/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210816.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 157

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Agreement Reached in Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Suit
ABBVIE INC: Agreement Reached in Restasis Antitrust Suit
ABBVIE INC: Bystolic Antitrust Suit vs Forest Laboratories Underway
ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Niaspan Direct Purchasers Suit
ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Faces Cheng Suit Over Drop in Share Price
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Reports 2Q Solid Earnings Amid Class Action
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Piekarski Appeals Judgment in Prokes to 8th Cir.
ALBERTSONS COS: Parties Seek Modification of Class Cert Schedule

ALBERTUS MAGNUS: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALLY FINANCIAL: Short Squeeze Trading Suit Underway
AMERICAN REALTY: Exhibits in Securities Suit to Be Filed Under Seal
AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Bruce Class Action
AMERICAN WATER: Jeffries Class Suit Underway

ARDELYX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 28 Deadline
AT&T MOBILITY: Hills' Bids to Compel and to Extend Deadlines OK'd
ATTENTIVE CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grant Suit Alleges
AVI LEVY: Ebrahimzadeh Files RICO Suit in E.D. New York
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

AZTLAN AUTO: Underpays Auto Body Repairmen, Parra Suit Alleges
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Gaynor Suit
BAKER MILLS: Minor UCL Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BIOGEN INC: District of Massachusetts Narrows Claims in ERISA Suit
BIRD ROAD: Negrette Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliatory Discharge

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal & Berger Putative Class Suit Underway
BOOZ ALLEN: Langley Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Blank Rome Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Title IX Class Action Over Sexual Abuse
BT GROUP: 3rd Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal

CALIFORNIA STATE: Bid to Dismiss Anders Suit Granted in Part
CALIFORNIA: Charter School's Education Funding Class Action Nixed
CANADA: Class Action v. AG Over Income Tax Act Can Proceed
CANADA: Court Certifies VA Class Action Over Disability Benefits
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak

CANADA: July 2022 Indian Day School Claim Submission Deadline Set
CAPITAL ONE: Pre-Trial Discovery in Cybersecurity Suit Ongoing
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
CASELLA WASTE: Settlement Reached in Vandemortel Suit
CBOE GLOBAL: Dismissal of VIX-Related Class Suit Appealed

CBOE GLOBAL: Reply Memoranda in Providence Suit Due Sept. 17
CHEMOURS CO: $1.7MM Disbursed in Leach Settlement
CHEMOURS CO: Causes of Action in Cape Fear River Suit Tossed
CHEMOURS CO: Continues to Defend Tainted Water Class Action in N.C.
CHEMOURS CO: Dismissed from Contaminated Drinking Water Suit

CHEMOURS CO: NY State Teachers' Retirement System Suit Underway
CHEMOURS CO: Ohio Lawsuit Over PFAS in Blood Serum Underway
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Settlement in Parker Suit Gets Initial Approval
CIMAREX ENERGY: Stipulated Protective Order in Dolan Suit Issued
COINBASE GLOBAL: Kelly Sues Over Irregular Crypto Investments

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Suit Pending
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Escriba Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
CONCHO RESOURCES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
CONCHO RESOURCES: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Jones Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action

CORMEDIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Movant Courter to File 5-Page Surreply in Lewis Suit
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Ito-Stone Class Action
DESERT FIRE: Amador Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
DISCOVER BANK: Golden Files Bankruptcy Appeal in E.D. New York

EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Hoekman Appeals Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Palm Tran Class Actions Ongoing in Maryland
ENBRIDGE US: MBF Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene in Robertson
ENTERPRISE GOLD: Almanzar FLSA-NYLL Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
EPIC GAMES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Fortnite Arbitration

FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FCA US LLC: Car Owners Respond to Sunroof Leak Class Action
FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Lifetime Warranty Class Lawsuit
FIGURE 8: Class of Employees Gets Conditional Certification

FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Faces NYCB Merger Related Suits
FLEX LIMITED: Dismissal of California Class Suit Under Appeal
FLORIDA STATE: Broer Contract Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
FORD MOTOR: Washington Court Denies Beaty's Bid for Certification
GASTRO HEALTH: Del Valle Sues Over Denied Leave, Wrongful Discharge

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Suit Over Cancer-Causing Substance, Dismissed
GNC HOLDINGS: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
GOODWIN UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GT'S LIVING: Sharpe Suit Seeks Seeks to Certify Classes
HAWAI'I: Seeks Clarification on July 13, 2021 Class Cert. Order

HENRY THAYER: Missouri Court Narrows Claims in Early Class Suit
HILL'S PET: Judge Approves Settlement Over Dog Food Recall Lawsuit
HORRY COUNTY, SC: Lamaire Sues Over Illegal Collection of Road Fees
HUDSON'S BAY: S.D. New York Grants Prelim. OK to AFCU Settlements
ILLINOIS: Judge Approves Prison Segregation Class Action Lawsuit

INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Williams Seeks to Certify Class Action
INTEREST INC: Sept. 15 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit Set
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 4 Deadline
JEFF WRIGLEY: Moore Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
JIMMY JOHN'S: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Tracleer Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Arbitration in Direct Purchaser Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Contact Lens-Related Suit Set for 2022
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Dismissal Bid of Gumm Suit Under Advisement
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits

JUBILEE MART: Nelson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
KANZHUN LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
KCI USA: Palmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Suits Over Recalled Sleep Apnea Machines
LAUREL OAK: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Use of CCC System Violates Policy, Katchuk Claims
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Cobb and Joseph IPO Class Suits Underway
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Seeks to Strike McCarthy's Class Allegations
MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Settlement in Barnes Suit Granted in Part
MCDONALD'S USA: Extension of Class Cert. Reply Brief Sought

MDL 2913: California Court Tosses Some Claims in Bellwether Suits
MESA AIR: Arizona Court Trims Claims in Lowthorp Securities Suit
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Stockholders' Putative Class Suit Closed
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Court Narrows Claims in Goyette Class Suit
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Toss Shareholder Suit in Georgia Pending
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed
MONEY ONE: Settlement Deal in Curry Suit Get Initial Approval
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Class Suit Over Ties to Ripple Labs Underway
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing

NETGEAR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Renewed Pham Class Action
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Martucci
NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend OFPRS Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Extension to Respond to 3rd Amended Complaint
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Holden Allowed to File 1st Amended Complaint

OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Wins Final Nod of Deal in Cameron v. Bouchard
OCEAN BAY: Ye Zhao Jun Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers
OHIO: Court Dismisses Caregivers' Class Suit
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Fisher's Bid for Prelim. OK of Class Deal Denied
P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Vasquez Says

PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Allison Sues Over Misleading Recall Scheme
PLAID INC: Settles Consumer Data Sharing Class Suit for $58 Million
PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL: GTL & Medico's Bids to Toss Kurt Suit OK'd
PLUG POWER: Beverly, Tank & Smolicek Suits Consolidated in S.D.N.Y.
PORTLAND GENERAL: Settlement Approval in Securities Suit Pending

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Must Face Axsesstoday Bondholders' Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: Seeks to Stay Remaining Class Cert Deadlines
REKOR SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 30 Deadline
RENNES GROUP: Sorenson Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
RENOVACARE INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of September 14 Deadline

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Latifi Suit Against TDL Group Underway
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Plaintiffs' Oral Argument Set for September
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Suits Over Data Collection Underway in Canada
RIO TINTO: External Review Rejects Mongolian Alibi Amid Class Suit

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Investors' Class Action Lawsuits Pending
ROCKET COMPANIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
SAINT LOUIS, MO: Cody Suit Seek to Certify Classes of Inmates
SAYER LAW: Thome Seeks Certification of Class Action
SEBA ABODE: Wofford's Bid to Amend CMO & Amend Complaint Granted

SEBA ABODE: Workers Class Conditionally Certified in Wofford Suit
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Mason Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
STABLE ROAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
STICKER MULE: Bonefort Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Term Sheet Entered in Lowry Putative Class Suit

SYRIA: Liable to Paris Terrorist Attack, Wilson Suit Alleges
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Bid to Nix Mart Putative Class Suit Pending
TD AMERITRADE: Seeks Sep. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Brief
TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Suit Underway
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit

TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Antitrust Class Suits Pending
TRUEBECK CONSTRUCTION: Alvarez Labor Code Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
U.S. XPRESS: Final Arbitration Hearing Set for June 6, 2022
U.S. XPRESS: Settlement Reached in Independent Contractors Suit
U.S. XPRESS: Stockholders Suits in Tennessee and New York Ongoing

U.S. XPRESS: Trial in Former Driver Suit Set for March 1, 2022
UNITED HEALTHCARE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Atlantic ERISA Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Spielman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: District of Montana Dismisses Grigg v. Sen. Tester
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Loses Class Certification Bid

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Summary Judgment Against Fuller Affirmed
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Gladstone & Patel Dismissed From Class Suit
UPS STORE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss McLaren Suit Affirmed in Part
US STEEL: Discovery in Shareholder Class Suit Ongoing
UXIN LIMITED: Settles IPO Related Putative Class Suits

VALLEY PROTEINS: Parties Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
VERTAFORE INC: Mulvey Suit Transferred From N.D. to S.D. Texas
VMSB LLC: Judge Endorses Denial of Rosell Class Certification Bid
WALMART INC: Oettle Seeks Certification of Class Action
WESTERN UNION: Radulesco Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Reply

WESTPAC BANKING: Court Approves $30MM Insurance Class Settlement
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholder Rights Agreement Unenforceable
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suits Deferred
WINGSTOP BUSHWICK: Faces Negron Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ZENDESK INC: Reidinger Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit

ZYMERGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 4 Deadline
[*] Barun Law Attorneys Discuss Class Action Development in Korea
[*] IBC Calls for Introduction of Class Action-Like Provision

[*] Israel's Proposed Class Action Law Amendment Challenged
[*] Klein Moynihan Attorney Provides Guide to TCPA Consent
[*] Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Shotgun Complaint
[*] Shareholder Class Actions v. SPACs Up in First Half of 2021

                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Agreement Reached in Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing
Securities Litigation, reached an agreement to settle the class
action.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan and certain of its current
and former officers alleging they made misrepresentations and
omissions regarding Allergan's former Actavis generics unit and its
alleged anticompetitive conduct with other generic drug companies.


The lawsuits were filed by Allergan shareholders and consist of
three purported class actions and one individual action seeking
monetary damages and attorney's fees that have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as In re:
Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation.

In July 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle the class
action lawsuits, which is pending court approval.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Agreement Reached in Restasis Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the class action suit
entitled, In re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2819, reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. generally alleging that
Allergan's petitioning to the U.S. Patent Office and Food and Drug
Administration and other conduct by Allergan involving Restasis
violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, certified as a class action filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of Restasis, are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under the MDL Rules as In re: Restasis
(Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2819.

In May 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter that, once finalized, will be subject to court
approval.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Bystolic Antitrust Suit vs Forest Laboratories Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that Forest Laboratories, LLC continues to
defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re:
Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others
generally alleging that 2012 and 2013 patent litigation settlements
involving Bystolic with six generic manufacturers violated federal
and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade
practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, purported class actions filed on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of Bystolic, are consolidated as In re:
Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

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

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Niaspan Direct Purchasers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action suit entitled, In re: Niaspan Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging
that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan
entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired
by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a
generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state
unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits pending in federal court consist of four individual
plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions:
one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers and one brought by Niaspan
end-payers.

The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of
Niaspan. In June 2020, the court denied the end-payers' motion to
certify a class.

In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's
Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California
regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition
provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking
injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

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

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the order of dismissal of
the putative class action suit entitled, In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation, is pending.

Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's
settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's Humira
patent portfolio violated state and federal antitrust laws.

The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.

In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

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

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Faces Cheng Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.; ROBERT A. KOTICK;
DENNIS DURKIN, and SPENCER NEUMANN, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-06240 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2021) is a class action on behalf
of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Activision Blizzard securities between August 4, 2016 and
July 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Allegedly, the statements contained in the Defendants' "2Q 2016
10-Q", "3Q 2016 10-Q", "2016 10-K", "2018 10-K", were materially
false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Activision Blizzard discriminated against women and
minority employees; (2) Activision Blizzard fostered a pervasive
"frat boy" workplace culture that continues to thrive; (3) numerous
complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation were made to human resources ("HR") personnel and
executives which went unaddressed; (4) the pervasive culture of
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation would result in serious
impairments to Activision Blizzard's operations; (5) as a result as
a result of the foregoing, the Company was at greater risk of
regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement, including that which
would have a material adverse effect; (6) Activision Blizzard
failed to inform shareholders that the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") had been investigating
Activision Blizzard for harassment and discrimination; and (7) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Activision Blizzard's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On July 27, 2021, Activision Blizzard employees planned a walkout
and work stoppage to support the petition against the Company, to
be held the following day. Also on July 27, 2021, Defendant Kotick
sent an internal email apologizing for the Company's "tone deaf"
response to the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing lawsuit.

On this news, the price of Activision Blizzard shares traded at
unusually high volumes and fell $5.89, or over 6%, to close at
$84.05 on July 27, 2021, damaging investors, says the suit.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. publishes, develops, and distributes
interactive entertainment software and peripheral products. The
Company's products covers diverse game categories, including
action/adventure, action sports, racing, role playing, simulation,
first-person action, music-based gaming, and strategy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Reports 2Q Solid Earnings Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nat Rubio-Licht, writing for Los Angeles Business Journal, reports
that Activision Blizzard Inc. reported solid earnings in the second
quarter, but the gains failed to lift the stock price of the
embattled Santa Monica-based gaming giant.

Activision reported $2.3 billion in quarterly revenue on Aug. 4,
one week after it was rocked by a high-profile lawsuit brought by
state regulators over alleged pay discrimination and sexual
harassment.

The earnings landed as Activision reckons not only with the legal
challenge but also the fallout. Two key executives -- including
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack -- have exited the company, and
several hundred employees staged a walkout at the company's Irvine
offices over management's handling of the lawsuit.

On July 28, the day before the walkout, Activision stock dropped
6.7%. The price had not recovered by Aug. 4.

More than 2,000 employees have reportedly signed a letter calling
the company's response to the lawsuit "abhorrent." In a statement,
Activision initially described the state's claims as "distorted,
and in many cases false."

At the start of the Aug. 4 earnings call Chief Executive Bobby
Kotick attempted to address the allegations head-on.

"I want to start by making clear to everyone that there's no place
at our company where discrimination, harassment or unequal
treatment of any kind will be tolerated," he said.

No matter how strong Activision Blizzard's earnings, Cornelio Ash,
equity analyst for Playa Vista-based independent advisory firm
William O'Neil & Co. Inc., said he had no expectation that the
share price would bounce back.

"I think very little attention is going to be on the actual
performance of (Activision Blizzard's) games," Ash said. "All of
the attention is going to be on these headlines."

Beating projections
Wall Street analysts expected the company to pull in earnings per
share of 76 cents, which Activision Blizzard beat by 47%.

The company's earnings surged due to more than 450 million in
nonreportable segment income and deferred net revenues.

Segment revenue, however, was down 7% from the same 2020 quarter at
$1.84 billion in 2021.

The company's Activision segment had 127 million monthly active
users, an uptick from 125 million in the same prior year quarter.
The segment's revenue was $789 million for the quarter, down nearly
21% from the second quarter of 2020.

The Blizzard Entertainment segment also saw declines, making $411
million in the quarter, down 5% from $433 million in the second
quarter a year earlier. It had 26 million monthly active users for
the quarter, down 19% from 32 million the previous year.

King, the company's mobile gaming segment, was the only one to see
revenue increase year over year. The segment made $635 million in
the quarter, up 15% from $553 million the year before. But the
segment saw monthly active users drop 6% for the period, down to
255 million from 271 million the year before.

After the pandemic caused the gaming industry to boom in 2020, the
previous year's earnings have been hard to beat for many companies,
according to Ash.

As the world begins to reopen and fewer people are opting for
at-home entertainment, he said, many gaming companies have seen
"lukewarm" earnings performance.

Though Activision Blizzard beat its previous year's results, the
pace of growth has slowed. In the second quarter of 2020, the
company beat second-quarter 2019 earnings by nearly 40%.

"It's hard to continue to grow with that clip because it was a
one-time thing," Ash said.

'Frat boy' culture
On July 20, the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, accusing the
company of violating California's Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment
and Housing Act.

The suit claims the company fostered a sexist and "frat boy"
culture where women, and especially Black women, were paid less
than men "doing substantially similar work," were promoted less
frequently than men and assigned to lower-level jobs. The suit also
alleges "constant" sexual harassment, where women were subjected to
"groping, comments and advances." It claims executives and human
resources personnel were made aware of the conduct but failed to
prevent it.

Brack was named in the complaint. On Aug. 3, Blizzard Entertainment
announced he would step down and be replaced by Jen Oneal,
Blizzard's executive vice president of development, and Mike
Ybarra, executive vice president and general manager of platform
and technology.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Jesse Meschuk, Activision's
senior vice president for global human resources, has also
departed.

Brack said in a statement that Ybarra and Oneal will provide
leadership that Blizzard needs to "realize its full potential."

Activision Blizzard also faces a lawsuit from a shareholder
accusing the company of withholding information about the state's
investigation, which went on for two years. Proposed as a
class-action case, the shareholder's suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California by New
York-based Rosen Law Firm.

Moving forward
In an internal letter to staff published on Activision Blizzard's
investor relations page on July 27, Kotick announced that the
company would add staff to its compliance and employee relations
team and create third-party moderated listening sessions and
cross-company manager and leader evaluations.

The company said it will also ensure compliance with recruiting
diverse candidate slates and make changes to in-game content deemed
inappropriate based on input from "employee and player
communities."

"When we come together, we make some of the best games in the
industry, and we're now seeing that energy applied to our culture,
which is equally important," Oneal said on the Aug. 4 earnings
call.

The company has also enlisted Washington, D.C.-based law firm
WilmerHale to review of its internal policies and culture, and
encouraged employees who have experienced workplace policy
violations to report them to the firm.

In the employees' letter to Activision Blizzard management,
signatories rejected the company's decision to hire WilmerHale,
saying the firm has a history of "discouraging workers' rights and
collective action." [GN]

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB
Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: AHCO, AHCOW) between
November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
of the important September 27, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the AdaptHealth class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2135.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 27,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AdaptHealth had misrepresented
its organic growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past
organic growth numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation
of SEC regulations; (2) accordingly, AdaptHealth had materially
overstated its financial prospects; and (3) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the AdaptHealth class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2135.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Piekarski Appeals Judgment in Prokes to 8th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas P. Piekarski filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jayme Prokes, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5; American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No.
5, Local 2440, as representative of the class of all chapters and
affiliates of the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5; American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, the Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02384-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants have violated Plaintiff's rights by
establishing an "agency shop," where employees were compelled to
pay money to AFSCME Council 5 and its affiliates as a condition of
employment. And the Defendants are continuing to violate Ms.
Prokes's rights by taking union dues from her paycheck -- even
after she resigned her union membership and instructed the union to
terminate all union-related payroll deductions, said the complaint.
   

Plaintiff Thomas P. Piekarski seek a review of the Court's Judgment
dated February 16, 2021, denying his motion for summary judgment
and granting Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Piekarski v. AFSCME,
Council No. 5, et al., Case No. 21-2687, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, July 29, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 7, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on September 17, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Mary Dee Buros, Paul Hanson, Linda Hoekman
and Thomas P. Piekarski is due on September 17, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas P. Piekarski, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Dickey, Esq.
          Douglas Seaton, Esq.  
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7002

               - and -

          Talcott Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-8730
          E-mail: ginger@talcottfranklin.com  

               - and -

          Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW, PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

Defendants-Appellees American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, as representative of the class
of all chapters and affiliates of the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5; American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Local
2440, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates
of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, Council No. 5; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees; and American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Local 221, as representatives
of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5
are represented by:

          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          Jacob Karabell, Esq.
          April Pullium, Esq.
          Ramya Ravindran, Esq.
          John M. West, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER
          805 15th Street, N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: ldayan@bredhoff.com
                  jkarabell@bredhoff.com
                  apullium@bredhoff.com
                  jwest@bredhoff.com
                  
               - and -

          Josie Doris Hegarty, Esq.
          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
           AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
          300 Hardman Avenue, S.
          South Saint Paul, MN 55075
          Telephone: (612) 772-3119

ALBERTSONS COS: Parties Seek Modification of Class Cert Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEPH DIGIACINTO, v.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03382-KAW
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulates the following:

          Event                        Current        Proposed
                                        Date           Date

  Motion for Class Certification   Oct. 29, 2021   Jan. 14, 2022

  Opposition to Motion for         Dec. 6, 2021    Feb. 18, 2022
  Class Certification

  Reply in Support of Motion       Jan. 14, 2022   Mar. 18, 2022
  for Class Certification

  Hearing for Motion on            Feb. 3, 2022    April 7, 2022
  Class Certification

Albertsons is an American grocery company founded and headquartered
in Boise, Idaho.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Meredyth Merrow, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
                  mmerrow@lexlawgroup.com

ALBERTUS MAGNUS: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertus Magnus
College. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Albertus Magnus
College, Case No. 1:21-cv-06775 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021).

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

Albertus Magnus College -- https://www.albertus.edu/ -- is a
Catholic private liberal arts college in New Haven, Connecticut,
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLY FINANCIAL: Short Squeeze Trading Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re:
January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Case No.
1:21-md-02989).

In February 2021, the purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that Ally and other defendants conspired to
prevent or restrict retail investors from purchasing or otherwise
acquiring long positions in specified equity securities and to
force them instead to sell their positions in those securities at
artificially lower prices.

The claims include alleged violations of antitrust and
unfair-competition laws, misleading public statements, breach of
fiduciary duty and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, negligence, and constructive fraud.

The request for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages,
fees, costs, and interest, injunctive relief, and other remedies.

Also in February 2021, three other purported class actions were
filed—Clapp et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
3:21-cv-00896), Dechirico et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case
No. 1:21-cv-00677), and Ross et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case
No. 4:21-cv-00292).

