within two court
days of the Order, a revised Notice that includes the following
language under Section 7: "Class counsel may apply for attorney
fees of up to $583,333.00 and litigation costs of up to $4,000.00
under the Settlement. Named Plaintiffs may apply for incentive
awards of up to $10,000.00 under the settlement. The motion
requesting fees, costs, and incentive awards will be filed with
this Court by August 15, 2022 and then mailed to you directly on or
before August 18, 2022. You are permitted to review, object to,
support, or comment on any request for attorney fees, litigation
costs, and incentive awards, in addition to objecting to the
proposed settlement agreement, by [Objection/Opt-out Deadline]."

After the Court approves the revised Notice, it may be mailed to
the Class Members in compliance with the schedule set forth.

Lastly, Judge Chun orders the parties to file proof of service of
the notice of proposed settlement upon the Attorney General of the
United States or show cause as to why the notice could not or need
not be served.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3d6vcd35 from Leagle.com.


RCI HOSPITALITY: $2.2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas Houston Division has approved the following announcement of a
proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RICK):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT
OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period between
December 13, 2016 and July 18, 2019, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of RCI Hospitality Holdings
Inc. and were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

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 Texas, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $2,200,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on August 12, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Alfred H. Bennett at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, Courtroom
8C, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, 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 Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
April 14, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.RCIHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com.  You may also obtain
copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims
Administrator at In re RCI Hospitality Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street,
Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, 1-866-274-4004.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form submitted online or postmarked no later
than September 23, 2022 to the Claims Administrator.  If you are a
Settlement 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 judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than July 22, 2022 to
the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than July 22, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, RCI, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

-AND-

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
(212) 686-1060
pkim@rosenlegal.com

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

In re RCI Hospitality Securities Litigation   
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
866-274-4004
www.RCIHoldingsSecuritiesSettlement.com


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Perlin's Deceptive Ad Suit Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies Williams-Sonoma's motion for summary
judgment on the basis that Elizabeth Perlin's claims over deceptive
advertising of its bed sheets are time-barred.

Elizabeth Perlin purchased sheets -- the PB Classic
400-Thread-Count Sheet Set, to be precise -- from Defendants
Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., and
Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc. on Jan. 19, 2011, and Jan. 28,
2011. Both sets of sheets ripped shortly after she began using
them. Several years later, Perlin learned that, based on some
methods used to calculate thread count, the thread count in the PB
Classic 400-Thread-Count sheets is allegedly closer to 200 threads.
As a result, Perlin contends Williams-Sonoma misleadingly
advertises the thread count of certain bed linens.  She sued under
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair
Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

Although Perlin's claims are subject to three- and four-year
statutes of limitations, she did not file suit until June 5, 2020.
The question that Judge Orrick must decide on summary judgment is
whether the discovery rule or the fraudulent concealment doctrine
may extend the limitations period to allow this litigation.

                       Rushing Litigation

The original plaintiff, William Rushing, filed a putative class
action against Williams-Sonoma on Jan. 29, 2016, alleging
Williams-Sonoma deceptively advertised its bedding. Over the course
of the litigation, Rushing, who was a resident of Kentucky, brought
claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

On April 10, 2018, Williams-Sonoma moved for summary judgment on
the grounds that Rushing lacked standing to pursue these California
claims. On Oct. 24, 2018, Judge Orrick concluded that Kentucky law
applied to Rushing's claims, but granted him leave to conduct
pre-certification discovery so that he could attempt to find a
named plaintiff who was a resident of California who could pursue
the California claims. Pursuant to his Order, in December 2018
Williams-Sonoma produced a list of California consumers that had
purchased the bedding products at issue in this litigation. Perlin
was on that list.

                       Perlin Joins Fray

In December 2018, Perlin began communicating with one of Rushing's
attorneys, Amber Eck. Over the course of their conversations,
Perlin and Eck discussed Perlin's experiences with the PB Classic
Bedding, and Perlin learned that Williams-Sonoma allegedly did not
comply with industry standards for advertising thread counts. Until
that point, Perlin was not aware that the PB Classic Bedding that
she had purchased was allegedly closer to 200-thread-count.  

Perlin filed the Eighth Amended Class Action Complaint on June 5,
2020. For the first time, Perlin was alleged as a named plaintiff
on behalf of a class of consumers with claims under California law.


             Williams-Sonoma's Summary Judgment Bid

On April 18, 2022, Williams-Sonoma moved for summary judgment on
the basis that all of Perlin's claims are time-barred and Perlin
has not met her burden to show that a genuine issue of material
fact exists with respect to the discovery rule or the doctrine of
fraudulent concealment. In her opposition brief, Perlin implicitly
acknowledged that the statutes of limitations for her claims had
lapsed but contended that two exceptions to the statute of
limitations -- the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment
tolling -- applied.

Judge Orrick heard oral argument on June 29, 2022.  Judge Orrick
finds that Williams-Sonoma has met its burden to show that Perlin's
claims are facially time-barred. But he also finds there are
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the discovery rule
may apply, which would save Perlin's claims. As a result, summary
judgment is not appropriate.