In March 2021, a fifth purported class action—Fox et al. v. Ally
Financial Inc. et al.—was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota (Case No. 0:21-cv-00689).

In April 2021, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated all five of these cases into a multidistrict
litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida with the caption In re: January 2021 Short
Squeeze Trading Litigation (Case No. 1:21-md-02989).

Also in April 2021, a sixth purported class action—D'Agostino et
al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al.— was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No.
1:21-cv-21458), and in July 2021, this case was consolidated into
the multidistrict litigation proceeding as well.

The allegations and requested relief in the Clapp, Dechirico, Ross,
Fox, and D'Agostino complaints are substantially similar to those
included in the Cheng complaint.

Ally Financial said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
actions."

Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The
Company offers automotive financial services. Ally Financial serves
clients in the United States. The company is based in Detroit,
Michigan.


AMERICAN REALTY: Exhibits in Securities Suit to Be Filed Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled In re AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL PROPERTIES,
INC. LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-mc-00040-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal.

The document relates to all actions in the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit.

The matter before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the exhibits to the Declaration
of Mishka Ferguson Regarding the Claim Administration Process and
Remaining Disputed Claims.

District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the Plaintiffs' Motion
is granted.

The Clerk of Court is ordered to file the materials identified in
the Motion under seal, and to maintain under seal the materials
identified in the Motion, which were previously provided to the
Court for in camera review.

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


AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Bruce Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al.

On September 12, 2019, the Company's Tennessee subsidiary (TAWC),
experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which
caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and
the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main by
early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water
service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019, with the boil water
notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and
American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("Service Company," and
together with TAWC and the Company, collectively, the
"Tennessee-American Water Defendants"), on behalf of a proposed
class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered
monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the
"Tennessee Plaintiffs").

The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil.

In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were
seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses,
business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use
and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well
as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On November 22, 2019, the Tennessee-American Water Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and, with respect to the Company, for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

Oral argument on the motion to dismiss took place on September 9,
2020. On September 18, 2020, the court (i) granted the motion to
dismiss the Tennessee Plaintiffs' negligence claim against all
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, (ii) denied the motion to
dismiss the breach of contract claim against TAWC, (iii) held in
abeyance the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims
against the Company and Service Company pending a further hearing
and (iv) held in abeyance the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On September 24, 2020, at the request of the Tennessee Plaintiffs,
the court dismissed without prejudice all claims in the Bruce
complaint against the Company and Service Company.

The impact of the September 2020 court orders was that all of the
Tennessee Plaintiffs' claims in this complaint were dismissed,
other than the breach of contract claims against TAWC.

On October 16, 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties
are conducting discovery.

TAWC and the Company believe that TAWC has meritorious defenses to
the claims raised in this class action complaint, and TAWC is
vigorously defending itself against these allegations. The Company
cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or
estimate the amount of any loss or a range of such losses related
to this proceeding.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


AMERICAN WATER: Jeffries Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jeffries,
et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the
City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by West Virginia-American
Water Company (WVAWC).

The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning
hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same
day, the repair developed a leak.

On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was
restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers,
and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning.

The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was
reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000
customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June
30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015 to all
customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break.

The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system.

The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf
of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and
loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and
wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a
large outage.

On February 4, 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed.

On July 14, 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class regarding
certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to
determine a punitive damages multiplier.

On August 31, 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition
in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate
or remand the Circuit Court order certifying the issues class.

At the request of the parties, on September 10, 2020, the Circuit
Court ordered the stay of all matters in the class proceeding
pending consideration of this petition. On December 3, 2020, the
Supreme Court of Appeals issued an order to show cause stating that
there are sufficient grounds for oral argument to consider
prohibiting the class certification order.

On January 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals granted a motion
by the Jeffries plaintiffs to remand the case back to the Circuit
Court for further consideration in light of a recent Supreme Court
of Appeals decision issued in another case relating to the class
certification issues raised.

A briefing schedule has been set and, following briefing by all
parties, oral argument on the issue of class certification was
heard on July 16, 2021.

This matter remains pending.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


ARDELYX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 9 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Ardelyx Inc. from August 6, 2020 through July 19,
2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

If you purchased Ardelyx securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Ardelyx Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877)
779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com

In June 2020, Ardelyx submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to
the FDA for its lead product candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly
first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in
adult patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis. The FDA
accepted the NDA in September 2020 ad set a Prescription Drug User
Fee Act date for April 29, 2021.

Ardelyx repeatedly lauded this regulatory development, highlighting
the FDA's acceptance of the NDA, supported by so-called
"successful" Phase 3 studies, in each subsequently filed quarterly
report and in the Company's 2020 Annual Report. However, the
Ardelyx complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by
the FDA.

On July 19, 2021, after the market closet, Ardelyx revealed it had
received a letter from the FDA stating that it had detected issues
with both the size and clinical relevance of the drug's treatment
effect which would preclude any further regulatory progress
regarding tenapanor at that time.

On this news, the price of Ardelyx shares fell $5.69 per share, or
73.9%, to close at $2.01 per share on July 20, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Ardelyx securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ardelyx-ardx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-423/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com

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

Contact Information:

Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com
URL: https://www.bernlieb.com [GN]

AT&T MOBILITY: Hills' Bids to Compel and to Extend Deadlines OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South
Bend Division, grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion
to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines in the lawsuit styled KATIA
HILLS, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC a/k/a AT&T
MOBILITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-556-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.).

Through her motions, the Plaintiff seeks complete responses to
certain discovery requests that she argues are critical to the
analyses of her retained expert. Thus, the Plaintiff also seeks an
extension of the expert disclosure deadlines in this case.

Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., notes that as a
preliminary matter, both parties--or more accurately their
attorneys--have argued the instant motions in a manner that
interferes with the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the
parties' discovery disputes. Hills's attorney violated the briefing
page limits set forth in N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(e) by filing a 23-page
reply brief, exceeding the 15-page limit by eight pages, without
seeking leave of court.

Additionally, Judge Gotsch states, counsel for both parties flouted
the spirit of Local Rule 7-1(e) by including substantive
information in extensive single-spaced, smaller-font footnotes in
their briefs. Had that information been included in the body of the
briefs, all of them would have exceeded the governing page limits.
The most egregious examples are footnotes 6-8 in Hills's reply
brief, which consume almost two full pages of her brief. And
lastly, all counsel employed a vituperative tone in their briefs
that impugned the motivation and tactics of opposing counsel rather
than engaging in the constructive, civil dialogue envisioned for
litigation by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Through this conduct, counsel for both parties have slowed progress
in this case, increased the costs of litigation for the parties,
and complicated the Court's efforts to ensure a fair and just
resolution of the discovery disputes raised in the instant motions,
Judge Gotsch holds. Neither party should be prejudiced by the
unprofessional conduct of their attorneys. To penalize the
Plaintiff for the excessive reply brief without some appropriate
penalty for how both sides have disregarded the Local Rules and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be unjust, Judge Gotsch
says.

Therefore, the Court will consider the briefs in full--including
the lengthy footnotes--to ensure a fair and just outcome as to the
instant motions. Yet counsel for both parties are admonished to
comply fully with the rules applicable to this case and to conduct
themselves professionally going forward, or risk sanctions, Judge
Gotsch adds.

Relevant Background

Plaintiff Katia Hills worked for Defendant AT&T Mobility Services,
LLC as a non-managerial retail employee at its Cassopolis Street
location in Elkhart, Indiana, from April 7, 2014, through July 16,
2015. Her job titles during that time included Retail Sales
Consultant and Sales Support Representative. She contends that AT&T
discriminated against her in its application of its "Sales
Attendance Guidance" policy ("SAG Policy") under which employees
accrue "points" or fractions thereof for unexcused absences and
tardiness. Under the 2015 SAG Policy, in place in July 2015 when
Hills was terminated, eight points was the threshold for
discharge.

Points can be avoided if an absence qualifies as "excused" under
the SAG Policy, which delineates categories of excused absences,
none of which explicitly relate to pregnancy. However, employees
can avoid point accrual related to pregnancy by establishing a
disability or taking Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave. The
2011 SAG Policy, which was in place in April 2014 when Hills
started working for AT&T, provided some discretion to excuse points
in the face of extenuating or extreme circumstances. The 2015 SAG
Policy, however, did not authorize such discretion.

Ms. Hills was terminated in July 2015 after accruing points for a
series of unexcused absences. Between October 2014 and April 2015,
Hills accrued six points due to absences and late arrivals caused
by complications of her pregnancy. During that time, she was not
eligible for FMLA leave because she had not worked for AT&T long
enough. When she became eligible, Hills pursued relief under the
FMLA. As part of the FMLA application process, Hills was required
to provide medical certification of her pregnancy-related absences.
AT&T denied Hills's FMLA requests for two absences in May 2015
concluding that she failed to provide sufficient certification.
Thus, Hills accrued two additional points, pushing her over the SAG
Policy's eight-point threshold and triggering her termination.

After being terminated, Hills initiated this action raising
multiple claims against AT&T, including claims based on alleged
violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA") and the
Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). More specifically, Hills's
operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that AT&T applied the
SAG Policy more strictly against her than against male or
non-pregnant employees and that her FMLA request related to her
pregnancy was denied improperly.

Under this Court's original Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, entered on
March 20, 2019, the deadline for the close of all discovery was
Jan. 22, 2020. On Sept. 16, 2019, Hills propounded her First
Request for Production of Documents ("First RFP") to AT&T. Hills
sought inter alia information about comparators or similarly
situated employees, training of supervisors and employees on the
policies at issue in this case, and HR resources and tools
educating employees on how to qualify for intermittent leave.

While AT&T produced some information in response, it has withheld
(1) documentation of employee requests to excuse points for
non-medical reasons under the SAG Policy that were denied; (2)
TIF/PDF files associated with data concerning employee requests to
excuse point for absences under the FMLA; (3) Area-wide complaints
(including agency charges and union grievances) of pregnancy
discrimination, FMLA interference or retaliation, disability
discrimination, or sexual harassment against any managers besides
Hills's and the co-worker she alleges harassed her; (4) lost
materials related to trainings completed by Hills's managers and
herself; and (5) screenshots and other evidence of the online HR
resources available to employees to learn about leave options and
qualifications. AT&T objected to producing this information
challenging its relevance, the burden of its production, and its
proportionality to the needs of the case.

Counsel for the parties exchanged numerous communications from May
22, 2020, through Sept. 7, 2020, trying to resolve these discovery
disputes without the assistance of the Court. In the meantime, the
Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order was amended four times at the parties'
request. When the Court amended the Scheduling Order for the third
time on March 25, 2020, Hills's expert deadline was extended until
July 30, 2020, AT&T's expert deadline was extended until Aug. 30,
2020, and the deadline for the close of all discovery was extended
until Oct. 15, 2020. In a parallel order, the Court stated: "Any
further requests for extension of discovery must be made to the
presiding District Court Judge, and will not be granted without a
showing of good cause, which does not include the mere agreement of
the parties."

Upon a late July request from Hills, the Court amended the
Scheduling Order for the fourth time on Sept. 4, 2020, finding good
cause to extend the discovery deadlines based on AT&T's
representation that all responsive data, including supplemental
productions, had been produced. Hills's expert deadline became
Sept. 15, 2020, and AT&T's expert deadline became Sept. 30, 2020,
but the overall discovery deadline remained Oct. 15, 2020. In that
Order, the Court also added a Sept. 30, 2020 deadline for the
filing of any non-dispositive, discovery-related motions.

Then, on Sept. 11, 2020, the Court denied Hills's motion for
reconsideration, which asked that her expert deadline be held in
abeyance pending resolution of an anticipated motion to compel
regarding allegedly incomplete discovery responses from AT&T
affecting her expert's ability to opine. The Court concluded that
Hills's motion was premature at best because no motion to compel
had been filed.

On Sept. 14, 2020, Hills filed the anticipated motion to compel,
the substance of which is addressed in this Order. Hills's motion
also included another request to extend the expert disclosure
deadlines. When confronted with Local Rule 7-1(a)'s requirement
that motions be filed separately, Hills refiled her motion as the
two instant motions on Sept. 30, 2020, using identical briefing in
support. Both motions became ripe on Oct. 5, 2020, following
complete briefing.

Counsel for the parties in this case are also representing the
parties in a parallel class action suit against AT&T in the
Northern District of Georgia (Allen v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC,
No. 18-cv-03730-WMR (N.D. Ga.)). In Allen, the 2015 SAG Policy and
subsequent iterations are the subject of the PDA claim. The Allen
litigation resulted, in part, from this Court's denial of Hills's
request to add the Allen plaintiff and maintain a class action in
this Court.

Discovery has ensued in Allen through the class certification
stage. The parties here agreed that AT&T would produce data of the
same type and fields previously negotiated in Allen but limited to
the Area including Hills's store from Oct. 1, 2012, through July
31, 2015. Additionally, the Allen parties stipulated that Hills may
access materials produced in that case for use in this case.
Notably, Hills's attorney submitted an expert report in Allen that
evaluated pregnancy-related disparities without any of the
information sought through the instant motion to compel.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

Judge Gotsch notes that the Court has broad discretion in deciding
whether to compel discovery and may deny discovery to protect a
party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense, citing Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Citing Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1338, 1343
(2015), Hills contends she is entitled to see how employees who
were absent for any non-pregnancy-related reason--medical or
non-medical--fared under the SAG Policy so she can compare AT&T's
treatment of them to those who were absent for pregnancy-related
reasons. However, AT&T did not produce such data regarding denied
requests for non-medical leaves in Allen. AT&T confirmed in writing
to Hills that it would not produce or rely upon any such data in
this case either. In support, AT&T argues that employees whose
non-medical leave requests were denied, causing them to accrue
points under the SAG Policy, are not valid comparators under
Young.

In sum, Judge Gotsch holds that AT&T has not met its burden to show
that Hills's request for data regarding denied requests to excuse
absences caused by non-medical reasons is improper.

TIFs/PDFs Associated with Area-wide FMLA Data

Ms. Hills does not dispute that AT&T has already produced Area-wide
medical leave data, which provides the date and length of each
absence, the date of each request, the date on which the company
received the medical certification forms and any recertification
forms, the date on which the company responded to the request,
whether and when the request was denied or approved, the reason for
the denial, and all the substantive information that any medical
provider included on each medical certification submitted
(including timing, diagnosis, category, limitations, duration,
relevant treatment dates, and a catch-all free text field for
anything not covered by these or the other fields in the data).
However, Hills argues that she is entitled to the TIF or PDF files
associated with that data as they are relevant to both her PDA
claim and her FMLA interference claim.

AT&T objects to Hills's request for correspondence and
documentation between AT&T and the employees regarding medical
certifications as irrelevant and disproportional to the needs of
this case. AT&T analogizes Hills's request here to the fishing
expedition in James v. Hyatt Regency of Chicago.

Judge Gotsch observes that in James, 2,400 leaves of absence were
at issue over the course of 11 years. Here, AT&T indicates that
only 640 absences, 300 leave requests, and 100 medical
certifications are at issue over the agreed-upon
two-and-a-half-year period. Thus, Hills seeks information regarding
a much smaller universe of possible comparators in the Area agreed
to by the parties. Hills's request is also reasonable in scope
because of the small employee base of her store and because the
same Area Retail Sales Manager, Jason Jenkins, had oversight of all
the stores in the Area, including Hills's store, Judge Gotsch
notes.

Moreover, AT&T fails to quantify the costs in time and money to
produce the responsive TIFs/PDFs leaving the Court unable to
ascertain the full parameters of its burden of production to
compare to the needs of this case, Judge Gotsch holds. Without
more, AT&T has not established with specificity that this request
is improper while Hills has established relevancy.

Other PDA, ADA, and FMLA Complaints

Ms. Hills's discovery requests sought production of complaints of
pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination, FMLA
interference and retaliation, and sexual harassment--the same
claims she raises in this lawsuit--by other employees in her Area
to show AT&T's practices related to pregnant employees. In her
Motion, Hills agrees to forgo sexual harassment complaints but
still seeks Area-wide pregnancy and disability discrimination and
FMLA complaints.

AT&T produced all such complaints related to alleged in-store
comparators and Hills's store managers. However, AT&T withheld
similar information from the approximately nine other stores in the
same Area arguing they would be unrelated to anyone connected
directly to Hills's particular claims.

Judge Gotsch holds that the Defendant has not met its burden to
show that production of Area-wide complaints of pregnancy and
disability discrimination, retaliation, or FMLA interference would
be improper.

Online HR Resources & Training Materials

Several of Hills's Requests for Production of Documents propounded
in September 2019 seek information regarding online human resources
available to AT&T employees, including AT&T's HR OneStop and its
Hotline.

The language of these requests is broad, Judge Gotsch notes. For
instance, in Request No. 9, Hills asks for "all documents relating
to use AT&T OneStop, including but not limited to the OneStop IVR
system, including instructions for use, documentation of resources
or tools available through AT&T OneStop, and policies or guidelines
for use of AT&T OneStop." Hills sought such information based on
AT&T's defense theory that she could have avoided incurring points
for her pregnancy-related absences had to availed herself of AT&T
human resources web-based guides.

After deposing some AT&T employees, however, Hills became concerned
that AT&T had not produced screenshots or other documents
sufficient to examine these touted resources as well as an HR
Poster allegedly displayed at Hills's store. Therefore, on Sept. 7,
2020, Hills requested this information via email to AT&T's counsel
before filing the instant motion to compel.

To the extent that AT&T has not produced any of the Allen discovery
or has found any other responsive information, it must supplement
its production, Judge Gotsch rules. Indeed, the online resources at
issue here have been the subject of Hills's requests for production
since September 2019 such that she is entitled to this information
even at this late date.

Training Materials

Ms. Hills has requested materials AT&T used in training managers to
implement the policies contested in this action. Such information
is relevant to determining whether the Hills's managers complied
with the applicable corporate policies in their treatment of her
during her pregnancy.

AT&T appears to have understood the relevance of these materials,
at least generally, as it produced the training histories for Hills
herself, the assistant store manager in her store, her store
manager, and her Area manager. AT&T also produced the underlying
materials related to attendance, performance evaluations,
discipline, coaching, lateral movements, transfers, discrimination
(including pregnancy-related discrimination), retaliation, and
investigations of discrimination or retaliation consistent with the
parties' agreement as to the scope of discovery.

AT&T has not produced this explanatory information regarding the
unavailable responsive training materials. Instead, AT&T objects to
the General Instructions as requests for information via a
mechanism not contemplated or authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. AT&T also argues that Hills has not specified
which training documents she now wishes to compel or how they are
central to her claims or why AT&T should have known that these
documents were relevant when Hills filed her EEOC Charge and her
Complaint in the action.

Neither of AT&T arguments here are persuasive, Judge Gotsch holds.
The Judge holds that Hills's request for details about the
unavailable training materials is both relevant and proportional to
the needs of the case and was properly requested in her First Set
of Requests for Production of Documents.

Conclusion about Hills's Motion to Compel

As outlined, AT&T has not demonstrated that Hills's discovery
requests here at issue exceed the liberal scope of discovery
envisioned by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). As such, Hills is entitled to
the information requested within the confines of the parties'
agreement temporal and geographic limitations outlined above.

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines

Despite AT&T's argument to the contrary and Hills's disjointed
approach to the end of discovery in September 2020, Hills complied
with the Court-imposed deadline for filing the instant
nondispositive, discovery-related motion to compel along with her
renewed motion to extend the expert disclosure deadlines in this
case, Judge Gotsch finds.

In so doing, Judge Gotsch states, Hills was within her right to
wait on this Court's decision on those motions before proceeding
with expert discovery. Moreover, the discovery at issue in the
motion to compel would understandably be relevant to an expert's
analysis of the facts of this case. Additionally, the record shows
that neither party pursued discovery as efficiently or quickly as
possible from the beginning of this case, often due to
circumstances beyond their control. Thus, AT&T has not demonstrated
that Hills was dilatory.

Instead, the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for one more,
brief extension of the expert disclosure deadlines such that the
Court will grant her motion to extend the expert disclosure
deadlines.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court grants Hills's Motion to Compel. AT&T
is ordered to supplement its production of information responsive
to the discovery requests. The Court also grants Hills's Motion to
Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines. The Plaintiff's Expert
Disclosure Deadline is extended until Sept. 3, 2021. The
Defendant's Expert Disclosure Deadline is extended until Sept. 17,
2021. As a result, the deadline for the close of all discovery is
extended until Oct. 8, 2021. No further extensions will be granted
extraordinary cause.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bfa5bu44 from
Leagle.com.


ATTENTIVE CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grant Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATTENTIVE CARE OF ALBANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04349 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Grant was employed by the Defendant as staff.

Attentive Care of Albany, Inc. provides home health care services.
The Company offers home health care and facility staffing services.
Attentive Care of Alban serves patients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          1441 Broadway Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

AVI LEVY: Ebrahimzadeh Files RICO Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avi Levy, et al. The
case is styled as Atabak Ebrahimzadeh, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Avi Levy, Gad Abeckaser, David Zion,
Keter 13 Capital, LLC, ATN 1 Express, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04532
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Scott Johnson, Esq.
          HAMRA LAW GROUP
          1 Linden Plaza, Ste. 205
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (704) 258-5546
          Email: kevinsjohnson1@outlook.com


AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 9
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXSM)
resulting from allegations that Axsome may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Axsome securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2143.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: Before the market opened on August 9, 2021,
Axsome announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
had identified deficiencies in their review of Axsome's New Drug
Application (NDA) for AXS-05. The Company said it is attempting to
learn the nature of the discrepancies in order to address them, but
said the development may lead to a delay in the potential approval
of AXS-05.

On this news shares of Axsome stock fell 40% in intraday trading.

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

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

Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

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

AZTLAN AUTO: Underpays Auto Body Repairmen, Parra Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A. PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AZTLAN AUTO BODY INC., FERNANDO SIERRA, and
MARIBEL SIERRA-ROSAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06654 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by failing to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto body
repairman in New York from in or about 2008 until on or about July
9, 2021.

Aztlan Auto Body Inc. is an owner and operator of an auto body
repair company located at 204 South Broadway, Yonkers, New York.
[BN]

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

B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Gaynor Suit
------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company has agreed
to settle the consolidated class action suit entitled, Gaynor v.
Miller et al.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. and National Securities Corporation, each an
indirect broker-dealer subsidiary of the Company, as defendants in
putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under the Securities
Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources,
Inc., have been consolidated.

The Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is
pending in the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Tennessee, and,
like its predecessor complaints, continues to allege claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters
for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the
registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with
six offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013;
September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August
21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately
$151.0 million.

A Court ordered mediation before a federal magistrate took place on
August 6, 2019, with no resolution.

In December 2019, the Court remanded the case to state court. In
July 2020, the Company agreed to settle this matter, subject to
court approval which is expected in 2021.

An accrual for the settlement is included in the accompanying
condensed consolidated financial statements.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and Magic Jack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


BAKER MILLS: Minor UCL Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRIS MINOR as an
individual, on behalf of herself, the general public and those
similarly situated, v. BAKER MILLS, INC.; and KODIAK CAKES, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02901-R (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure certifying the following class:

   "All persons in the State of California who purchased the
   Kodiak Products between April 9, 2016 and the present."

The Class will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq. (UCL), the California
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); the California False Advertising Law
(FAL); and for common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court (1) appoint Plaintiff
Sherris Minor as class representative on all claims, and (2)
appoint Gutride Safier LLP as lead counsel.

The Plaintiff finally requests the Court to order the parties to
meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order
granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified
class.

The Defendants went from the brink of insolvency to wild success
thanks to one key attribute: protein. Since 2014, Americans have
grown increasingly health conscious, seeking high protein products
to refuel after a workout or simply to eat better.

Kodiak cashed in on that desire. It was an "early mover" on adding
protein claims to pancake mix and then expanded its protein product
line to frozen waffles, oatmeal, muffin mix, and beyond. Despite
touting its "high-quality protein" and "essential protein you need
to conquer your frontier, Kodiak rose to its top spot in the
category by selling a lie: the majority of protein in Kodiak's
products comes from low-quality, incomplete Sources that the human
body cannot use as protein. Indeed, upon correcting for protein
quality using the FDA's mandated measure -- the Protein
Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (CPDCAAS)-- Kodiak's
products provide the protein they claim.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lVGeHy
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469

               - and -

          Matthew T. McCrary, Esq.
          4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100
          Boulder, CO 80303
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mai: www.gutridesafier.com

BIOGEN INC: District of Massachusetts Narrows Claims in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order denying in
part and allowing in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated lawsuit entitled IN RE BIOGEN, INC. ERISA LITIGATION,
Case No. 20-cv-11325-DJC (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs Sarah Gamble, David Covington, Tansy Wilkerson, and
Daisy Santiago have filed this lawsuit on behalf of a proposed
class against Defendants, Biogen Inc., the Board of Directors of
Biogen Inc., the Biogen, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan Committee, and
Does No. 1-10, who are members of the Committee or other
fiduciaries of the Plan alleging the Defendants breached certain of
its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss. For reasons stated in this
Memorandum and Order, the Court denies in part and allows in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Factual Background

Biogen is a global biotechnology company focused on neuroscience
research. The Company sponsors the Biogen, Inc. 401(k) Savings
Plan, a participant-directed 401(k) plan that permits participants
to direct the investment of their contributions into various
investment options offered by the Plan. The Plan is considered a
defined contribution retirement plan, of which the Plaintiffs are
former Plan participants.

Biogen is a fiduciary charged with administering the Plan and is
responsible for selecting, monitoring and retaining service
providers that provide investment, recordkeeping and other
administrative services. Biogen delegates its Plan administration
duties to the Committee, and as part of those duties, the Committee
is responsible for Plan management and/or authority or control over
management or disposition of Plan assets.

During the Class Period of July 14, 2014, to the present, the Plan
assets were held in a trust by Fidelity Management Trust Company
("Fidelity"), the Plan Trustee, and all investment and asset
allocations were performed through this trust instrument. The
proposed Class consists of "[a]ll participants and beneficiaries in
the [Plan] at any time on or after [the Class Period], including
any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the
Plan at any time during the Class Period."

Under the Plan, each participant's account is credited with
participant contributions, employer matching contributions and any
discretionary contributions and earnings or losses thereon. The
Plan then pays its expenses from Plan assets and most
administrative expenses are paid by participants as a reduction of
invested income. Each participant's account is charged with the
number of distributions taken and an allocation of administrative
expenses. Plan participants' available investment options include
mutual funds and collective investment trusts.

The Plan lineup also offers the Freedom Funds--a suite of 13 target
date funds, which are investment vehicles that offer an all-in-one
retirement solution via a portfolio of underlying funds that
gradually become more conservative as the expected target
retirement year approaches. Target date funds are inherently
actively managed. Allocation shifts, also known as a fund's "glide
path," are made over time.

The Plan has offered the Fidelity Freedom fund target date suite
since at least Dec. 31, 2009. Among its several target date
offerings, Fidelity offers a spectrum of Freedom Funds: the Active
suite, which includes riskier and more costly Freedom Funds, and
the Index suite, which includes less risky, less costly Freedom
Funds.

At all times during the glide path, the Active suite's top three
domestic equity positions were in the Fidelity Series funds, two of
which trailed their respective indices over their lifetimes--the
Intrinsic Opportunities Fund and the Large Cap Stock Fund.

The Mainstay Large Cap Growth Fund Institutional Class
underperformed the benchmark set by its investment manager, the
Russell 1000 Growth Index, on a rolling five-year annualized basis
by as much as -2.30 percent. By the end of the second quarter of
2020, the fund had trailed its benchmark over the preceding five
years by 44 basis points (0.44%), annualized. The Defendants did
not replace this investment option with a better performing
alternative.

The Allianz NFJ Small Cap Value Fund Institutional Class was
replaced in 2018, having underperformed its benchmark since 2012.
The Harbor International Fund was similarly replaced following
underperformance in 2018. The MFS New Discovery Fund was added in
2018 after having demonstrated an inability to beat its benchmark
under the Russell 2000 Growth Index.

In 2018, at least 19 of the Plan's 32 funds were more expensive
than comparable funds found in similarly sized plans according to a
2020 study conducted by Brightscope/ICI. From 2014 to 2018, the
Plan paid out investment management fees of 0.49 percent to 0.50%
of its total assets, paying more for investment management fees
than the average total plan expenses of 0.28% of similarly sized
plans. The investment management fee component that the Plan paid
during the relevant period was 75 to 79% higher than the average
total cost for other large plans.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs Covington, Wilkerson and Santiago instituted this action
on July 14, 2020. Plaintiff Gamble later filed a similar lawsuit,
after which the Court consolidated both actions. The Plaintiffs
filed an amended, consolidated complaint, on Sept. 25, 2020. The
Defendants now have moved to dismiss. The Court heard the parties
on the pending motion and took the matter under advisement.

A. Statute of Limitations

ERISA does not contain a statute of limitations. Accordingly,
federal courts are required to borrow the relevant statute of
limitations from the forum state. Massachusetts law provides a
six-year limitations period for contract actions.

The Defendants assert that the challenged investment options,
except for the MFS Fund, were Plan investment options prior to July
14, 2014, six years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in
this matter on July 14, 2020. The Plaintiffs' allegations, however,
pertain to the Defendants' ongoing investment in these options once
the funds began to underperform and are not limited to when the
Defendants first selected these funds.

Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs challenge the investment
fund selections that occurred prior to July 14, 2014, their claims
are time-barred, Judge Casper holds. The Plaintiffs' allegations
with respect to the continued investment and retention of these
funds within the past six years remain valid.

B. Standing

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs did not invest in every
fund cited in the Plaintiffs' complaint--Freedom, MainStay,
Allianz, Harbor, MFS, Columbia and T. Rowe Funds, and accordingly,
lack standing to challenge these investment options. The
Plaintiffs' allegations pertain to a defined-contribution plan.

The Defendants argue that if Plan fiduciaries selected an imprudent
or overpriced investment for inclusion, the decision solely harms
those Plan participants, who invested their individual account
assets in that fund.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the named Plaintiffs have
asserted an injury in fact, as they allege that they personally
paid excessive fees in connection with their own investments,
thereby, establishing injury, and have asserted a sufficient claim
for class standing given their joint stakes in the litigation.

C. Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count I)

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to adequately
compare the Active and Index suites, and further, that the Index
suite would have been the clear, superior option. The Plaintiffs
allege the Defendants breached the duty of prudence by continuing
to offer the Active suite as an investment option, despite its
alleged deficiencies.

The Plaintiffs also allege, among other things, that MainStay,
Allianz, Harbor and MFS Funds underperformed and that each should
have either been removed or removed earlier than they were.

Judge Casper notes that here, the Plaintiffs allege that the
specified Funds underperformed either preceding or following their
selection, and that a prudent fiduciary would have removed said
funds or removed them earlier. Judge Casper finds that they present
sufficient circumstantial evidence to indicate that the Defendants
may have erred. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' breach of the duty of prudence claims with respect to
MainStay, Allianz, Harbor and MFS Funds also is denied.

The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants allowed Fidelity to
charge excessive management fees that go straight into its pockets.
Judge Casper opines that the Plaintiffs fail, however, to allege
any imprudent conduct. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the
Plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claim.

D. Failure to Monitor Fiduciaries or Co-Fiduciary Breaches (Count
II)

The Plaintiffs also allege that Biogen failed in its fiduciary
responsibility to monitor the performance of the Committee and its
members and that Biogen and its Administrative Committee failed in
its fiduciary responsibility to monitor the performance of
Committee members. The Plaintiffs allege they breached their duty
to monitor by: (a) failing to monitor and evaluate the performance
of their appointees or have a system in place for doing so; (b)
failing to monitor their appointees' fiduciary processes; and (c)
failing to remove appointees whose performances were inadequate.

Given the Court's preceding analysis regarding the duty of prudence
claim, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' duty to monitor claim.

E. Liability for Knowing Breach of Trust (Count III)

The Plaintiffs allege, in the alternative, to the extent that any
of the Defendants are not deemed a fiduciary or co-fiduciary under
ERISA, that each such Defendant be enjoined or otherwise subject to
equitable relief as a non-fiduciary from further participating in a
knowing breach of trust.

The Defendants argue that because there is no predicate basis for
these derivative claims, and because the Plaintiffs failed to plead
facts to support this claim, Count III should be dismissed.

Given that the Court has assumed as alleged that the Defendants are
fiduciaries and certain of the breach of fiduciary duty claims
survive, the Court concludes that dismissal of this alternate
theory under Count III at this juncture is not warranted.

VI. Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court denies in part and allows in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss is denied as to the Plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty insofar as it alleges breach of the duty of prudence
(Count I) and duty to monitor (Count II), but is allowed as to the
breach of fiduciary duty claim insofar as it alleges breach of the
duty of loyalty (Count I).

The Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the
Plaintiffs' alternative liability for knowing breach of trust claim
(Count III) without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hk4fba5 from
Leagle.com.


BIRD ROAD: Negrette Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISISLEIMI NEGRETTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIRD ROAD BAKERY LLC d/b/a CAO
BAKERY & CAFE, CARLOS D. DEVARONA, and ANTONIO J. CAO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22869-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
August 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bakery employee from
approximately February 02, 2017, through around July 23, 2021.

Bird Road Bakery LLC is an owner and operator of a Cuban cafe under
the name Cao Bakery & Cafe located at 14447 SW 42nd Street, Miami,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal & Berger Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by
Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the following defendants: the Company, Boardwalk
GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk Pipelines
Holding Corp. (BPHC), regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk
GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units
of the Company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates
(Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement).

Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement.

On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint
was filed in this proceeding. The Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which was heard by the Court in July 2019.

In October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion and granted a
partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to
trial.

A trial was held the week of February 22, 2021, and post-trial oral
arguments were held on July 14, 2021.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


BOOZ ALLEN: Langley Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
court overseeing the case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding
Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without
prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation described
above.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12,
2018, and on February 8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."

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

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Blank Rome Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companies that collect, use, and store biometric data can expect a
high volume of class action filings alleging violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the foreseeable
future, says Blank Rome LLP's David P. Overly. He looks at recent
court decisions and offers guidance for employers with unions on
using preemption challenges to defeat class action suits.

The scope of liability exposure from alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), as well as the
frequency of BIPA class action filings, have increased drastically
since the Illinois Supreme Court's seminal 2019 decision in
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., ruling that a plaintiff is
aggrieved under BIPA without alleging an actual injury.

During this time, preemption has emerged as a vital defense for
defendants.

Several district court opinions underscore the strength of the
preemption defense in BIPA class action litigation, and a recent
case -- Carmean v. Bozzuto Mgmt. Co. -- provides important
takeaways for defendants with unionized workforces.

Trevor Carmean, a former employee of a condominium building in
Chicago, sued his prior employers for alleged BIPA violations in
connection with the use of employee biometric data for time and
attendance purposes. Carmean and other building employees were
members of a union, their "exclusive collective bargaining agent"
under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union
and the defendants.

The property management employers filed a motion to dismiss,
asserting that Carmean's BIPA suit was barred by preemption.

The district court held that because resolution of the dispute
required an interpretation of the CBA's management rights clause,
Carmean's BIPA claims were completely preempted by Section 301 of
the Labor Management Rights Act (LMRA) -- prompting the court to
dismiss the suit in its entirety.

Takeaways
The Carmean suit is by no means the first BIPA action to be
dismissed based on preemption. Illinois federal courts have also
dismissed each of the following BIPA suits on preemption grounds:
Frisby v. Sky Chefs Inc.; Crooms v. Southwest Airlines Co.; Peatry
v. Bimbo Bakeries Inc.; and Gray v. Univ. of Chicago Medical Center
Inc.

In those actions, courts have relied on the Seventh Circuit's
decision in Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co. to dismiss BIPA
actions brought by unionized workers on the basis of preemption.

In Miller, the Seventh Circuit held an adjustment board -- not a
federal court -- was required to decide if Southwest Airlines'
union had consented to the use and collection of employee biometric
data. The Miller court reasoned the question of consent necessarily
involved an interpretation of the CBA, which must be resolved by an
adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

Since then, courts have extended the reasoning of Miller to Section
301 of the LMRA -- which also preempts state law claims founded on
rights created by CBAs or substantially dependent on the analysis
of a CBA -- as the preemption standards under the two statutes are
virtually identical.

On this issue, the Carmean court found Miller to be dispositive, as
a determination of whether the defendants violated BIPA turned on
the extent to which the plaintiff's union, through the CBA's
management rights clause, consented to the use, retention, and
disclosure of the building employees' biometric information.

In addition, the court also rejected Carmean's attempt to
distinguish his suit from Miller by arguing that Miller involved
preemption under the RLA, not the LMRA, noting the identical nature
of the RLA and LMRA preemption standards.

Practical Tips & Best Practices
Collective Bargaining Process
Unionized employers should ensure the proper steps are taken during
the collective bargaining process to preserve the ability to assert
a preemption challenge in the event the employer's biometrics
practices are tested in court.

As an initial matter, employers should give unequivocal, advance
notice to union representatives of any intent to incorporate the
use of biometric data into their operations. Employers should also
thoroughly address the issues of BIPA notice and consent during
collective bargaining negotiations as well.

Issues of notice and consent should also be addressed in the
employer's written CBA with the union, including clear language in
the CBA establishing that the union has consented to the company's
use of its employees' biometric data for business purposes.

Approached properly, unionized companies that leverage the benefits
of biometrics in their business operations can provide themselves
with a powerful defense against BIPA class actions in the event
they are so targeted.

Evaluate Defense
In the event a unionized employer is sued for purported BIPA
violations, the employer and its biometric privacy counsel must
undertake a prompt evaluation to determine whether preemption can
be raised to facilitate a quick exit from the litigation.

Employers and their counsel should determine whether the defendant
can establish that resolution of the plaintiff's BIPA claims
require interpretation of the employer's CBA, namely with respect
to whether the plaintiff's union consented to the collection of
biometric data on its employees' behalf, such that the claims are
preempted by the LMRA or RLA.

If so, the defendant should pursue an early motion to dismiss
asserting preemption as a basis for the complete dismissal of the
BIPA action in its entirety -- which should allow the employer to
defeat the suit at an early stage in the litigation.

Companies that collect, use, and store biometric data can expect to
see a high volume of BIPA class action filings for the foreseeable
future. With that said, as the Carmean decision shows, preemption
challenges can play a powerful role in defeating a wide variety of
class action suits filed for purported violations of Illinois'
biometric privacy law.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners. [GN]

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Faces Title IX Class Action Over Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaya Gupta and Will Kubzansky, writing for Brown Daily Herald,
report that four women filed a federal class action complaint Aug.
6 against Brown University, claiming that it not only neglected to
protect its students from sexual harassment and sexual abuse, but
also "actively prevented the reporting of such harm."

The class of the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island, includes every female-identifying
student at the University from 2018 to present, which a press
release estimated at 4,000 students. The four plaintiffs listed --
Chloe Burns '19, Taja Hirata-Epstein '20, Katiana Soenen '24 and
Carter Woodruff '22 -- are all current University students or
recent alums.

The suit represents the latest development in student activism to
curb sexual assault on campus and reform the University's response
to sexual and gender-based violence -- a decades-long campaign that
saw a resurgence in the last year spearheaded by groups such as End
Sexual Violence and the Instagram account Voices of Brown.

The suit details all four women's experiences of sexual assault
while attending the University, including unsolicited recording,
abusive relationships, assault and rape. When they brought their
allegations to the University's attention, they claim in the suit,
employees "discouraged or even overtly prevented the proper
reporting." In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the complaints
that were filed went "ignored and inadequately investigated or
addressed."

"Brown is not even doing the bare minimum here," Kimberly Evans of
Grant & Eisenhofer, which is representing the plaintiffs in the
suit, told The Herald. "This isn't a one-off situation -- it's a
pervasive and widespread problem where the University is not even
following its own policies, let alone the Title IX policies that
are required by federal law."

Student activism such as the End Sexual Violence movement also
encountered resistance from the University, the suit claims:
Administrators only met with student activists after "repeated
requests" and implemented no "material" changes.

"Survivors at Brown are silenced, harmed and discouraged from
seeking justice by the University," the four plaintiffs said in a
joint statement in a press release. "Brown's recent history has
been punctuated by numerous student uprisings led by survivors and
their allies; however, the University has never responded to these
pleas for justice with anything but begrudging, minor changes to
policy and procedure."

Senior Vice President for Communications Cass Cliatt wrote in an
email to The Herald that the University has made it an
"institutional priority" to create a zero-tolerance environment
regarding sexual violence. The University has not yet been served
with the lawsuit.

"Brown has taken a strategic and sustained approach to confronting
sexual harassment and gender-based violence on campus dating back
to transformative recommendations from the University's Sexual
Assault Task Force in 2015," Cliatt wrote. "The increase in
students reporting sexual violence, the greater confidence in the
adjudication process, the data for students reporting they feel
safer at Brown, as well as the ongoing partnership between students
and the University around these critical issues, all reflect
Brown's aggressive actions to confront sexual violence."

On March 2, the Title IX Office launched a new sexual and
gender-based misconduct policy, which added to existing regulations
to create a broader definition of sexual harassment, to categorize
sexual exploitation and to include voyeurism, prostitution,
disseminating sexual images of a person, exposing genitals and
purposely exposing someone to a sexually transmitted infection as
prohibited conduct.

Several weeks later, the Title IX Office launched a new online
reporting form that allows students to report sexual harassment
anonymously. The form, designed by former Title IX Program Officer
Rene Davis, was created in response to a 2019 survey which revealed
that 31.2 percent of University students surveyed had "little or no
knowledge" about where to make a report of sexual violence or
gender harassment whereas 30.4 percent were "very or extremely
knowledgeable."


But according to Evans and the suit, the University has failed to
comply both with its own policies and legally mandated policies --
by, among other things, failing to provide adequate training for
students and employees regarding sexual misconduct and not pursuing
cases involving graduated students, despite the University's policy
stating that there is no "time limit on submitting a Formal
Complaint."

The University's failure to adequately address sexual assault and
harassment meets the definition of sex and gender-based
discrimination under federal Title IX law, the suit argues.
Plaintiffs, it says, are owed damages for emotional distress, pain,
suffering, medical expenses and the loss of employment, among a
number of other problems encountered.

In addition to financial damages, the suit calls for a permanent
injunction ensuring due process, new steps for investigating
reports of discrimination and discipline for students who violate
the Title IX Policy.

"The goal of this litigation is to effectuate real and meaningful
and long-lasting change at Brown in the way it's handling its Title
IX sexual assault allegations," said Elizabeth Bailey of Saltz
Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, the second firm representing the plaintiffs.


"There have been cases around the country that have been successful
in enacting the change that we are seeking at Brown," Evans added.

Evans said the legal path forward is unclear at the moment: The
University could settle with the plaintiffs out of court, or the
case could reach trial.

"What happens next," Bailey said, "is dependent on Brown." [GN]

BT GROUP: 3rd Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling disclosed that on August 5, 2021, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a
non-precedential opinion, affirmed the dismissal of a putative
class action against a multinational telecommunications company
(the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund v. BT
Group PLC, No. 20-2016 (3d Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company made false and misleading statements about its financial
performance as a result of a complex, decade-long accounting fraud
that occurred at its Italian subsidiary (the "Subsidiary"). The
Third Circuit affirmed dismissal on the grounds that the stronger
inference from the factual allegations in the complaint as to the
Company's executives was a lack of scienter and, even if scienter
was sufficiently alleged as to executives at the Subsidiary, that
could not be imputed to the Company.