According to Judge Orrick, given that Perlin filed the lawsuit
almost a decade after her purchases, her claims will be time-barred
unless she can show that an exception to the statutes of
limitations applies.

Judge Orrick also finds there are genuine issues of material fact
whether Perlin had or should have had inquiry notice of her claims
before she spoke to her attorney in or around December 2018. "The
question when a plaintiff actually discovered or reasonably should
have discovered the facts for purposes of the delayed discovery
rule is a question of fact unless the evidence can support only one
reasonable conclusion." Because there are genuine questions of fact
whether the ripping of the PB Classic Bedding would have put Perlin
or a reasonable person on notice that the thread-count had been
misrepresented, Perlin has met her burden to show that the first
prong of the discovery rule has been met.

Judgr Orrick also finds that Williams-Sonoma's arguments are
grounded in the premise that Perlin had reason to suspect that her
sheets were of a lower thread-count prior to 2018. Because he has
concluded that there are disputed questions of fact whether Perlin
had inquiry notice of her claims prior to 2018, Judge Orrick finds
that there are also questions of fact whether Perlin conducted a
reasonable investigation into her claims.  The discovery rule may
apply to postpone the accrual of her claims, Judge Orrick says.

                     Fraudulent Concealment

To establish that the fraudulent concealment doctrine tolls the
statute of limitations, a plaintiff must show that: (1) "the
defendant took affirmative acts to mislead the plaintiff"; (2) "the
plaintiff did not have 'actual or constructive knowledge of the
facts giving rise to her claim' as a result of the defendant's
affirmative acts"; and (3) "plaintiff acted diligently in trying to
uncover the facts giving rise to her claim."

In addition to the discovery rule, Perlin also argues that the
fraudulent concealment exception applies to toll the statutes of
limitations. Judge Orrick disagrees. He says, Perlin has not met
her burden to show Williams-Sonoma affirmatively committed acts to
prevent her from filing suit in time. As a result, he finds that
the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply.

                            Sealing

Perlin filed portions of her opposition brief and two supporting
exhibits provisionally under seal because the documents contained
or referenced information which Williams-Sonoma has designated as
confidential. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3),
Williams-Sonoma was required to file a statement and/or declaration
showing that the material warrants sealing within seven days of
Perlin's motion. Williams-Sonoma has not done so.

Judge Orrick has reviewed the information contained within these
documents and he is skeptical that this information warrants
sealing. He nevertheless allows Williams-Sonoma the opportunity to
address the outstanding motion. Should Williams-Sonoma wish to
maintain this information under seal, Williams-Sonoma will file a
response pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). If no response is
received, the Clerk of Courts will be directed to unseal the
documents contained at 271-3, 271-4, and 271-5.

The case is styled, WILLIAM RUSHING, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01421-WHO
(N.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/muw7uayj from Leagle.com.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Supreme Court Reverses J&J $120MM Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fraiser Kansteiner, writing for fiercepharma.com, reports that
after Johnson & Johnson hit a setback in a high-profile talcum
powder case back in 2019, the company vowed to appeal. Now, that
strategy has paid off.

The appellate branch of the New York Supreme Court reversed an
earlier decision in favor of plaintiff Donna Olson, who claimed her
lifelong use of J&J's talc caused her to develop mesothelioma. With
a win in hand, J&J is also off the hook to pay Olson damages of
$120 million, a figure that was reduced from an original award of
$325 million.

At the trial, the plaintiffs failed "to establish sufficient
exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health
effect," the appellate court said in its decision. To prove in
court that a toxin like asbestos caused a person's mesothelioma,
plaintiffs need to present expert testimony that provides "a
scientific expression of the level of exposure to toxins in
defendant's products that was sufficient to have caused the
disease," the court added.

Olson's medical expert never met that standard, the court said.

After the case's original four-month trial in 2019, jurors ordered
J&J to shell out $300 million in punitive damages, plus $20 million
for Olson's past and future pain and $5 million to her husband for
loss of consortium.

At the time, a J&J spokesperson told Fierce Pharma that the trial
"suffered significant legal and evidentiary errors which Johnson &
Johnson believes will warrant a reversal on appeal."

Elsewhere in J&J's complex talc litigation, the company is
leveraging a strategy dubbed the Texas two-step to absorb
liabilities. Under the strategy, J&J last year spun up the
subsidiary LTL management to funnel talc claims and then declared
that company bankrupt.

While the strategy has been used by other companies to guard assets
and dodge litigation costs, J&J and LTL aren't in the clear just
yet: In May, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would
revisit an earlier decision that backed J&J's use of the tactic.

J&J, for its part, has continued to argue against claims that its
baby powder caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. The company no
longer markets the product in the U.S. and Canada, and it has
recently resisted shareholder calls to halt sales worldwide, too.


                            *********

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 2022. 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 ***