The lawsuit -- and plaintiffs' allegations -- stem from the
Company's disclosure in 2017 that it overstated profits by $700
million as a result of an accounting fraud that occurred at the
Subsidiary for nearly ten years. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
were knowledgeable -- or reckless in their ignorance of --
fraudulent practices at the Subsidiary. Plaintiffs further
attempted to impute the mental states of individual executives to
the Company under the corporate scienter doctrine. The district
court dismissed the complaint, holding that the scienter
allegations were lacking. Specifically, the district court held
that, even though the Third Circuit had "neither . . . accepted nor
rejected the doctrine of corporate scienter in securities fraud
actions," the complaint's allegations in any event did not "move
the needle towards the extraordinary circumstances required to show
corporate scienter."

In affirming dismissal, the Third Circuit expressly did not address
the issue of whether the mental states of individual executives
could be imputed to the Company, holding that plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently allege scienter by any individual executive, much less
the type of allegations required to impute scienter to the Company.
First, the Court addressed plaintiffs' argument that the complaint
sufficiently alleged scienter for the Chairman of the Company's
Audit Committee through allegations that: (i) the Audit Committee
had concerns about the Subsidiary, (ii) the Committee was
monitoring controls and risk management at the Subsidiary, and
(iii) Subsidiary employees had informed the Company executives
regarding accounting irregularities, all during the same period
that the Company reported improved controls at the Subsidiary.
While the Court acknowledged that the allegations supported an
inference of scienter, it held that the complaint's allegations
"also support[ed] the inference that the [Company] intended to
detect and prevent fraud." For example, the Court cited to
allegations that the Audit Committee requested reviews and
monitoring of the Subsidiary and that the Company voluntarily
disclosed historical accounting errors of the Subsidiary.
Accordingly, while some of the allegations supported an inference
that the Chairman of the Audit Committee acted with scienter,
"those allegations [were] comparatively weaker than the contrary
inference that he did not."

Next, the Court addressed plaintiffs' argument that they
sufficiently alleged scienter for certain individual executives of
the Subsidiary and of another one of the Company's line of
businesses, and that their mental states could be imputed to the
Company. First, as to the executives in a different line of
business, plaintiffs attempted to allege scienter through: (i) news
articles that the executives were being investigated and
subsequently charged for complicity in false accounting at the
Subsidiary; (ii) communications that purported to show that the
executives set unrealistically high financial targets; and (iii)
news reports that the Subsidiary shared all economic and financial
transactions with the two executives. According to the Court, these
allegations did not provide sufficient detail. Second, the Court
rejected the argument that the scienter of the Subsidiary's
executives should be imputed to the Company, noting that "parent
companies are not, merely by dint of ownership, liable for acts of
their subsidiaries." Thus, even if the Third Circuit accepted the
corporate scienter doctrine -- a question the Court expressly did
not address -- plaintiffs would still be required to allege that
the Company participated in the Subsidiary's fraud, such as through
a cover-up, which plaintiffs did not do. [GN]

CALIFORNIA STATE: Bid to Dismiss Anders Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
denies in part and grants in part the motion to dismiss first
amended complaint filed in the lawsuit styled TAYLOR ANDERS,
HENNESSEY EVANS, ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS, MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR, and
COURTNEY WALBURGER, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

On Feb. 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans,
Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis and Tara Weir filed this putative
class action alleging several violations of Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq.
("Title IX") against California State University, Fresno; Fresno
State's athletic director Terrence Tumey; Fresno State's former
president Joseph Castro; and Fresno State's interim president, as
of Jan. 4, 2021, Saul Jimenez-Sandoval. On May 12, 2021, the Court
denied a motion to dismiss the Complaint as moot because the
Plaintiffs had filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 3,
2021.

The FAC adds Courtney Walburger, who was also a member of Fresno
State's women's lacrosse team during the 2020-21 academic years as
a Plaintiff and alleges three Title IX claims against Fresno State
and the California State University Board of Trustees
("Defendants"). On May 17, 2021, the Board brought a motion to
dismiss the FAC in its entirety. The motion has been fully briefed
and the Court has deemed it suitable for decision without oral
argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

Background

In the 2020-21 academic year, Fresno State sponsored men's
baseball, basketball, track, football, golf, tennis, and wrestling
teams. During the same period, Fresno State sponsored women's
basketball, track, equestrian, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball,
swimming and diving, tennis, and water polo teams. Each of these
sports is segregated based on sex. On Oct. 16, 2020, Fresno State
announced it would eliminate women's lacrosse, men's tennis and
men's wrestling, with effect at the end of the 2020-21 academic
year.

Fresno State's athletic program is subject to Title IX because
Fresno State receives federal funding. All Plaintiffs were members
of Fresno State's women's lacrosse team during the 2020-21 academic
year. The Plaintiffs allege Fresno State has not provided females
with opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics that
are substantially proportionate to their undergraduate enrollment
for years and that the condition will persist after the elimination
of women's lacrosse, men's tennis and men's wrestling takes effect.
They further allege Fresno State has failed to provide adequate
funding for women's athletic scholarships relative to the funding
provided for men's athletic scholarship and that the women's
lacrosse team has been treated worse than men's teams in several
respects ranging from facilities to coaching.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring putative class
action claims against the Defendants for: (i) failure to provide
female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity
intercollegiate athletics, in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R.
Section 106.41(c)(1); (ii) failure to provide female
student-athletes at Fresno State with an equal allocation of
athletic financial assistance, in violation of Title IX and 34
C.F.R. Section 106.37; and (iii) failure to provide female
student-athletes at Fresno State with an equal allocation of
athletic benefits (such as equipment, supplies and uniforms) in
violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. Section 106.41(c)(2)-(10).

In the motion at bar, the Board seeks dismissal of these claims for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and, to some extent, for lack of standing under
Rule 12(b)(1).

Discussion

The Board moves to dismiss all three of the claims set forth in the
FAC.

I. Effective Accommodation Claim

The Board argues that the Plaintiffs' effective accommodation claim
must be dismissed because: (i) the Plaintiffs cannot show the
injury required for Article III standing; (ii) the FAC lacks
factual allegations supporting a plausible inference that Fresno
State will not provide substantially proportionate participation
opportunities after the elimination of women's lacrosse, men's
tennis and men's wrestling takes effect; and (iii) the conduct
alleged in the FAC does not constitute intentional discrimination.

Judge Ishii notes that Article III standing requires a party
seeking relief to show: (1) an injury in fact that is (a) concrete
and particularized and (b) actual or imminent; (2) causation; and
(3) a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury,
citing Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2011).

Judge Ishii finds that the Board's argument that the Plaintiffs
cannot show the injury required for standing prior to the
elimination of the women's lacrosse team because they were able to
participate in their chosen sport during that period is irrelevant
because, as the Court understands it, the Plaintiffs' effective
accommodation claim turns on the allocation of participation
opportunities after the elimination of women's lacrosse takes
effect.

The Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the alleged injury
required for standing to bring an effective accommodation claim
became imminent when Fresno State announced the elimination of the
women's lacrosse team. The Court agrees with that formulation and,
therefore, finds no defect in the Plaintiffs' Article III standing
with respect to the effective accommodation claim, citing Pederson
v. Louisiana State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 871 (5th Cir. 2000).

The Court also finds that allegations regarding Fresno State's:
analysis under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act ("EADA") are
insufficient to state an effective accommodation claim; and
putative Title IX counts for the 2019-20 academic year are
insufficient to state an effective accommodation claim.

The Court further finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
an effective accommodation claim based on O'Brien's 2020-21 counts
and participation gap calculation. The Board's expert, Timothy
O'Brien, prepared counts for the 2020-21 academic year. The Court
also finds that the Board's argument that the Plaintiffs' claim is
not a claim for intentional discrimination is without merit.

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss will be denied as to the
effective accommodation claim.

II. Equal Treatment Claim

The Board argues that the Plaintiffs' equal treatment claim should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim because the pleadings
compare the treatment of the women's lacrosse team to the treatment
of "other varsity teams" (a category that includes women's teams,
as well as men's teams) without specifically comparing treatment
received by women's lacrosse to treatment received by men's varsity
teams. Further, the Board argues that the Plaintiffs' allegations
are "formulaic" and "conclusory," and that their failure to provide
facts concerning unfavorable treatment of any other women's team
foils their claim of gender discrimination because being a member
of the women's lacrosse team is not a protected category.

In other words, the Board takes the position that mistreatment of
the women's lacrosse team alone is not sufficient and that the
Plaintiffs must show facts demonstrating that women's teams have
been treated less favorably as compared to men's teams to state an
unequal treatment claim under Title IX.

The FAC contains numerous allegations as to how women's lacrosse
was treated worse than men's teams. Specifically, the FAC alleges,
among other things, that women's lacrosse was not provided a
return-to-play plan in the wake of COVID, even though such plans
were provided to men's teams; no men's team is required to clean
its practice field, but women's lacrosse had to clean its practice
field; and women's lacrosse team players were kicked out of their
locker room, did not receive uniforms until the season had already
begun, and were forced to used old, outdated equipment, even though
no men's team has been treated this way.

Reviewing these allegations, Judge Ishii finds that they do not
appear to fall neatly into either category of "equal treatment"
violations recognized by the 1979 Policy Interpretation or
applicable case law, in that they do not posit a program-level
imbalance between the treatment afforded to men's teams and the
treatment afforded to women's teams or directly compare the
treatment received by women's lacrosse to treatment received by a
comparable men's team in the same "segment" of Fresno State's
athletic program.

Still, Judge Ishii notes, the allegations indicate, in several
instances, that no men's team at all was subject to the
mistreatment (with respect to locker room access, equipment,
cleaning duties and such) inflicted on women's lacrosse. Moreover,
the disparity in treatment alleged appears to be substantial.

Thus, the Court finds that the allegations in the FAC are
sufficient to state an equal treatment claim at the segment level
since it can plausibly be inferred that male counterparts to the
women's lacrosse team (whatever team or teams that may turn out to
be) received at least some benefits of consequence that were not
furnished to women's lacrosse.

The motion to dismiss will, therefore, be denied as to the equal
treatment claim.

III. Financial Aid Claim

The Board contends that the Plaintiffs' financial aid claim should
be dismissed because their conclusory allegations do not make a
plausible showing that males receive a disproportionate amount of
scholarship funding after taking into account nondiscriminatory
factors such as the higher cost of tuition for out-of-state
athletes. Further, the Defendants contend that financial aid claims
arising from events prior to Feb. 12, 2019, are time-barred by the
applicable two-year statute of limitations, and that the Plaintiffs
have failed to plead that they were harmed by any alleged Title IX
violation with respect to financial assistance, as required for
standing.

As an initial matter, the Court does not agree with the Board's
contention that Plaintiffs' financial aid claim is time-barred
because the FAC contains allegations regarding the 2018-19 academic
year, at least part of which falls within the two-year statute of
limitations that the Board contends is applicable to Title IX
claims.

Judge Ishii, however, finds that the Board is correct that the
allegations in the FAC fail to state a scholarship claim. The
Plaintiffs allege, for example, that in 2018-19 Fresno State
offered female student-athletes $285,000 less than they should have
been offered based on their percentage in the athletics program.

This allegation--like the allegation that female student-athletes
received over $5.3 million less in athletic financial aid than they
should have received from 2003-04 through 2018-19--is no more than
a legal conclusion with garnish, Judge Ishii holds. He points out
that the Plaintiff must allege facts that enable the Court to
conduct its own assessment and draw a plausible inference that
participation-adjusted scholarship funding for male
student-athletes exceeds participation-adjusted scholarship funding
for female student-athletes by 1% or more in a year that falls
within the Title IX statute of limitations.

Slapping an aggregate dollar amount--with no point of reference--on
what is otherwise a mere restatement of an essential element of a
financial aid claim does not satisfy that requirement, Judge Ishii
opines. Indeed, the allegations in the FAC do not allow the Court
to make any determination regarding the percentage disparity
between men's scholarship funding and women's scholarship funding,
whether or not adjusted for participation. Further, the Court finds
that the allegations in the FAC are insufficient to show standing.

Even assuming the Plaintiffs had adequately alleged an actionable
sex-based imbalance in scholarship funding, the Court could not
infer from these allegations which Plaintiffs, if any, were
deprived of a scholarship--or which Plaintiffs, if any, received a
diminished scholarship--as a result of such a Title IX violation.
Indeed, without context, the fact that four of six Plaintiffs
received a scholarship of some sort appears to cut against
inferring a dearth of scholarship funding for women's lacrosse, and
the FAC does not allege that any of the Plaintiffs was improperly
deprived of scholarship funding.

Moreover, while the Court does not mean to minimize the impact of
losing a scholarship unexpectedly, the allegation regarding the
cancellation of Walburger's scholarship following the
discontinuation of lacrosse is irrelevant because, by its terms, 34
C.F.R. Section 106.37(c)(1) only pertains to scholarships for
students participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate
athletics.

The Court, therefore, finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state or allege standing for a financial aid claim under Title IX.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss the FAC will be denied as
to the Plaintiffs' effective accommodation claim and equal
treatment claim and granted as to the Plaintiffs' financial aid
claim. Since the defects in the financial aid claim could be cured
with additional factual allegations, the Court will grant leave to
amend the financial aid claim.

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

   1. The motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is denied
      in part and granted in part as follows:

      a. The motion is denied as to the effective accommodation
         claim and the equal treatment claim;

      b. The motion is granted as to the financial aid claim;

   2. Plaintiffs' are granted leave to file a Second Amended
      Complaint amending the financial aid claim within 21 days
      of the date of electronic service of this order;

   3. Terrence Tumey, Joseph Castro and Saul Jimenez-Sandoval are
      dismissed from this case by virtue of being omitted from
      the First Amended Complaint; and

   4. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for
      further proceedings consistent with this Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2jft5d7r from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Charter School's Education Funding Class Action Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Taketa, writing for San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that a
California Superior Court judge ruled against hundreds of online
and other non-classroom-based charter schools in a class-action
lawsuit, declaring that the state did not wrongfully deprive the
schools of education funding during the pandemic.

The ruling, handed down July 27, was a blow to the schools, which
are called non-classroom-based charter schools because at least 20%
of the learning occurs off campus, often online or at home.

Three San Diego-based charter school networks -- the Classical
Academies, the Learning Choice Academy and Springs Charter Schools
-- and the parents of several enrolled and waitlisted students sued
the state of California last fall, saying the state did not
equitably fund their charter schools by accounting for the new
students they enrolled during the last school year.

The lawsuit was deemed a class-action petition representing about
300 non-classroom-based charter schools across California that
enrolled about 200,000 students, said Lee Rosenberg, attorney for
the plaintiffs.

Those schools took on about 25,000 new students last school year
that weren't paid for by the state, he said.

The state typically funds all public schools, including charter
schools, on a per-student basis, which means the more students a
school enrolls, the higher its state funding.

Last year, because of the pandemic and related school closures, the
state initially froze public school funding levels to stabilize
schools' and districts' finances.

Then state officials unfroze the funding and gave K-12 public
schools funding for their existing and newly enrolled new students
last year -- except for non-classroom based charter schools, which
provided mostly online, home school and non-traditional education
services. Their funding remained frozen for existing students.

State leaders chose not to fund new students at those
non-classroom-based charter schools because there is a history of
fraud and abuse by some of those kinds of schools, the state
attorney general wrote in a recent court filing.

"The state determined that (non-classroom based charter schools)
raised major concerns for fraud and abuse and inferior education
and decided to limit the incentive for expanding that model of
education during the pandemic while the state considered the
underlying policy around (non-classroom based charter schools),"
Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a June court filing signed by him and
others in his office.

During the pandemic last year, thousands of California students
left their original school districts or charter schools and
enrolled in non-classroom based charter schools, so much so that
some charter schools reported waiting lists of thousands of
students. Charter school leaders said many families knew these
schools had years of experience and expertise serving students
remotely, which school districts were being forced to learn to do
quickly because of the pandemic.

The lawsuit plaintiffs argued that was a key reason they deserved
to be funded like the other districts for each new student.

"Under the student defunding law, students' education funding
remains at the public school that they depart -- thus rewarding
public school districts for not serving students they have failed
to adequately serve," the complaint said.

The funding freeze lasted for last school year.

Plaintiffs argued that this harmed the education of students at
non-classroom-based charters because their schools were forced to
spread the same amount of state money across more students. They
said state school funding is supposed to follow the student, no
matter which public school they choose.

"We're obviously really disappointed. We've been fighting for
almost a year now," Rosenberg said. "The state for the first time
in its history, that we're aware of, decided not to fund the
education of every single student in the state of California, and
we just thought that was immoral and unacceptable."

Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Arguelles ruled against the
charter school plaintiffs because, he said, they failed to show
that their students were deprived of an education last school year
as a result of the lack of a funding increase.

"Petitioners have not established that their (non-classroom based)
students actually or effectively have been deprived of an education
for any period during the 2020-21 fiscal year," Arguelles wrote.

He also ruled against them because he didn't agree with their
arguments that the state was bound by a contract to fund each of
their students at a certain level.

State attorneys had previously argued that there is no contract
between the state and charter schools that prevents the state from
changing how much it funds or does not fund charter schools. It's
the state Legislature's authority to decide how much public schools
receive.

Charter school advocates for months have fought the perception that
non-classroom-based charter schools are fraudulent. The California
Charter Schools Assn. has argued that a few bad actors should not
taint all non-classroom-based charter schools, which provide an
alternative model of education that many students can't get from
their school districts.

Rosenberg said his clients are contemplating next steps and whether
to appeal Arguelles' decision. [GN]

CANADA: Class Action v. AG Over Income Tax Act Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Williams, Esq., and Sebastian Cooper, Esq., of McCarthy
Tétrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Scow v. The
Attorney General of Canada, 2021 BCSC 1110, the Supreme Court of
British Columbia held that it may have jurisdiction over a proposed
class action seeking the repayment of income taxes. While Canada
argued the claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax
Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held it was
not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction.

The decision suggests that at least some proposed class actions
dealing with income taxes may proceed in provincial courts. This is
notable as the Tax Court of Canada Rules do not provide for class
proceedings. The decision also emphasizes the importance to
defendants of selecting the right kind of application when
challenging jurisdiction, to allow the court to fully dispose of a
jurisdictional challenge.

Scow is a constitutional challenge to the Income Tax Act. Between
2004 and 2012, the proposed representative plaintiff, Daniel Scow,
paid tax on income from a small-scale fishing business he operated
from Quinsam Reserve #12 in Campbell River. He did not file
objections to those assessments within the time limits set out in
the ITA.

Mr. Scow seeks an order striking down the ITA down to the extent
that it allows the Crown to levy and retain taxes in contravention
of s. 87 of the Indian Act, which exempts certain income earned on
a reserve. The proposed class proceeding also seeks the repayment
of taxes allegedly improperly assessed and collected from the
proposed class.

Canada argued that the action is essentially a dispute over Mr.
Scow's individual tax assessments and it was plain and obvious that
the Tax Court of Canada had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found that while the Tax Court can consider
constitutional issues, its jurisdiction under the ITA is time
limited. The court referenced jurisprudence from the Tax Court
concluding that, where its own jurisdiction is limited because a
tax assessment falls outside the applicable limitation period,
other courts may have jurisdiction to hear such challenges.
Therefore, it was not plain and obvious that the Supreme Court of
British Columbia could not hear Mr. Scow's claim.

The court found that a key issue was whether the essential
character of the action is an attack on the validity of Mr. Scow's
own tax assessments – which would fall under the Tax Court's
exclusive jurisdiction – or a broader attack, such that the Tax
Court would not have jurisdiction to determine all aspects of the
dispute. The court determined that it would be inappropriate to
make such a determination on an application to strike under BC
Supreme Court Rule 9-5, the form of application brought by the
defendants here, and in which the court assumes the facts alleged
in the claim are true and asks only whether the claim discloses a
reasonable cause of action.

The court held that, had the defendants brought a jurisdictional
challenge or an application for summary trial or summary judgement,
it might have been able to make a final determination as to
jurisdiction and the essential character of the plaintiff's claim.
However, as it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's
claims were bound to fail, the application to strike was dismissed.
[GN]

CANADA: Court Certifies VA Class Action Over Disability Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Law Times, reports that the Federal
Court has certified a class action seeking damages for Veterans
Affairs Canada's alleged underpayment of disability benefits to
class members due to a supposed miscalculation in pension
adjustment rates under s. 75 of the Pension Act.

Veterans Affairs Canada released a statement in 2018 addressing
this issue and has been making corrective payments since September
2019, said a news release from class counsel Daniel Wallace, a
lawyer at McInnis Cooper LLP. The class action submits that class
members are entitled to additional payments, including those caused
by other alleged errors in calculation.

The class is estimated to number around 270,000 members. It is
composed of current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces
(CAF) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as their
spouses, common-law partners, dependants, survivors, orphans or
estates. The class members are those who, sometime between 2002 and
the present, have received certain benefits administered by
Veterans Affairs Canada, including disability pensions and
disability awards.

The class counsel in these proceedings are Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
in Toronto, Michel Drapeau Law Office in Ottawa, Murphy Battista
LLP in Kelowna and in Vancouver, Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto and
McInnes Cooper in Halifax.

Annual adjustments are covered by the provisions of Part V of the
Pension Act, which require yearly adjustments, based on the
statutory formula found in s. 75, of the basic pension amounts
listed in Schedule I. The purpose behind such adjustments is to
ensure that pensions and awards are in line with the cost of living
and with price inflation.

The calculations consider the annual increases in the Canadian
Consumer Price Index and the average wages of some categories of
federal public sector employees, minus the income tax for a single
person, calculated in the province with the lowest combined
provincial and federal income tax rates.

The plaintiffs named in the consolidated statement of claim, filed
on Oct. 30, 2019, include two residents of Nova Scotia, Dennis
Manuge and Jean-Francois Pelletier, and three Ontario residents,
Raymond Toth, Betty Brousse and Brenton MacDonald.

Toth, who has received a monthly disability pension since February
2004, served in the CAF until his discharge in 2007, given that his
disability meant that he could not comply with all of the bona fide
occupational requirements of universality of service pursuant to s.
33 of the National Defence Act. Brousse, who has been getting a
monthly disability pension since October 2000, served in the CAF
for 27 years until her retirement in November 2001. MacDonald, who
has accepted a monthly disability pension since April 2004, served
in the RCMP for 38 years prior to his retirement in 2004. [GN]


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Samson, writing for CTV News, reports that six cases of
legionnaires' disease have broken out in the Moncton area and New
Brunswick Public Health says it is meticulously investigating the
root of it.

"Each case requires many hours of detailed investigation work to
try and identify any possible sources for their infection. In a
case where we have a number of cases reported to us and where we're
looking for or we're considering an outbreak, we're looking for
anything that's common between them," said Dr. Yves Leger, New
Brunswick regional medical officer of health.

It's a serious respiratory disease that can result in pneumonia and
it's caused by bacteria in water.

At this time there have been no common links determined between the
cases, meaning there has been no one source narrowed down.

"While we're still waiting on further information at this point in
time certainly the main source, the main hypothesis in my mind is
likely a contaminated cooling tower," Leger said.

Those most at risk for the disease are individuals who are over the
age of 50, those who have pre-existing medical conditions such as
chronic lung disease, smokers, diabetics, or a suppressed immune
system.

In 2019, a previous legionnaires' disease outbreak in Moncton was
linked to a cooling tower and a class action lawsuit has just filed
their statements of claim.

"The department of health was not forthcoming with respect to the
source of the 2019 contamination so that was something that became
known to the public through a combination of materials," said
Lyndsay Jardine, who is representing the class action with Wagners
Law Firm.

Jardine says all her clients from the 2019 outbreak have had
lasting effects.

"We were fortunate in 2019 to be able to find the source which is
not always the case in these types of investigations. But
certainly, if we do believe there is a common source and we do find
it, I think we'll have to consider the pros and cons of releasing
that information," said Leger.

There is legally no standard of upkeep required for cooling tower
owner-operators to maintain their units to prevent legionellosis
outbreak.

"There are a number of companies out there that are experienced in
that kind of work, but at this point in time there are no
provincial or national requirements legal or otherwise to do that
work," he said.

Dr. Leger says they are considering an unidentified contaminated
cooling tower to be the most likely source and remind their owners
and operators to maintain them. [GN]

CANADA: July 2022 Indian Day School Claim Submission Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rivers, writing for KenoraOnline, reports that the deadline
to submit a claim is July 2022 in the nationwide Indian Day School
survivors' class-action lawsuit against Canada.

The class-action lawsuit was started by Garry McLean in 2009 and
took nearly a decade for Federal courts to approve a settlement
that will compensate survivors for harms they suffered while
attending federally operated Indian Day Schools

To ensure safety amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, claimants will need
to book their appointments ahead of time. The deadline to submit a
claim is July 2022.

Nearly 200,000 First Nations, Inuit, Métis and non-status Indian
children attend 699 Indian Day School across the country, which
were started by the Canadian Government in 1920, this includes two
Indian Day Schools in the Kenora area.

St. Mary's School opened September 1, 1968 and closed on June 30,
1972 and a school in Wauzhushk Onigum opened September 1, 1954 and
closed June 30, 1966. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Pre-Trial Discovery in Cybersecurity Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that pre-trial
discovery is ongoing in the consumer class action pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division

On July 29, 2019, the company announced that on March 22 and 23,
2019 an outside individual gained unauthorized access to its
systems. This individual obtained certain types of personal
information relating to people who had applied for our credit card
products and to our credit card customers (the "Cybersecurity
Incident").

As a result of the Cybersecurity Incident, we are subject to
numerous legal proceedings and other inquiries and could be the
subject of additional proceedings and inquiries in the future.

The company was named as a defendant in approximately 74 putative
consumer class action cases (61 in U.S. federal courts and 13 in
Canadian courts) alleging harm from the Cybersecurity Incident and
seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief.


The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.


The U.S. consumer class actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a multi-district litigation ("MDL") panel in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, where the remaining 29 consumer class actions
are currently pending.

In the third quarter of 2020, the MDL court denied in part and
granted in part Capital One's motion to dismiss and permitted
pretrial discovery to continue.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., is still pending.

On August 13, 2019, Panther Partners, Inc. filed a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County, Panther Partners, Inc., et al., v.
Jerry Guo et al., Index No 654585/2019, against the company ,
certain of its current and former executive officers and directors,
and the underwriters from the company's April 30, 2018 follow-on
offering of common stock, which the company refer to as its
"Follow-on Offering."

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
our common stock in our Follow-on Offering and generally alleges
that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham Pucheril,
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of the
defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, because
documents related to the company's Follow-on Offering, including
its registration statement and prospectus, were materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted as
controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of Section
15 of the Securities Act.

On November 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains substantially similar allegations and asserts the same
claims as the initial complaint.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.


On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASELLA WASTE: Settlement Reached in Vandemortel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the judge in the class
action suit initiated by Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel,
issued an Order and Final Judgment that was filed on July 8, 2021.


On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against the company in
Ontario County Supreme Court (on behalf of similarly situated
citizens) in Ontario County, New York (the "New York Litigation").


The New York Litigation alleges that over one thousand citizens
constitute the putative class in the New York Litigation, and it
seeks damages for diminution of property values and infringement of
the putative class' rights to live without interference to their
daily lives due to odors emanating from the Subtitle D landfill
located in Seneca, New York, which is operated by us pursuant to a
long-term Operation, Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario
County.

The New York Litigation was served on the company on October 14,
2019, and the parties commenced settlement negotiations in early
2020. On December 1, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement and thereafter the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members'
counsel moved the New York Court for entry of the Order on
Notice/Preliminary Approvals.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on July 7, 2021, and the
judge issued an Order and Final Judgment that was filed on July 8,
2021.

The settlement includes a $750 payment to a Qualified Settlement
Fund for the benefit of Counsel and one-time lump sum payments to
the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members who opt into the Settlement
Agreement.

Casella said, "We also committed $900 in expenses and capital
improvements for remediation measures to be completed by December
31, 2022."

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.


CBOE GLOBAL: Dismissal of VIX-Related Class Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties are
currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit on the appeal in
the class action suit related to the CBOE Volatility Index
methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company.

The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the
other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.

On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss
and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the April 21,
2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both
orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss entered on May 29,
2019 and January 27, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th
Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief
with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc.,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association
filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the Bad
Faith Standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020,
plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit.

Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020 and the
parties are currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit.

The Company currently believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

Cboe Global said, "The Company is unable to estimate what, if any,
liability may result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBOE GLOBAL: Reply Memoranda in Providence Suit Due Sept. 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the deadline to file a
reply memoranda of law in support of the Motions for Summary
Judgment for Legal Preclusion and Article III Standing is scheduled
for September 17, 2021.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors
who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange
("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and
were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the
complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants
committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated
with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high
frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015, the
Southern District of New York (the "Lower Court") held oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August
26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in
full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order
requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower
Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have
immunity in the claims alleged. The SEC filed its amicus brief with
the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the
Exchange Defendants filed their respective supplemental response
briefs on December 12, 2016.

On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order
denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 17, 2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking
interlocutory appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was
denied July 16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on
July 25, 2019.

Targeted discovery regarding class certification and legal
preclusion concluded on April 26, 2021.

On May 28, 2021, (1) Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, (2) Bats and NYSE filed a joint Motion for Summary
Judgment on Grounds of Legal Preclusion and a joint Motion for
Summary Judgment on Grounds of Lack of Article III Standing, and
(3) Nasdaq filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Legal
Preclusion.

The parties filed briefs in opposition to Class Certification and
to the Motions for Summary Judgment for Legal Preclusion and
Article III Standing on July 26, 2021.

The deadline to file a reply memoranda of law in support of the
Motions is scheduled for September 17, 2021.

Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the
claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter
vigorously."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CHEMOURS CO: $1.7MM Disbursed in Leach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that approximately $1.7
million has been disbursed from escrow related to medical
monitoring in relation to the settlement made in Leach v. DuPont.

In 2004, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("EID") settled a
class action captioned Leach v. DuPont, filed in West Virginia
state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) in drinking water.

Among the settlement terms, EID funded a series of health studies
by an independent science panel of experts ("C8 Science Panel") to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link
exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to
PFOA and disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney
cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

Under the terms of the settlement, EID is obligated to fund up to
$235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members
and pay the administrative costs associated with the program,
including class counsel fees.

The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the
program, and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service
providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company
replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement.

As of June 30, 2021, approximately $1.7 has been disbursed from
escrow related to medical monitoring. While it is reasonably
possible that the Company will incur additional costs related to
the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably
estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of
participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, EID must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of
PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users.
At Separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, and $22
and $21 was accrued for these matters at June 30, 2021 and December
31, 2020, respectively.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Causes of Action in Cape Fear River Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court has dismissed
the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged
causes of actions in lawsuits against DuPont and the Company in
North Carolina federal court.

In 2019, civil actions were filed against E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company ("EID") and Chemours in North Carolina federal court
relating to discharges from Fayetteville.

These actions include a consolidated action brought by public water
suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated
purported class action seeking medical monitoring, and property
damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the
putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or
that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and two actions
encompassing approximately 1,000 private well owners seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.

Ruling on the Company's motions in April 2019, the court dismissed
the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged
causes of actions in these lawsuits.

Chemours said, "It is possible that additional litigation may be
filed against the Company and/or EID concerning the discharges."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Continues to Defend Tainted Water Class Action in N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Prensky, writing for Wilmington StarNews, report that for
nearly 40 years, DuPont and Chemours polluted the Cape Fear River
with toxic chemicals. More than 300,000 North Carolinians drank
that contaminated water and now face the risk of developing various
diseases, including cancer.

Chemours paid a $12 million fine to North Carolina as a result of
the water crisis and is required to clean up its Fayetteville Works
plant, but most of the 300,000 victims have yet to get anything
from either company.

Many have decided to sue to get justice.  

In North Carolina, Chemours and DuPont must take responsibility,
said Ted Leopold, an attorney involved in a class-action lawsuit
filed on behalf of the thousands of North Carolinians who've been
affected by the disaster.  

The class-action lawsuit accuses Chemours and DuPont of
"recklessly" dumping toxic, "cancer-causing chemicals" into the
Cape Fear River, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks
damages in excess of $5 million from the multi-billion-dollar
corporations for their negligence, private and public property
nuisance, trespass and unjust enrichment.  

Chemours and DuPont knew what they were doing, Leopold said. They
consciously knew they were contaminating the environment and
dumping toxic chemicals into people's drinking water, he said.

"Absent litigation and getting the full measure of justice, they
will continue to do these types of activities unless they know that
there are guardrails that force companies such as DuPont to stay in
the right lane," Leopold said. "A company like DuPont just through
their history of litigation, West Virginia being example,
evidently, doesn't get it."

Chemours and DuPont are named defendants in more than a thousand
legal cases in North Carolina, according to court records,
corporate filings and various attorneys. But North Carolina is just
the tip of the iceberg. Lawsuits in at least a dozen states accuse
Chemours and DuPont of negligence, deception and fraud in relation
to numerous water disasters beyond the Cape Fear.

Since 2017, at least seven states have filed lawsuits against
DuPont, according to the company's 2020 Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. DuPont is facing at least
one class-action lawsuit in New York, several lawsuits by private
residents in New Jersey and New York and litigation by numerous
public water utilities in California, West Virginia, New York, New
Jersey and elsewhere.

In addition to the lawsuits its fighting alongside DuPont, Chemours
is facing an additional lawsuit by the state of Mississippi,
according to its 2020 annual report. Chemours is also a named
defendant in at least three class-action lawsuits in Delaware, Ohio
and Georgia, roughly 27 lawsuits from public water suppliers in
several states, as well as at least two lawsuits by local
governments in West Virginia and Georgia.

The Chemours Fayetteville Works plant is located off N.C. 87 just
south of Fayetteville, N.C.

Chemours declined to comment, stating through a spokesperson that
the company doesn't provide comments on specific active litigation.


In an emailed statement, DuPont said it will "vigorously defend its
position" that "DuPont de Nemours has never made, used or sold
PFOA, PFOS, GenX or any other perfluorinated compounds in North
Carolina."

DuPont, or DuPont de Nemours, is the current product of several
financial transactions in the past few years. In 2017, E.I. duPont
de Nemours and Company, which operated the Fayetteville Works plant
until 2015, merged with Dow to create DowDuPont. Since then, the
conglomerate has separated into three smaller companies including
DuPont de Nemours.

The state of North Carolina and others believe these transactions
were fraudulent, and orchestrated by DuPont to help shield billions
of dollars in assets from affected parties.  

A mountain of lawsuits
Approximately 1,000 property owners and entities in North Carolina
have filed legal cases against Chemours and DuPont, according to
Baron & Budd, a Texas law firm involved in the litigation. The
lawsuits have all been consolidated into one mass action, and the
litigation is currently in the discovery phase.  

Chemours and DuPont are fighting back against the class-action
lawsuit "as hard as they can," Leopold said. The companies are
objecting to medical monitoring and other items that could help
those who've suffered health-related issues as a result of the
contamination.  

"Whatever they're doing is not voluntary," Leopold said. "They're
doing it pursuant to the consent order that they were entered into
and paid a multi-million dollar fine to the state of North
Carolina."

As required by the 2019 consent order, the chemical manufacturer is
supposed to test wells in the area around its Fayetteville Works
plant, Leopold said. For those who have contaminated wells,
Chemours must provide clean drinking water either through bottled
water or installing filters in the person's home.

"But that's a handful of people compared to the hundreds of
thousands that are obtaining unfiltered high concentrations of PFAS
chemicals in their drinking water," Leopold said.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Brunswick County, Lower Cape
Fear Water and Sewer and the town of Wrightsville Beach are also
suing DuPont and Chemours for the "extensive" damage done to their
infrastructures, according to their lawsuit filed in May 2019.

CFPUA is currently spending $46 million to renovate its Sweeney
Water Treatment Plant to prevent the PFAS chemicals from reaching
people's taps in New Hanover County. In Brunswick County, officials
have budgeted $167 million for a project to upgrade and expand its
Northwest Water Treatment Plant because of the water crisis.

CFPUA has spent $30 million to date to address Chemours' and
DuPont's pollution, according to a statement from CFPUA.

"So far, neither company has paid or offered to pay any of the
costs our community has borne and will bear to address problems
that no one disputes were caused by Chemours and DuPont," according
to the statement. "Instead, Chemours and DuPont have left our
community to fend for ourselves and forced CFPUA to ask a court to
make them do what is right."

Currently the lawsuit is in the discovery phase, meaning lawyers
for both sides are reviewing "millions of documents, emails and
other records" for any relevant information, according to the
statement.

Decades of deception, cover-ups
Across the country, Chemours and DuPont are facing allegations of
negligence, fraudulence and other claims stemming from their
unlawful discharge of PFAS chemicals, also known as per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

The main allegations of negligence stem from the company's
decades-long knowledge that PFAS were toxic and dangerous to
humans. Despite knowing that, DuPont actively hid this information
and engaged in various business transactions to prevent states from
seeking damages, according to various lawsuits filed by states
across the country.

As early as 1961, researchers at DuPont concluded PFOA, a type of
PFAS that leaked into the Cape Fear River, was toxic and should be
"handled with extreme care," according to a 2018 lawsuit between
the state of Ohio and Chemours and DuPont. Ohio sued Chemours and
DuPont for negligence, public nuisance, trespass and punitive
damages in relation to the company's contamination of the Ohio
River from its Washington Works chemical plant in Parkersburg, West
Virginia.

The state of Ohio alleges DuPont became so concerned about its
toxic chemical leaking out into public drinking water that it began
covertly collecting water samples in 1984, according to the
lawsuit. Testing of those samples revealed that PFOA, also known as
C8, was in public drinking water, yet company officials didn't warn
the public.

DuPont employees held a meeting at the company's headquarters in
Wilmington, Delaware, that same year to discuss the PFOA issues,
according to a 2019 lawsuit filed by the state of New Hampshire
against Chemours, DuPont and others. New Hampshire sued the
chemical manufacturers for negligence, fraud and a host of other
allegations.

"During the 1984 meeting, DuPont employees in attendance spoke of
the PFOA issue as 'one of corporate image, and corporate
liability,'" according to the lawsuit.

Despite the concern, DuPont decided against using available
technology in 1984 to contain PFOA releases from its chemical
plants, according to the lawsuit.

DuPont allegedly made the same decision with the Fayetteville Works
site outside Fayetteville, according to a 2019 lawsuit Chemours
filed against DuPont. Chemours' lawsuit accused DuPont of
purposefully and unfairly offloading the company's environmental
liability onto Chemours and then indemnifying itself against any
claims.

Chemours alleged DuPont had several options ranging from $20
million to $60 million that would reduce or possibly end PFAS
discharges into the Cape Fear River, according to the lawsuit.
Instead, DuPont chose to spend $2.3 million to eliminate one stream
of pollution before it ultimately decided to terminate the rest of
the project in late 2013.

"Why bother spending money to fix the problem, DuPont apparently
reasoned, when it could be conveniently passed on to Chemours,"
Chemours alleged of DuPont in the lawsuit.

DuPont hid billions from victims
North Carolina's lawsuit against Chemours and DuPont claims the
companies purposefully misled state and federal regulators for
years to avoid legal trouble. The state also alleges DuPont tried
to shield itself from paying out billions of dollars for its
chemical contamination across the country by restructuring and
spinning off certain product lines.

DuPont's fraudulent transactions were motivated by greed and profit
maximization, said Josh Stein, North Carolina's attorney general.
The state wants the court system to unwind those transactions.

"DuPont over the last five years engaged in a series of corporate
transactions designed to shield billions of dollars of their assets
from the state of North Carolina, and from others, because they
don't want to pay for the damage they've done," Stein said.

In its lawsuit against DuPont, Chemours didn't accuse DuPont of
fraud, but alleged DuPont purposefully spun off Chemours as a way
to jettison its environmental liabilities and fund a massive stock
buyback.

The idea of shifting the environmental liability began in 2013 when
DuPont's management came up with an initiative named "Project
Beta," according to Chemours' lawsuit.

Project Beta took on greater importance later in 2013 after an
"activist hedge fund" called Trian Fund Management took a stake in
DuPont and began advocating for the conglomerate to be dismantled,
according to Chemours' lawsuit.

"Hoping to ward off Trian, DuPont planned a $5 billion stock
buyback," according to Chemours' lawsuit. "To fund the repurchase,
DuPont decided to move forward quickly with the Project
Beta/performance chemical spinoff."

The lawsuit between Chemours and DuPont was eventually dismissed in
Delaware state court, and earlier this year the two companies
entered into a cost-sharing agreement in which Chemours and DuPont
would split the future costs of any PFAS liability, according to
DuPont's 2020 Form 10-K filing. In exchange, Chemours agreed to
release the claims it made in its lawsuit against DuPont.

DuPont believes its transaction with Chemours was lawful, despite
allegations stating otherwise, according to its statement. The
company added, "DuPont will continue to defend itself when we
believe we have been wrongfully named in PFAS cases."

Fighting to take responsibility
The state of North Carolina is currently in a "motions battle" with
Chemours and DuPont, Stein said. Both companies are trying to get
the case dismissed while the state has argued it should proceed. A
judge has yet to make a ruling.

Once the case moves past the preliminary motions, the state will
begin an "extensive and aggressive discovery" phase to uncover
evidence to back up its claims, Stein said.

"We all want instant gratification, but deep-seated challenging
issues that involve substantial resources take time," Stein said.

Ryke Longest expects a lot more litigation to be filed against
chemical companies who manufactured PFAS throughout the proceeding
decades. Longest, a professor and director of clinical programs at
Duke School of Law, also expects chemical manufacturers will likely
have to pay for much of the damage they caused.

"I don't think there's a risk to participating," Longest said. "I
mean the only risk I think in the end would be the last person
who's unaware that they have been harmed. At that point, if you've
run out of money in the settlement, or if you've run out of the
ability to pay, that's the issue."

He added, "I think that's why we're seeing this big rush of
lawsuits because people want to make sure that their claims get a
chance to be heard." Do you think it makes sense to keep Ryke
Longest in this top section or move him all the way down to the
bottom? In terms of flow I feel like he doesn't really fit.

The motions to dismiss is just one of many different delay tactics
corporate entities like to employ in large civil lawsuits, Longest
said.

One tactic that's also very common for corporations to use to slow
lawsuits down is to argue the plaintiffs haven't filed the
litigation in the current court, Longest said. There can be delays
if lawyers start arguing over whether the litigation is in the
correct venue.

Lawyers can also slow cases down by deposing every plaintiff in a
lawsuit, especially if there are many, Longest said. Deposing every
plaintiff adds a lot of time because defense attorneys can require
plaintiffs to bring documentation proving their claim.

"Any given side that has enough resources can use the rules of the
game to greatly increase the cost to the other side," Longest said.


At some point, Chemours and DuPont have to take responsibility for
what they did, Leopold said. That either means they need to make
their case before a jury, agree to a settlement or find another way
to help those impacted in North Carolina.

Companies like DuPont don't seem to get that their actions have
affected people's lives, Leopold said. Because of that communities
have to keep forcing them into court until they understand.

"It's very important that corporate governance and ethics are
followed," Leopold said. "Citizens and communities have to rely
upon corporate conduct being right, ethical and corporations being
responsible. Oftentimes unfortunately we have seen that companies
don't act the right way." [GN]

CHEMOURS CO: Dismissed from Contaminated Drinking Water Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company has been
dismissed in the putative class action suit in Delaware alleging
contamination in drinking water.

In May 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware state
court against two electroplating companies, 3M Company (3M), E. I.
du Pont de Nemours (DuPont), alleging responsibility for  Per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination, including
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS), in drinking water and the environment in the nearby
community.

Although initially named in the lawsuit, Chemours was subsequently
dismissed.

The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance,
trespass, and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal
injury and property damages, and punitive damages. The matter was
removed to federal court.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: NY State Teachers' Retirement System Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit headed by the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System.

In October 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware
federal court against Chemours and certain of its officers.
Following appointment of lead plaintiff, the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System, and counsel, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint alleging that the defendants violated the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in public disclosures regarding
environmental liabilities and litigation matters assigned to
Chemours in connection with its spin-off from E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company ("EID").

The amended complaint seeks a class of purchasers of Chemours stock
between February 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019 and demands
compensatory damages and fees.

Commencing in July 2020, follow-on derivative lawsuits were filed
by individual shareholders in Delaware courts against Chemours, its
directors, and certain of its officers.

The lawsuits rely on factual allegations similar to those in the
securities action discussed above and allege breach of fiduciary
duty and other claims.

The Chemours said, "Management believes that it is not possible at
this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these litigations or
to estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, as the matters are
in the early stages with significant issues to be resolved. The
Company believes that it has applicable insurance, and coverage has
been accepted by the primary insurance carrier with a reservation
of rights for the putative class action matter. If the Company were
not to prevail in the litigations and were to fail to secure
insurance coverage or ample insurance coverage, the impact could be
material to the Company's results of operations, financial
position, and cash flows."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Ohio Lawsuit Over PFAS in Blood Serum Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative class action in Ohio related to
detectable level of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds
(PFAS) in blood serum.

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal
court against 3M Company (3M), E. I. du Pont de Nemours (DuPont),
Chemours, and other defendants seeking class action status for U.S.
residents having a detectable level of
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their blood serum.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
the establishment of a "PFAS Science Panel".

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

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHERNE CONTRACTING: Settlement in Parker Suit Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEATRICE PARKER, et al.,
v. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-01912-HSG (N.D.
Cal. ), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of class action.

The Settlement Agreement authorizes the Class Representatives to
seek service awards of up to $5,000 for Plaintiff Parker and $2,500
for Plaintiff Gurule. This is a non-reversionary settlement in
which Defendant is required to pay the entirety of the Maximum
Settlement Amount, so if the Court approves a reduced award, the
remainder will be distributed to members of the Class.

The Court finds that at the preliminary approval stage, the intent
to seek incentive awards does not suggest preferential treatment of
any segment of the class, particularly because any portion of the
award that the Court declines to grant will be distributed to Class
members.

The Settlement Agreement also provides for the named Plaintiffs to
enter into a General Release in exchange for $20,000 each. The
Plaintiffs intend to apply separately for the Court's approval of
the General Release Payments with the motion for attorneys' fees
and costs. The Court preliminarily finds that because the General
Release does not apply to the Settlement Class Members, the General
Release Payments to the named Plaintiffs do not improperly grant
preferential treatment. However, the Court will revisit this issue
when Plaintiffs file their motion.

Cherne is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of
business includes the construction of nonresidential buildings.

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



CIMAREX ENERGY: Stipulated Protective Order in Dolan Suit Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico issued a Protective Order in the
lawsuit captioned ROBERT DOLAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CIMAREX
ENERGY CO., Defendant, Case No. CV 20-1304 WJ/CG (D.N.M.).

The Parties agreed to a Protective Order to preserve the
confidentiality of information produced or disclosed by Parties
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 30, 33, 34 and 36,
or by Court Orders. The Parties submitted an agreement as a
stipulated form of protective order.

The Parties agree that certain materials, if obtained during the
course of this litigation, as permitted by federal law and the
rules of the Court, may be marked private and confidential and
subject to this Order, including medical, psychological or
counseling records, and marital records related to any persons and
the information contained in such records; and tax returns, pay
records, loan applications, financial statements, W-9 forms, W-2
forms, and form 1099s related to the Plaintiffs, class members,
putative class members, or any other persons, and non-public
financial records of the Defendant, and Defendant's corporate
parents, affiliates, vendors, and employees.

The designated confidential materials will remain confidential and,
absent permission by the Court, will be used only for the purpose
of preparation and presentation of this case. The confidential
materials may only be disclosed to:

   A. The parties and class members that have filed a consent or
      are proper parties;

   B. The attorneys for the parties and the attorneys' staff;

   C. The Court, the Court's staff, and the staff of the Court
      Clerk;

   D. Any witness during the course of depositions;

   E. Any court reporter or videographer;

   F. Any person who is or reasonably may be expected to be a
      witness in this action; and

   G. Any person who reasonably would need to see such materials
      in order give testimony or information related to the case,
      to form opinions or to serve as a consultant with regard to
      issues in the action.

In order to comply with HIPAA requirements and particularly 45
C.F.R. Section 164.512(e)(v)(A), (B), a party receiving medical
records must: (a) not use or disclose the protected health
information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding
for which such information was requested; and (b) must return such
information to either the entity from which it was received, or the
attorney of the party to whom it pertains or destroy the protected
health information (including all copies made), which actions must
be taken at the end of the litigation or proceeding.

In the case of disclosure of records or confidential information to
persons, who are potential witnesses, such persons must sign the
agreement attached as Exhibit A. Such persons must be advised that
the information is subject to a confidentiality order and that such
order applies to them. Such persons must be advised that they must
maintain such information as confidential.

Confidential records subject to this Order need not generally be
filed or presented under seal. Medical, counseling or psychological
records, marital records, personnel records, grade transcripts,
trade secrets and non-public financial records or tax returns will
be sealed along with the portions of any transcripts of testimony,
reports or other documents which would disclose information
contained in such records.

The party entitled to hold the information as confidential may
waive the confidentiality of all or part of any otherwise
confidential information or waive the requirement that any portion
of information be filed under seal, however such waiver will not be
implied but must be made by the waiving party in writing.

Information that is confidential will be marked confidential by
denoting "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION." Trade secrets
will be identified as trade secrets by denoting "TRADE SECRETS."
Any party receiving information marked as confidential or a
designation of deposition testimony may dispute the designation of
confidentiality by sending a written statement to the designating
party.

Control and distribution of the information and/or documents
subject to this Order will be the responsibility of the attorneys
of record.

The Parties also agree on procedures on how to control Claims of
Privilege or inadvertent disclosure of privileged or confidential
material.

Information filed of record or presented in open court ceases to be
confidential, when so filed or presented. However, such filed
information will not be used for any other purpose by the parties
in this case nor limit the right of either party to move separately
for the sealing of such information or for its withdrawal from the
public record.

The Parties also agree that the entry of this Protective Order does
not constitute a determination that any materials designated as
confidential are either relevant, admissible or subject to being
produced during discovery. Each party retains the right to make
substantive objections to discovery requests other than those based
on privacy or confidentiality.

The Order will not affect or limit the presentation of evidence,
including materials marked as confidential, during the trial of
this action.

At the conclusion of the litigation--which includes completion of
all appeals, matters on remand or the expiration of time for
appeals--counsel will, if requested, return tax records, medical or
counseling records, marital records, educational records and trade
secrets. The balance of any other confidential records will be
returned or destroyed at counsel's option after the passage of five
years. It is in all instances the responsibility of the party
seeking return of documents to make a formal request for return and
set out the proposed manner of return.

A full-text copy of the Court's Protective Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/a9hcc8c from Leagle.com.


COINBASE GLOBAL: Kelly Sues Over Irregular Crypto Investments
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN KELLY and KENNETH THALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.;
COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06010 (N.D. Cal., Aug.
3, 2021) is a class action is on behalf of all Coinbase "wallet"
and account holders who have had their wallets or accounts frozen
by Coinbase or hacked by third parties.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Coinbase improperly and
unreasonably locks out its consumers from accessing their accounts
and funds, either for extended periods of time or permanently.
Because of the extreme volatility of cryptocurrencies' value - with
freefalls of 40% within 24 hours not unheard of - the inability to
access an account to sell, buy, or trade cryptocurrency leads to
severe financial loss. Making matters worse, Coinbase fails to
timely respond to customer pleas for support and help, and also
fails to preserve and safeguard customer funds as it promises, the
Plaintiffs assert.

Coinbase's failures have prevented the Plaintiffs and Class Members
from having "full control of your crypto" and from being able to
"invest, spend, save, earn, and use," or withdraw their funds as
Coinbase promises. As a result of Coinbase's conduct, the
Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged through the loss of
their wallet and account access, the funds and investments in those
accounts and, among other things, their investment opportunities,
added the suit.

Coinbase Global, Inc. is a regulated cryptocurrency company that
provides customers around the world with a platform for buying,
selling, transferring, and storing digital assets. The Company
offers a variety of products and services that enable individuals,
businesses, and developers to participate in the cryptoeconomy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  jdavis@bholaw.com

               -and-

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David J. Worley, Esq.
          Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
          Leslie G. Toran, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
          E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
                  david@ewlawllc.com
                  kristi@ewlawllc.com
                  leslie@ewlawllc.com

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal made by the
company in the class action suit related to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), is pending.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed
against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

This action was certified as a class action in July 2017.

In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed
certain claims on consent of the parties. In August 2020, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims.

The Company and the Plan are contesting this action vigorously and,
in September 2020, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Escriba Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GABRIELA ESCRIBA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC.;
PROTECH STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CIV SB 2115512, was removed from the Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01326 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages earned for all hours
worked, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal
periods, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, and
unfair competition.

Communications Test Design, Inc. is a company that provides
telecommunication solutions, headquartered in West Chester,
Pennsylvania.

Protech Staffing Services, Inc. is a staffing agency based in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         James E. Hart, Esq.
         Leah E. Peterson, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 705-3000
         Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
         E-mail: jhart@littler.com
                 lwhitehead@littler.com

CONCHO RESOURCES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Concho Resources Inc. ("Concho") (NYSE: CXO) between
February 21, 2018 and July 31, 2019. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. To get
more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/concho-resources-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18340&wire=5

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

Concho Resources Inc. NEWS - CXO NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the well
spacing at Dominator was aggressive and highly risky, and premised
on no reasonable basis to believe it would work as intended; (2)
Concho's practice of implementing tighter well spacing was not
relegated to a handful of "tests" and therefore more widespread
than the market was led to believe; (3) it was known or recklessly
disregarded that any measures to mitigate well spacing risks were
non-existent and or/impossible; (4) these risks had manifested
during the Class Period, causing underground well interference and
permanently decreasing production, forcing the Company to scale
back production targets and adopt more conservative spacing
measures in its other projects; (5) it would take multiple quarters
to unwind the impacts of the widespread well spacing failure; and
(6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Concho,
you have until September 28, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Concho securities between February
21, 2018 and July 31, 2019, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/concho-resources-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18340&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

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

CONCHO RESOURCES: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Concho
Resources Inc. ("Concho" or "the Company") (NYSE: CXO) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
21, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Concho's Dominator Project ("Dominator")
in the Delaware Basin suffered from aggressive and risky well
spacing with no reasonable expectation of successful operation. The
Company's practice of tighter well spacing was far more widespread
than it communicated to the market. Any measures the Company
considered to mitigate its risky well spacing were non-existent.
The Company was forced to scale back production after underground
well interference permanently decreased production. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Concho, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Jones Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LONNIE JONES, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CONVERSE ELECTRIC, INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01830-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
      action under Section 216(b) against Defendant Converse
      Electric on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others similarly
      situated;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      FLSA claims is sent by U.S. mail and email to:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt
      electricians/electrical technicians, electrical
      superintendents, electrical foreman, warehouse associates,
      and pre-fab employees of Defendant whose payroll records
      reflect that they worked 40 or more hours in any workweek
      during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion
      and continuing through the final disposition of this
      case;"

   3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;

   4. directing the Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an
      order granting conditional certification, a Roster of all
      persons who fit the definition in paragraph 2 (the
      "Putative Class Members" or "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs")
      that includes their full names, dates of employment, job
      titles, last known home addresses, and personal email
      addresses; and

   5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
      Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
      within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the Putative
      Class Members’ home and email addresses.

This case involves the Defendant's regular rate and meal deduction
policies and/or practices, both of which result in unpaid overtime
compensation and other compensation to Named Plaintiff and those
similarly situated as more fully outlined below.

The Named Plaintiff has submitted allegations and evidence that
under these policies and/or practices, Defendant (1) pays Named
Plaintiff and other employees additional forms of remuneration,
including, but not limited to, a reimbursement for expenses
normally incurred for employees' benefit such as cellphone
allowances for use of their personal cell phones but does not
include such remuneration in their regular rates of pay; and (2)
requires an automatic meal break deduction of at least 30 minutes
(or simply does not compensate its Associates for
at least 30 minutes per day) from its hourly, non-exempt
employees’ daily hours worked for meal breaks that are either
never taken or are interrupted with work duties. These policies
and/or practices deprive Defendant's hourly, non-exempt employees
of their hard-earned overtime pay.

Converse Electric provides electrical contracting services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

CORMEDIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix") (NASDAQ: CRMD) between
July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. To get more
information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18356&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

CorMedix Inc. NEWS - CRMD NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) deficiencies
existed with respect to an investigational drug product,
DefenCath's, manufacturing process and/or at the facility
responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the
foregoing deficiencies, the Food and Drug Administration was
unlikely to approve the DefenCath new drug application for
catheter-related bloodstream infections in its present form; (iii)
Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the deficiencies with
DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the facility
responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
CorMedix, you have until September 20, 2021 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased CorMedix securities between July
8, 2020 and May 13, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18356&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

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

CYTODYN INC: Movant Courter to File 5-Page Surreply in Lewis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ANGELA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYTODYN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C21-5190 BHS (W.D. Wash.), the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, directed
Movant Courter to file a five-page surreply to the other movant's
argument.

The matter comes before the Court on Movant Dr. Smila Kodali's
motion to consolidate actions, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve
her selection of lead and liaison counsel, and Movant Brian Joe
Courter and Courter and Sons LLC's (collectively "Courter") motion
for consolidation of related actions, appointment as lead
plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel.

The action is a putative securities class action lawsuit against
Defendant CytoDyn, Inc., and two of its executive officers,
Defendants Nader Pourhassen and Michael Mulholland. The action
asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class of all persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired CytoDyn common stock
between March 27, 2020, and March 9, 2021.

On March 18, 2021, Plaintiff Lewis (the first-filed Plaintiff)
published notice pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") over Globe Newswire, a widely
circulated national business-oriented wire service. Members of the
purported class have 60 days after the date on which the notice is
published to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

On May 17, 2021, motions to consolidate cases and to appoint lead
plaintiff and approve selection of counsel were filed by Plaintiff
Lewis, Movant Charles Huang, Movants Candra Evans and Kenneth
Kirschenbaum, Movant Michael O'Donnell, Movant Ho "Matt" Chun,
Movant Dr. Smila Kodali, and Movants Brian Joe Courter and Courter
and Sons, LLC. Notices of non-opposition to competing lead
plaintiff motions were then filed by O'Donnell, Huang, Evans and
Kirschenbaum, and Chun withdrew his motion to appoint. Lewis did
not file a response or a notice of nonopposition.

Thus, the remaining two movants for lead plaintiff are Kodali and
Courter. On June 1, 2021, both Kodali and Courter responded to the
other Movants' motions. On June 4, 2021, Kodali and Courter replied
to the others' responses. On June 9, 2021, Kodali filed a surreply,
requesting that the Court strike footnote 6 of Courter's reply
brief and Exhibit D to the Reply Declaration of Bradley S. Keller.
Kodali and Courter contest who suffered the greater loss and,
therefore, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought
by the class.

Movant Kodali argues for the first time in reply that the Courter's
losses do not comply with Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544
U.S. 336 (2005). She asserts that Courter's losses are incalculable
as required by Dura because Courter's losses were incurred prior to
the disclosures about the alleged misrepresentations.

Courter has not had the opportunity to respond to this new
argument, and the Court, therefore, requests a surreply from
Courter as to whether his losses are proximately caused by
CytoDyn's misrepresentations as required by Dura.

The Court rules that Courter will have to file a surreply, and the
surreply will be no longer than five pages. The Clerk will have to
renote the pending motions to consolidate actions, appoint lead
plaintiff, and approve selection of lead and liaison for the
Court's calendar.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5dw6ffrj from Leagle.com.


DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Ito-Stone Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
DBV Technologies S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey entered an order granting the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed
in Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV Technologies, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00525, without prejudice.

A class action complaint was filed on January 15, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
entitled Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV Technologies, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00525.

The complaint alleged that the Company and its former Chief
Executive Officer, its current Chief Executive Officer, and its
former Deputy Chief Executive Officer violated certain federal
securities laws, specifically under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
cla

ss of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 14,
2018 and March 16, 2020.

On July 29, 2021, immediately after a hearing with the court, the
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey entered an order
granting the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint without prejudice.

The Court indicated that the Second Amended Complaint was deficient
in a number of ways and granted Plaintiffs until September 30 to
amend the complaint to try to cure the deficiencies.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the amended
complaint are without merit and will defend the case vigorously.

The Company believes this complaint will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

DBV Technologies S.A., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
engages in the research and development of epicutaneous
immunotherapy products. The Company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Montrouge, France.


DESERT FIRE: Amador Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHANTELLE AMADOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESERT FIRE LLC dba SILVER DOLLAR
CLUB; DAMON SHRADER; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 6:21-cv-01166-MK (D. Ore., August 9, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal
kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.

The Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer at the Defendants'
Silver Dollar Club located at 2620 W. 10th Place, Eugene, Oregon
from February 2021 to June 2021.

Desert Fire LLC is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment
facility under the name Silver Dollar Club located at 2620 W. 10th
Place, Eugene, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         S. Amanda Marshall, Esq.
         S. AMANDA MARSHALL LLC
         4545 SW Angel Ave. #104
         Beaverton, OR 97005
         Telephone: (503) 472-7190
         E-mail: amanda@maclaw.com

                - and –

         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         KRISTENSEN LLP
         12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
         Los Angeles, CA 90066
         Telephone: (310) 507-7924
         Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

DISCOVER BANK: Golden Files Bankruptcy Appeal in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tashanna B. Golden files bankruptcy appeal in the Eastern District
of New York. The case is styled as Tashanna B. Golden formerly
known as: Tashanna B. Pearson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant v. Discover Bank, Appellee, Case No.
1:21-cv-04531-LDH (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021).

Discover Bank -- https://www.discover.com/online-banking/ -- is an
online bank with great savings and CD rates, an extensive network
of free ATMs, and a free checking account that pays rewards.[BN]

The Appellant is represented by:

          Adam Reese Shaw, Esq.
          George F. Carpinello, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          30 S Pearl St, 11th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: (518) 434-0600
          Fax: (518) 434-0665
          Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com
                 gcarpinello@bsfllp.com

The Appellee is represented by:

          Brian P. Morgan, Esq.
          Clay Jackson Pierce, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 248-3272
          Email: brian.morgan@faegredrinker.com
                 clay.pierce@dbr.com

               - and -

          Erin Hoffman, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 766-8043
          Fax: (612) 766-1600
          Email: erin.hoffman@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Kyle R. Hosmer, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 607-3656
          Email: kyle.hosmer@faegredrinker.com


EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Hoekman Appeals Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Linda Hoekman, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Linda Hoekman, et al. v.
Education Minnesota, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01686-SRN, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Plaintiffs Linda Hoekman and Deborah York are current or former
public-school teachers who bring this class action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking redress for
the Defendants' past and ongoing violations of their
constitutionally protected rights. The Defendants have allegedly
violated the class members' constitutional rights by forcing them
to work in an "agency shop," where non-union members are compelled
to pay compulsory "fair-share fees" to Education Minnesota or its
affiliates as a condition of their employment.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 23, 2021,
Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of Judge Nelson's Summary Judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Linda Hoekman, et al. v.
Education Minnesota, et al., Case No. 21-2675, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 7, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on September 17, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Mary Dee Buros, Paul Hanson, Linda Hoekman
and Thomas P. Piekarski is due on September 17, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul
Hanson, all appellants on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          James Dickey, Esq.
          Douglas Seaton, Esq.  
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7002

               - and -

          Talcott Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-8730  
          E-mail: ginger@talcottfranklin.com  

               - and -

          Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW, PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

Defendants-Appellees Education Minnesota, as representative of the
class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; Anoka
Hennepin Education Minnesota, as representative of the class of all
chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; National Education
Association; and Shakopee Education Association, as representatives
of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota,
are represented by:

          David Aron, Esq.
          Cedrick Frazier, Esq.
          EDUCATION MINNESOTA
          41 Sherburne Avenue
          Saint Paul, MN 55103
          Telephone: (651) 292-4819
          E-mail: david.aron@edmn.org
                  cedrick.frazier@edmn.org  

               - and -

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          Amanda C. Lynch, Esq.
          Patrick C. Pitts, Esq.    
          ALTSHULER & BERZON
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altber.com
                  dleonard@altshulerberzon.com
                  alynch@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Margaret Luger-Nikolai, Esq.
          GREGG M. CORWIN & ASSOCIATES
          508 E. Parkdale Plaza Building
          1660 S. Highway 100
          Saint Louis Park, MN 55416-1534
          Telephone: (651) 227-9541

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Palm Tran Class Actions Ongoing in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend class action suits initiated by Palm Tran, Inc. –
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Plaintiff Alan
I. Roth; and Plaintiff Stephen M. Weiss, respectively.

On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021 and June 2, 2021 class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current
and former senior officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

These complaints were filed by Plaintiff Palm Tran, Inc. –
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Plaintiff Alan
I. Roth; and Plaintiff Stephen M. Weiss, respectively.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading information about its
capabilities to manufacture COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaints are
false and intend to defend the matters vigorously.

Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to
protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty
products for civilian and military populations that address
accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health
threats.


ENBRIDGE US: MBF Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene in Robertson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Non-party MBF INSPECTION SERVICES INC. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, ANGEL
HERNANDEZ, GORDON LUNSTED, and GREG HUGGINS individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC.,
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC. And CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT-TIR, LLC., Case No. 2-19-cv-01080, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Robertson, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated employees, filed a class and
collective action lawsuit against Enbridge alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Subsequently, Joshua Brimmer, Francisco Castro, Joseph Linsicombe,
Deano Trott, and Merwin Hoover joined the action. Together,
Robertson and the opt-in plaintiffs sought damages for unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, other
damages, attorneys' fees and litigation costs under the FLSA and
Pennsylvania wage and hour laws.

MBF Inspection is seeking a review of the Court's Order dated June
23, 2021, denying its motion to intervene.

The appellate case is captioned as Zachariah Robertson, et al. v.
Enbridge US Inc, et al., Case No. 21-2387, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 28,
2021.[BN]

Not Party-Appellant MBF INSPECTION SERVICES INC. is represented
by:

          William R. Stukenberg, Esq.
          PORTER & HEDGES
          1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 226-6611

Plaintiffs-Appellees ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, ANGEL HERNANDEZ, GORDON
LUNSTED, and GREG HUGGINS individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard Burch, Esq.
          8 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com  

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          William Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com  

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          William F. Goodrich, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST
          3634 California Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 281-1455
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
                  bill@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Logue, Esq.
          John E. Quinn, Esq.
          QUINN LOGUE
          200 First Avenue, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800

Defendants-Appellees ENBRIDGE US INC., CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES
INC., and CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TIR LLC are represented
by:

          Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com   

               - and -

          Rachel M. Hoffer, Esq.
          John P. Phillips, Esq.
          Timothy M. Watson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 225-2300
          E-mail: rhoffer@seyfarth.com
                  jphillips@seyfarth.com
                  twatson@seyfarth.com  

               - and -

          Shelly R. Pagac, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-4343
          E-mail: srp@pietragallo.com

               - and -

          John B. Bollman, Esq.
          Rachel B. Cowen, Esq.
          Joseph K. Mulherin, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
          444 West Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 277-2366
          E-mail: rcowen@mwe.com

               - and -

          Ryan O. Hemminger, Esq.
          LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL
          525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-1600
          E-mail: rhemminger@leechtishman.com

Movants-Appellees ONSHORE QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALISTS LLC and AVERY
TECHNICAL RESOURCES INC are represented by:

          Mary Fee, Esq.
          Joseph M. Sokolowski, Esq.  
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (773) 710-6226

ENTERPRISE GOLD: Almanzar FLSA-NYLL Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAFAEL ALMANZAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ENTERPRISE GOLD STREET PARKING LLC and
WORLD TOWER PARKING GARAGE, LLC, Case No. 652379/2021, was removed
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on August 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 7:21-cv-06672 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Enterprise Gold Street Parking LLC is an operator of a parking
garage located in New York, New York.

World Tower Parking Garage, LLC is a parking service provider based
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Joseph J. DiPalma, Esq.
         Brian A. Bodansky, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         44 South Broadway, 14th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 872-8060
         Facsimile: (914) 946-1216
         E-mail: joseph.dipalma@jacksonlewis.com
                 brian.bodansky@jacksonlewis.com

EPIC GAMES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Fortnite Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Meyer, writing for Venture Beat, reports that since 30% of the
world's gamers -- approximately 750 million people -- are under 18,
minors constitute a valuable and important part of the video game
market. However, as any loving parent will tell you, children are
great, but they can complicate things. As a recent series of court
decisions involving Epic Games' Fortnite has shown, children can
sometimes render a game company's End User License Agreement (EULA)
unenforceable, thus complicating a company's legal strategy.

One nearly universal way that software companies, including game
publishers and developers, manage their legal risk and protect
their intellectual property is through an EULA. When a customer
purchases software, such as video games, they are almost always
purchasing a license to install and use the software, so the
customer ultimately does not own the software itself. What the
customer can and cannot do with the software is spelled out by the
EULA. Not only do EULAs help protect a company's intellectual
property, they also frequently limit where the customer can sue the
company, which state laws apply, etc. When the customer is a minor,
however, some or all of a EULA might be unenforceable.

One of the risks many companies, including game publishers and
developers, seek to avoid is having a lawsuit certified as a class
action. This is why companies often include arbitration provisions
in their EULAs since, if a dispute by a customer can only be filed
as an arbitration, it cannot be certified as a class. However,
under some circumstances, such provisions cannot be enforced
against minors.

In one case, R.A. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. CV 19-1488-GW-Ex (C.D.
Cal. July 30, 2019), a minor plaintiff, R.A., filed a complaint
against Epic Games asserting claims for violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and false
advertising based on Epic's Fortnite. R.A. filed the case as a
putative class action, meaning that R.A. would eventually request
that the court certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs who
would all benefit from any settlement or verdict. To avoid this
development, Epic moved to enforce the arbitration clause of its
EULA against R.A. Unfortunately for Epic, in California, where the
case had been filed, minors can disaffirm a contract by "any act or
declaration disclosing an unequivocal intent to repudiate its
binding force and effect," as long as they disaffirm the contract
in its entirety. Since R.A. had stopped playing Fortnite and also
filed a declaration disaffirming the EULA, the court denied Epic's
motion to compel arbitration. The following year, in Doe v. Epic
Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2020), a different
federal court in California came to the same conclusion based on
similar facts.

Game companies can circumvent this problem by establishing that,
even if the person playing the video game is a minor, the person
who consented to the EULA is a parent or guardian. For example, in
Crawford v. Sony Interactive Entm't LLC, No. 3:20-cv-01732-JD (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 30, 2021), the court referred the case to arbitration
because, even though a minor was playing Fortnite hosted on Sony's
PlayStation Network and had spent $1,000 on in-app purchases
without parental consent, the minor's parent did not dispute that
she was the person who originally accepted Sony's licensing and
terms of service agreements. Of course, putting a parental consent
requirement into a EULA or other agreement, by itself is not always
enough -- R.A used his father's email address to install Fortnite
and consent to the EULA without his father's consent or knowledge.

While a sufficiently motivated child might be unstoppable, game
companies can reduce their risk by requiring a parent to provide
credit card information (even when the basic game is free-to-play,
like Fortnite), to use a third party identity verification
solution, or to provide biometrics. And, to limit the amount of
exposure once a parent (or someone stating they are a parent)
consents, game companies can require multi-step authentication,
such as receiving a text or email containing a verification code,
for each in-app purchase to prevent a child from making
unauthorized purchases using stored payment information. Companies
can also avoid the need for litigation by permitting refunds for
in-app purchases, since angry parents who get their money back for
unauthorized or accidental purchases have no need to file
lawsuits.

As stated above, children are great (they are valuable customers to
the video game industry), but they can complicate things (they can
render a EULA completely ineffective). Accordingly, video game
companies must take the legal status of their minor customers into
account when drafting their EULAs and other agreements, and they
must take measures to better ensure parental consent to those
agreements and subsequent in-app purchases. By implementing
stricter verification requirements for online and in-app purchases
or offering refunds on purchases made without parental consent,
game companies can limit their liability and risk of litigation
while still serving their younger customers. [GN]

FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gwendoline Aboah and Tania
Stewart, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. d/b/a BrightStar
Care of Fairfield & Southbury and Peter R. Moore, Case No.
3:20-cv-00763-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting extension of time to file their motions for
conditional certification and class certification under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On April 29, 2021, this Court entered a Scheduling Order, based on
the parties' Rule 26(f) Report. The Court ordered that
"Pre-certification discovery limited to liability, special defenses
and class certification shall be completed by September 14, 2021.
Any motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective will
be filed by Plaintiffs by August 10, 2021. Any motion for class
certification under Rule 23 will be filed by Plaintiffs by
September 15, 2021."

The Plaintiffs have taken the depositions of two fact witnesses and
the designee of Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. the corporate
Defendant. The individual Defendant, Mr. Peter Moore, is available
for his deposition on any of these dates: August 13 (after 2); 16,
17 and 23.

Fairfield Healthcare is in the Home Health Care Services business.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sb8gzY at no extra
charge.[CC]


FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairfield University.
The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Fairfield University, Case No.
1:21-cv-06776 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021).

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

Fairfield University -- https://www.fairfield.edu/ -- is a private,
Catholic university run by the Society of Jesus in Fairfield,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FCA US LLC: Car Owners Respond to Sunroof Leak Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Barnabi, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit between David Cox and Chrysler that settled in
September 2020 garnered various responses from car owners who read
glassBYTEs.com and continues to do so.

According to a judge's order, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)
agreed to pay attorney's fees, costs, and an incentive reward
separately from the class member's injunctive relief.

Class members will be awarded $350,000 for attorneys' fees and
$128,873.79 for costs, as well as a $4,000 incentive award to Cox
paid by FCA.

Comments from car owners were wide and varied. Kent Irving said his
2014 Chrysler Town and Country van's sunroof leaked. He talked with
a local dealer and was told the drainage tubes were too small, so
they were replaced with larger tubes "that eliminated the
problem."

Melinda T. Sorrell bought a 2008 Jeep Liberty Sport in Culpeper
County which she had fixed several times. She says the dealership
was only worried about the cost to fix the sunroof after she took
it one time and suddenly the leak was not under warranty. "So I now
have a car in great condition that I can only use when the sun is
shining and have to keep a cover over it when it calls for rain,"
she said online. "I love my jeep but would never buy another one."

Three others commented on their Jeep models having sunroof leaks,
including Maria Bowers who said her vehicle is growing mold inside
and she will never buy another Jeep.

Cox filed the suit in 2014 alleging that the manufacturer was
negligent in disclosing to vehicle owners the importance of regular
maintenance on the sunroof drain tubes of affected Chryslers,
including the Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep
Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and
Country and Chrysler 300, from 2009 to 2020.

A settlement was reached in November 2019, but additional motion
hearings were ordered.

Cox owned a 2010 Jeep Patriot for less than a year when the sunroof
began to leak and damage the interior of the vehicle. Court
documents state that after the dealer cleaned out the sunroof drain
tubes, the leak continued. Cox returned the vehicle to Chrysler for
service in June 2013, but the car company allegedly refused to
repair the leak under warranty. [GN]

FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Lifetime Warranty Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chrysler lifetime warranty lawsuit is still in court as Fiat
Chrysler (FCA) tries to convince the judge the class action should
be completely dismissed.

Kansas plaintiff Michael Marksberry purchased a 2009 Ram 1500 truck
from Olathe Dodge on October 31, 2009.

The truck was covered by a lifetime powertrain warranty, but for
the warranty to stay effective the plaintiff had to take his truck
to a dealer for a powertrain inspection within 60 days before or
after its 5-year anniversary sale date.

The plaintiff says he took his truck to the dealership every 3,000
miles, including on December 22, 2014. This was within the 120-day
window to satisfy the powertrain inspection, but the plaintiff
never specifically requested the inspection and the dealer didn't
perform a powertrain inspection.

The plaintiff claims Chrysler should have reminded him to have the
free powertrain inspection performed within the specified time
period because in May 2016 the dealer refused to make free warranty
repairs for broken exhaust manifold bolts.

Fiat Chrysler told the owner it was his responsibility to ask for
the free inspection, and without the inspection the plaintiff had
to pay $1,323.53 for the repairs.

The Chrysler lifetime powertrain warranty lawsuit says FCA issued a
technical service bulletin (TSB) in September 2011 about exhaust
manifold bolts. The plaintiff says the dealer never informed him
about the bulletin because he didn't complain about the problem
until at least four years after the bulletin was issued.

The lifetime warranty lawsuit began as a proposed nationwide class
action, but the nationwide claims were dismissed which leaves the
plaintiff seeking to represent consumers who purchased a vehicle
from Chrysler in the state of Kansas and provided a lifetime
powertrain warranty on or after October 31, 2009.

Chrysler Says Lifetime Warranty Lawsuit Should Be Dismissed
Chrysler says it filed the motion because the plaintiff allegedly
settled all his claims against Olathe Dodge for an amount that
makes him whole. This allegedly means the district court now lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.

According to Chrysler, the plaintiff's claims are now moot because
the plaintiff "has been made whole for the only injury he
describes" in the lifetime powertrain warranty lawsuit.

"Under the well-settled law, having been fully compensated for his
single injury resulting from the alleged joint wrongdoing of both
FCA US and Olathe Dodge, Plaintiff's claims are moot even though
the money he received came only from one party [the dealer]." --
Fiat Chrysler

The Chrysler lifetime warranty lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas - Michael Marksberry, v.
FCA US LLC, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Bell Law, LLC. [GN]

FIGURE 8: Class of Employees Gets Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFF DANIELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FIGURE 8 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00125-KRG (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kim R. Gibson entered an order conditionally
certifying a class of:

   "All current and former employees of Figure 8 Communications,
   Inc., who were paid on a piece rate basis at any time within
   the period from three years prior to July 2, 2020, to July 2,
   2020, and at any time within the period from July 2, 2020, to
   the present."

The Court declines at this point to delineate what information the
Defendant must provide, how notice will be effectuated, or the
timeline for notice. Instead, the Court will require the parties to
meet and confer to discuss the form and method of notice to the
prospective class members, with any disputes encountered therewith
to be dealt with upon a motion to the Court.

DaNeill filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act to recover damages for
non-payment of overtime wages for the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated on July 2, 2020.

Figure 8 filed its Answer on September 11, 2020. Thereafter, the
parties conducted discovery on the issue of collective action
certification. DaNeill filed the instant Motion for FLSA Collective
Action Certification and brief in support. Figure 8 did not file a
response and the time for filing a response has passed.

Figure 8 is located in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, and is part of
the Telecommunications Services Industry.

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

FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Faces NYCB Merger Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 30, 2021, that the
company faces putative class action suits related to its merger
with New York Community Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("NYCB").

On April 24, 2021, Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a Michigan corporation,
NYCB, and 615 Corp., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of NYCB
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Flagstar,
with Flagstar as the surviving entity, and, as soon as reasonably
practicable following the Merger, Flagstar will merge with and into
NYCB, with NYCB as the surviving entity.

In connection with the proposed Merger, NYCB filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form
S-4 containing a joint proxy statement/prospectus, as amended, and
Flagstar filed a definitive proxy statement and NYCB filed a
definitive proxy statement/prospectus with the SEC, each dated June
25, 2021, which NYCB and Flagstar first mailed to their respective
stockholders and shareholders on or about June 28, 2021.

Following the announcement of the Merger, as of the date of this
Current Report on Form 8-K, five putative class action complaints
have been filed against a Flagstar party:

- On June 14, 2021, the first of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported shareholder of Flagstar in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
captioned Shiva Stein v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-03347, against Flagstar and the members of the Flagstar
board of directors.

- On June 18, 2021, the second of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported shareholder of Flagstar in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Alex Ciccotelli v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05406, against Flagstar, the members of the Flagstar
board of directors, NYCB and Merger Sub.

- On June 23, 2021, the third of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported stockholder of NYCB in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Selwyn Karp v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05505, against Flagstar, NYCB, the members of the
NYCB board of directors and Merger Sub.

- On June 23, 2021, the fourth of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported shareholder of Flagstar in the
United States District in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, captioned Luis Guitart v. Flagstar
Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03559, against Flagstar and
the members of the Flagstar board of directors.

- On July 1, 2021, the fifth of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported shareholder of Flagstar in the
Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, captioned Frank
Lawrence v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. et al., No. 2021-188820-CB,
against Flagstar and the members of the Flagstar board of
directors.

Additionally, as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K,
three putative class action complaints have been filed against a
NYCB party, but not including a Flagstar party:

- On June 25, 2021, the first of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported stockholder of NYCB in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Tammy Raul v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-05562, against NYCB and the members of the NYCB board
of directors.

- On July 15, 2021, the second of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported stockholder of NYCB in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Stephen Bushansky v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. et
al., No. 1:21-cv-06089, against NYCB and the members of the NYCB
board of directors.

- On July 26, 2021, the third of these putative class action
complaints was filed by a purported stockholder of NYCB in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Paul Parshall v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-06342, against NYCB and the members of the NYCB board
of directors.

The complaints in these cases allege that, among other things,
Flagstar, NYCB and the other named defendants, as the case may be,
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9
promulgated under the Exchange Act, and breached their fiduciary
duties and duty of disclosure, by omitting or misrepresenting
certain allegedly material information in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the closing of the Merger and the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescissory damages or
rescission in the event the Merger is consummated and plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees. The company refer to the lawsuits
collectively as the "Merger Litigation".

Flagstar and NYCB believe that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit and supplemental disclosures are not
required or necessary under applicable laws.

However, in order to diminish the risk that the Merger Litigation
delay or otherwise adversely affect the Merger, and to minimize the
costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in defending the Merger
Litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
Flagstar and NYCB have agreed to supplement the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

Flagstar and NYCB and the other named defendants deny that they
have violated any laws or breached any duties to Flagstar's
shareholders or NYCB's shareholders, as applicable. Nothing shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. On the
contrary, Flagstar and NYCB specifically deny all allegations in
the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is
required.

These supplemental disclosures will not affect the Merger
consideration to be received by shareholders of Flagstar under the
Merger Agreement or the timing of the special meeting of the
shareholders of Flagstar scheduled for August 4, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
Eastern Time, to be held virtually at
www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/FBC2021SM.

The Flagstar board of directors continues to recommend that
Flagstar's shareholders vote "FOR" the proposal to approve the
Merger Agreement (the "Flagstar Merger Proposal"), "FOR" the
proposal to approve, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, the
merger-related compensation payments that will or may be paid to
the named executive officers of Flagstar in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and "FOR" the
proposal to adjourn the Flagstar special meeting, if necessary or
appropriate, to solicit additional proxies if, immediately prior to
such adjournment, there are not sufficient votes to approve the
Flagstar Merger Proposal or to ensure that any supplement or
amendment to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus is timely
provided to Flagstar shareholders.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3fTubqh.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., is a savings and loan holding company. The
Company's business is primarily conducted through its principal
subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, FSB, a federally chartered stock savings
bank. On Dec. 31, 2012, its total assets were $$14.1 billion. The
Bank's wholly-owned subsidiary is Flagstar Capital Markets
Corporation. The Company operates in two segments: Community
Banking and Mortgage Banking. The Community Banking segment offers
a line of financial products and services to individuals, small and
middle market businesses, and mortgage lenders. Its Mortgage
Banking segment originates, acquires, sells and services
residential first mortgage loans on one-to-four family residences.
The Bank's Other segment includes corporate treasury, tax benefits
not assigned to specific operating segments, and miscellaneous
other expenses of a corporate nature.


FLEX LIMITED: Dismissal of California Class Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 2, 2021, that the appeal on the order of dismissal in
the putative class action suit filed before the Northern District
of California, is pending.

On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) filings made during the putative class period of
January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.

On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process.

On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 8, 2019, lead
plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On December 4, 2019,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 29, 2020, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and gave lead plaintiff 30 days to amend. On June
29, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint.

On July 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 10, 2020, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of
defendants.

On January 7, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 19, 2021, lead plaintiff
filed its opening appeal brief, and on July 19, 2021, defendants
filed their answering brief. Lead plaintiff's reply brief is due
September 8, 2021.

Flex said, "Any existing or future lawsuits could be
time-consuming, result in significant expense and divert the
attention and resources of our management and other key employees,
as well as harm our reputation, business, financial condition or
results of operations."

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High-Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.


FLORIDA STATE: Broer Contract Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HARRISON BROER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and FLORIDA
STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, as the public body corporate of
Florida State University, Case No. 2021-CA-000859, was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida on August 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00328-AW-MAF to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, inverse condemnation, and violation of the
Takings Clause.

Florida State University is a public research university located in
Tallahassee, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Robert J. Sniffen, Esq.
         SNIFFEN & SPELLMAN, P.A.
         123 North Monroe Street
         Tallahassee, FL 32301
         Telephone: (850) 205-1996
         Facsimile: (850) 205-3004
         E-mail: rsniffen@sniffenlaw.com

FORD MOTOR: Washington Court Denies Beaty's Bid for Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma, issued a redacted order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled JACOB BEATY and JESSICA
BEATY, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
C17-5201 TSZ (W.D. Wash.).

The Order is a redacted version of the Sealed Order, docket no.
243, filed on July 8, 2021.

The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jacob and Jessica
Beaty's motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have also
filed motions to exclude certain expert testimony offered by
Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); and Ford has moved to
exclude certain expert testimony offered by the Plaintiffs.

Background

In February 2017, Plaintiff Jessica Beaty was driving her 2013 Ford
Escape when the vehicle's panoramic sunroof ("PSR"), which is an
enlarged or expanded sunroof, suddenly shattered for no apparent
reason, causing glass to fall on Jessica and her young daughter. In
March 2017, Jessica and her husband, Jacob, brought this putative
class action based on the alleged defects of the PSRs installed in
the following Ford and Lincoln models and model years that comprise
of the "Class Vehicles": 2007-2014 Ford Edge, 2013-2017 Ford
Escape, 2011-2017 Ford Explorer, 2007-2015 Lincoln MKX, 2010-2017
Lincoln MKT, and 2009-2016 Lincoln MKS.

In February 2020, Judge Leighton granted summary judgment in favor
of Ford and dismissed the action. The Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of their common law claim for fraudulent concealment or
nondisclosure (Count 2) and a claim under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act ("CPA") (Count 3). While the appeal was pending,
Judge Leighton retired, and the case was reassigned.

In April 2021, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment
order, concluding that, with respect to the fraudulent concealment
claim, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether
Ford knew about the risk that the PSRs would spontaneously shatter
in its 2013 Ford Escape model; and with respect to the CPA claim, a
reasonable juror could find that the risk of a spontaneously
shattering PSR is material to consumers.

On remand, this Court acknowledged that the instant motions,
including the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
parties' motions to exclude certain expert opinions, which were
previously denied as moot, are now ripe for review. Although the
parties each filed notices of supplemental authority, they
indicated that additional briefing on the pending motions is
unnecessary.

Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony

Before District Judge Thomas S. Zilly are several Motions to
Exclude Expert Testimony:

   -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Dr. Paul
      Taylor. The Court concludes that Dr. Taylor's testimony is
      both relevant and helpful under Federal Rule of Evidence
      ("FRE") 702 and, therefore, denies the Plaintiffs' motion
      to exclude his testimony;

   -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Dr. Justin
      McCrary. The Court concludes that Dr. McCrary's reasoning
      is based on objective, verifiable evidence and scientific
      methodology of the kind traditionally used by experts in
      the field. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
      exclude certain opinions of Dr. McCrary;

   -- Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Neil
      Hannemann. The Court denies Ford's motion to exclude
      Hannemann's testimony;

   -- Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Steven
      Gaskin. The Court denies Ford's motion to exclude Gaskin's
      testimony;

   -- Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Colin
      Weir. The Court denies Ford's motion to exclude Weir's
      testimony, docket; and

   -- Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Thomas
      Read. The Court concludes that Dr. Read has not employed
      any reliable methodology to support his conclusion that the
      Class Vehicles' PSRs suffer from a common defect, either
      due to their common features or material, or their very
      existence in the Class Vehicles. Hence, the motion to
      exclude Dr. Read's opinion is granted.

Motion for Class Certification

Although the Plaintiffs allege a nationwide class, the instant
motion for class certification seeks to certify only the statewide
class:

    "all persons in Washington who purchased or leased a [Class
     Vehicle] with a Ford factory-installed PSR manufactured by
     either Webasto or Inalfa with fully tempered glass panels."

The Court concludes that under Rule 23(a)(3)'s "permissive
standards," the Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that their
claims are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class
members, citing Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 685 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims and the anticipated
defenses asserted against them are reasonably coextensive with the
claims and defenses relating to absent class members, Judge Zilly
rules that the Plaintiffs have met the typicality requirement. The
Plaintiffs have also satisfied the adequacy requirement.

The Plaintiffs also point to other issues that are common to the
class, namely whether a PSR shattering event would be material to a
reasonable consumer and, for purposes of the CPA claim, whether
Ford's conduct occurred in trade or commerce or impacts the public
interest. The Court agrees that these issues are common to the
class, but they still do not outweigh the non-common issues at the
heart of this litigation--whether each Class Vehicle's PSR is
defective, whether Ford knew about the defect and failed to
disclose it, and whether the Plaintiffs and the other owners of the
Class Vehicles were injured as a result of Ford's conduct.

Judge Zilly holds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
show that the common factual issues in the case predominate over
individualized ones.

Although Rule 23(a)'s requirements are satisfied in this case, the
Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to
demonstrate that the issues common to class members predominate
over any issues affecting only individual members, or that a class
action is superior to other available methods of adjudication,
Judge Zilly holds. Hence, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The Court also denies the Plaintiffs' alternative request to
certify certain "common" issues under Rule 23(c)(4), as it
concludes that these issues are not common: The question of whether
the PSR is defective involves individualized factual issues with
respect to each Class Vehicle make, model, and model year,
requiring further individualized inquiries as to which Class
Vehicles' PSRs Ford might have known were defective and when Ford
might have known such information.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court orders:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the Defendant's expert
       Dr. Paul Taylor is denied;

   (2) The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the Defendant's expert
       Dr. Justin McCrary is denied;

   (3) The Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
       Neil Hannemann is denied;

   (4) The Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
       Steven Gaskin is denied;

   (5) The Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
       Colin Weir is denied;

   (6) The Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
       Dr. Thomas Read is granted;

   (7) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied;
       and

   (8) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all
       counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2r7aw7k9 from Leagle.com.


GASTRO HEALTH: Del Valle Sues Over Denied Leave, Wrongful Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS DEL VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, f/k/a GASTRO
HEALTH, PL, f/k/a GASTROENTEROLOGY CARE CENTERS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:21-cv-61627-AHS (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Family Medical
Leave Act (FMLA), Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide the
Plaintiff notice of her FMLA rights, or designate her upcoming
leave as FMLA protected leave despite being made aware of her
health condition and her doctor's treatment plan who recommended
she take a medical leave. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly
terminated the Plaintiff's employment after she disclosed her need
and intentions to take medical leave.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an imaging and
infusion manager from March 12, 2018 until her termination on or
about August 8, 2019.

Gastro Health, LLC, formerly known as Gastro Health PL, formerly
known as Gastroenterology Care Centers, LLC is a medical group of
physicians and advanced practitioners specializing in the treatment
of gastrointestinal disorder, nutrition, and digestive health,
doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
           
         Paul M. Botros, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 318-0268
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
         E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Suit Over Cancer-Causing Substance, Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole DeFeudis, writing for Endpoints News, reports that a US
District Court judge in southern Florida has dismissed claims
against store-brand and generic manufacturers of the blockbuster
heartburn medicine Zantac, which has been recalled over the past
couple years due to a potentially cancer-causing substance.

In an amended master personal injury complaint, thousands of people
who say they've developed various cancers after taking Zantac or
ranitidine products (the active ingredient) accused the
manufacturers of 17 counts and a multitude of state-specific
sub-counts -- including negligence and failure to warn through the
FDA.

Zantac was first approved as a prescription medicine for heartburn
in 1983, and after a decade of record sales, GlaxoSmithKline struck
a deal with Warner-Lambert to develop an over-the-counter version.
The FDA OK'd various OTC forms in 1995, and those sales rights
later passed through the hands of big pharmas like Pfizer,
Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi. When patents expired, generic
players joined in.

But just under two years ago, GSK yanked Zantac off the shelves
after it was found to have "'unacceptable' levels of probably
cancer-causing impurity." Studies have shown that ranitidine can
transform into a cancer-causing molecule called
N-nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA.

In September 2019, a pharmacy and testing lab called Valisure and
ValisureRX filed a citizen petition calling for the recall of all
ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA. The FDA set the
acceptable daily intake of NDMA at 96 nanograms, and the plaintiffs
in these master complaints argued that a single ranitidine pill can
contain NDMA quantities that are "hundreds of times higher." Last
April, the FDA requested manufacturers withdraw "all prescription
and over-the-counter (OTC) ranitidine drugs" from the market.

"We didn't observe unacceptable levels of NDMA in many of the
samples that we tested," said Janet Woodcock at the time, who's now
acting commissioner of the agency. "However, since we don't know
how or for how long the product might have been stored, we decided
that it should not be available to consumers and patients unless
its quality can be assured."

The generic manufacturer defendants, however, argued that federal
law prevented them from satisfying some of the failure-to-warn and
negligence claims.

"State law would require them to redesign or re-label ranitidine
products, which they could not do under their federal duty of
sameness," a court document read. "They were not required to stop
selling the products in order to comply with both federal and state
law. Thus, the failure-to-warn and negligence claims are
pre-empted."

In a court filing back in May, the plaintiffs alleged that some of
the companies in question have delayed access to key documents and
possibly destroyed emails related to the case. Lawyers for the
complainants said Sanofi notified them on Dec. 22, 2020, of
"widespread destruction of employees' emails" -- though Sanofi
later denied those claims to Endpoints News.

"Sanofi did not intentionally destroy any emails related to the
Zantac litigation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false," a
spokesperson said.

One lawyer also said the generic company Wockhardt produced more
documents in April than GSK, Boehringer, Sanofi or Pfizer had
produced during the entire process.

On Aug. 5, Judge Robin Rosenberg dismissed all of the claims
against the generic and store-brand defendants in the master
complaints "without leave to amend," adding: "At some point the
pleadings must begin to close, and that time has come." [GN]

GNC HOLDINGS: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GNC Holdings, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Meghan Downing, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case
No. 2:21-cv-06499-ODW-JC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2021).

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

GNC Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.gnc.com/ -- operates a chain of
health and wellness stores worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


GOODWIN UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodwin University,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Goodwin University, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06777 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021).

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

Goodwin University -- https://www.goodwin.edu/ -- is a private
university in East Hartford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GT'S LIVING: Sharpe Suit Seeks Seeks to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELANEY SHARPE, ERIN
WEILER, JENNA LEDER, and ADRIANA DIGENNARO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. GT'S LIVING FOODS, LLC, Case
No. 2:19-cv-10920-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Weiler and
Sharpe ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined
as:

   "all persons who, between February 28, 2017 and the date that
   class notice is disseminated, purchased Enlightened Kombucha
   in California (California Class).

The Plaintiffs Leder and DiGennaro also move to represent a New
York Class defined as

   "all persons who, between February 28, 2017 and the date that
   class notice is disseminated, purchased Enlightened Kombucha
   in New York."

The Plaintiff Sharpe also moves for certification of a California
Under 21 Subclass defined as:

   "all members of the California Class who purchased
   Enlightened Kombucha and were between the ages of 18 and 21
   (not including persons aged 21 or older, or under the age of
   18) at the time of purchase.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of each of these classes under
Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3) and also seek an injunctive class pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs also respectfully request that the
Court appoint them as Class Representatives, and appoint their
counsel, Bursor & Fisher and Westerman Law Corp. as Class Counsel.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xGqpa2 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

HAWAI'I: Seeks Clarification on July 13, 2021 Class Cert. Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CHATMAN, FRANCISCO
ALVARADO, ZACHARY GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAX
N. OTANI, Director of the State of Hawai'i Department of Public
Safety, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00268-JAO-KJM
(D. Haw.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
clarifying and/or modifying this Court's Order (1) Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification and (2)
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, entered on
July 13, 2021.

The Defendant requests that the Court modify the Order as follows:


   1. Defendant shall incorporate Addendum 1 into the Department
      of Public Safety's (DPS) Pandemic Response Plan (PRP) (a
      copy of which is attached hereto as Otani Decl. Ex. A),
      and shall implement the policy outlined therein. As
      outlined in Addendum 1, Defendant shall require all
      corrections officers, all correctional staff who have
      direct contact with inmates, and all DPS law enforcement
      personnel ("covered employees") to certify
      to the DPS Director or his designee by August 2, 2021,
      whether each covered employee has been fully vaccinated,
      partially vaccinated, or not vaccinated for COVID-19.
      Additionally, Defendant shall establish and implement a
      policy requiring covered employees to be fully vaccinated
      for COVID-19. All covered employees must be fully
      vaccinated for COVID-19 no later than October 11, 2021.
      Covered employees may, at DPS's sole discretion, be
      required to provide documentation that verifies that they
      have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. Beginning on
      August 2, 2021, covered employees who are not yet fully
      vaccinated for COVID-19 will be subject to testing for
      COVID-19 at least once per week. Exemption from
      vaccination may be granted (1) due to an underlying
      medical condition or disability that contraindicates
      administration of COVID-19 vaccination, (2) due to
      pregnancy or a pregnancy-related medical condition, or (3)
      due to a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or
      observance. Covered employees seeking an exemption from
      the requirements outlined in Addendum 1 must request an
      accommodation from the DPS Director or his designee.
      Accommodations will be granted on a case-by-case basis
      and/or as required by law. DPS will engage in a process to
      determine if a reasonable accommodation can be provided
      so long as it does not create an undue hardship for DPS
      and does not pose a direct threat to the health or safety
      of others or the employee.

   2. Defendant requests that the Court clarify certain
      statements in its Order with respect to vaccinations, as
      outlined in the attached memorandum and for the reasons
      set forth therein.

   3. With respect to the Pandemic Response Plan, Defendant
      requests that the Court modify its Order to clarify that
      those sections of the PRP that were not specifically
      cross-referenced in the Court's Order do not fall within
      the scope of the Court's preliminary injunction. This will
      enable Defendant and DPS staff to focus their resources on
      the issues most relevant to the overall relief requested
      by Plaintiffs and ordered by the Court.

   4. With respect to inmate grievances, Defendant and DPS
      employees may continue to enforce generally-applicable
      rules and policies such as rules regarding untimely or
      frivolous grievances.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lWYpg2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendant Max N. Otani, are:

          Clare E. Connors, Esq.
          Caron M. Inagaki, Esq.
          Kendall J. Moser, Esq.
          Skyler G. Cruz, Esq.
          DEPT. OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          425 Queen Street
          Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
          Telephone: (808) 586-1360
          E-mail: Caron.M.Inagaki@hawaii.gov
                  Kendall.J.Moser@hawaii.gov
                  Skyler.G.Cruz@hawaii.gov

HENRY THAYER: Missouri Court Narrows Claims in Early Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, grants in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA EARLY, on behalf of herself And all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENRY THAYER COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-CV-1678 RLW (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Early brings th suit against Thayer for violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), breach of express
warranty, and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Early brings suit on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated.

Background

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Early alleges Thayer has
misled and continues to mislead consumers into believing its
products are natural and do not contain synthetic ingredients.
Plaintiff Early seeks to represent consumers, who were allegedly
misled into purchasing Thayer's products at a premium price under
the false representation that they were natural, when in fact they
contained synthetic ingredients.

Thayer manufactures a variety of personal care products under the
name THAYERS(R) Natural Remedies, which are sold in drug stores,
grocery stores, and other retail stores nationwide. This matter is
before the Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Thayer is
a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Connecticut, and Plaintiff Cynthia Early is a citizen of Missouri
residing in St. Louis County.

The Plaintiff alleges she has purchased Thayer's products from
physical retail stores in the last five years. Specifically, she
alleges she purchased THAYERS(R) Natural Remedies Rose Petal Facial
Toner at a CVS store in Missouri.

The Plaintiff alleges that Thayer manufactures, advertises, and
sells its THAYERS(R) Natural Remedies products, representing that
the products are "Natural," and "Natural Remedies." According to
the Plaintiff, the front label on each of Thayer's products
prominently reinforces the claims that Thayer's products are
natural. The Plaintiff also alleges Thayer represents that its
products are "natural" on its website and social media platforms.
The Plaintiff contends Thayer's claims that its products are
"natural" are false, misleading, and designed to deceive consumers
into paying a price premium and to choose Thayer's products over a
competitor's product. The Plaintiff attached to her Complaint a
list of 31 Thayer's products, which she contends fail to conform to
Thayer's representations that the products are "natural," because
the products contain several synthetic, unnatural ingredients and
preservatives, including phenoxyethanol, sodium benzoate, potassium
sorbate, polysorbate-20, and ascorbic acid.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff brings the following six claims
against Thayer: (1) violation of the MMPA for selling products that
are deceptively represented as "natural" (Count I); (2) violation
of the MMPA for misrepresenting that its products were "natural"
(Count II); (3) violation of the MMPA for concealing and omitting
the material facts that its products are not "natural" (Count III);
(4) violation of the MMPA for making half-truths about the
ingredients in its products (Count IV); (5) breach of express
warranty (Count V); and (6) unjust enrichment (Count VI).

The Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of herself and two
classes of consumers. She seeks an order under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules Civil Procedure certifying a state-wide class and a
national class. She also asks the Court to enter an order declaring
Thayer's conduct violates the MMPA and other Missouri state laws.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Before the suit was filed, a plaintiff in Pennsylvania filed suit
in October 2019 against Thayer alleging a number of its products
were improperly labeled and marketed as "natural" because they
contained synthetic ingredients -- Lisowski v. Henry Thayer Co.,
No. 2:19-CV-1339 MJH (W.D. Pa., filed Oct. 19, 2019). The plaintiff
in the Lisowski case, who is represented by the same counsel as the
plaintiff here, alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") on behalf of a
Pennsylvania class, and breach of express warranty and unjust
enrichment on behalf of a nationwide class.

Four months after that suit was filed, the complaint in Lisowski
was amended to add a plaintiff from Maryland and claims under
Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. Thayer moved to dismiss the
Lisowski complaint based on a number of the same arguments the
Company has made in this case. Thayer also moved to dismiss the
Maryland plaintiff, arguing there was no personal jurisdiction over
that plaintiff in Pennsylvania.

On Nov. 17, 2020, the Honorable Marilyn J. Horan granted in part
and denied in part Thayer's motion to dismiss (Lisowski v. Henry
Thayer Co., Inc., 501 F.Supp.3d 316 (W.D. Pa. 2020), on
reconsideration in part, No. CV 19-1339, 2021 WL 1185924 (W.D. Pa.
Mar. 30, 2021). Judge Horan dismissed the Maryland plaintiff's
claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court agreed with
Thayer that there was no basis to assert general jurisdiction over
Thayer in Pennsylvania. With regard to specific jurisdiction, the
Maryland plaintiff alleged he purchased the products in Maryland
and his alleged injuries occurred in Maryland, therefore, according
to the district court, there was no specific personal jurisdiction
over the Maryland plaintiff's claims in Pennsylvania. All of the
Maryland plaintiff's claims were dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

As for the Pennsylvania plaintiff's claims, the court in Lisowski
dismissed the breach of warranty claims, UTPCPL claims, and unjust
enrichment claims based on the use of the word "natural" on
Thayer's product labels and website. Judge Horan denied Thayer's
motion to dismiss the UTPCPL and unjust enrichment claims with
respect to two dry mouth products containing the label
"preservative-free," leaving only two Pennsylvania state law claims
and two products in the case.

In the case at bar, Thayer moves the Court to transfer this cause
of action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania under the first-filed rule. In the alternative, Thayer
asks the Court to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the
Pennsylvania case. Thayer also moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on a number of grounds.

Thayer argues some of Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. SectionSection 301 et seq.
("FDCA"). Thayer also argues that its trade name, "THAYERS(R)
Natural Remedies," cannot create an express warranty, and that
Plaintiff improperly takes the term "natural" out of context.
Thayer further argues Plaintiff's MMPA claims fail to state a claim
for relief in that she has failed to allege any unfair practices or
ascertainable loss, and she cannot sue over products she did not
purchase or online statements she did not see. Thayer argues
Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under the MMPA fails
because she has not shown redressability. And finally, Thayer
argues Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is not an independent
cause of action and must be dismissed.

Motion to Transfer or Stay

Thayer moves to transfer the case to the Western District of
Pennsylvania under the first-filed rule. In the alternative, it
requests that the Court stay this matter pending resolution of the
Pennsylvania case.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed suit in the Eastern
District of Missouri on Nov. 27, 2020. The Lisowski case was filed
in the Western District of Pennsylvania in October 2019. Therefore,
the Lisowski case is the first-filed case. Thayer is the named
defendant in both suits, but the named plaintiffs are not the same.
The remaining plaintiffs in the Lisowski case are consumers from
Pennsylvania. The consumer from Maryland was dismissed from the
Lisowski case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

District Judge Ronnie L. White notes that here, the Plaintiff is a
consumer from Missouri. There is, however, some overlap in the
proposed classes. In Lisowski, the Pennsylvania plaintiffs propose
to represent a national class of all persons who purchased Thayer's
products within the United States and within the applicable statute
of limitations period, and a subclass of Pennsylvania consumers who
purchased Thayer's products within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
within the applicable statute of limitations. Here, the Plaintiff
seeks to represent a national class, as well as a subclass of
Missouri consumers, who purchased Thayer's products within the
State of Missouri within the applicable statute of limitations.

The claims asserted in the two cases are not the same, but they are
parallel. Both actions assert claims of unjust enrichment and
breach of warranty and bring claims under their respective states'
consumer protection statutes. The claims are based on the same
facts and legal theory--that Thayer misled its consumers into
purchasing personal products based on mislabeling its products as
"natural" when in fact they contain synthetic ingredients. But the
consumer protection statutes are not the same, and the applicable
case law addressing the statutes and common law claims is not the
same.

In support of its argument that this case should be transferred to
the Western District of Pennsylvania, Thayer cites to an
unpublished case, Young v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 20-CV-944-JSW (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 15, 2021), which it attached to its memorandum in
support. In Young, a United States district court in California
transferred a consumer putative class action to a United States
district court in New York, even though the plaintiffs in the two
cases, like here, brought claims under their respective state laws,
and the case in New York had been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court in California found the fact that the plaintiffs were
asserting claims under California law, while the plaintiffs in the
transferee court were asserting claims under New York law, did not
preclude transfer under the first-filed doctrine because the legal
issues were substantially similar. The California district court
also found that principles of economy, consistency, and comity
supported applying the first-filed rule, despite the fact the case
in New York had been dismissed.

Setting aside that Young is an unpublished case, which is not even
found on Westlaw, the Court does not find the Young decision
supports transfer because the case is factually distinguishable
from the case at bar. Thayer seeks to have this case transferred to
the Western District of Pennsylvania where Lisowski is pending. But
in the court in Lisowski declined to find there was personal
jurisdiction over an out-of-state plaintiff. In the Young decision,
there is no indication that the defendant had objected to personal
jurisdiction over claims of an out-of-state plaintiff in the
transferee court.

The Court finds the Eighth Circuit's decision in Orthmann v. Apple
River Campground, Inc., to be more instructive as to the issue at
hand. While the Orthmann case is often cited for the first-filed
standard in the Eighth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit declined to
apply the doctrine in that case.

Judge White notes that there is no question as to whether personal
jurisdiction exists in this Court over a Missouri plaintiff's
claims based on products she purchased in Missouri. But
transferring the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania may
well leave the Plaintiff without a forum, as Thayer has already
objected on personal jurisdictional grounds to the claims of an
out-of-state plaintiff in Pennsylvania, the Judge holds.

Thayer should have anticipated a scenario where it would be called
upon to defend similar suits in different courts, Judge White
states. When Thayer opposed personal jurisdiction of an
out-of-state plaintiff and moved to dismiss the Maryland
plaintiff's claims in Pennsylvania, Thayer argued that the Maryland
plaintiff could pursue his own claims in another court of competent
jurisdiction. Judge White points out that there does not appear to
be any doubt this Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims against Thayer.

In addition to the risk of leaving the Plaintiff without a forum,
there is little to be gained from transferring this case to
Pennsylvania or staying the case until the Pennsylvania suit is
resolved, Judge White opines. While the claims in the case are
similar to the claims in the Lisowski case, they are not identical.
The claims in this suit are based in Missouri law, while the claims
in the Lisowski case are based on Pennsylvania law, he adds.

If the Court were to transfer the case to Pennsylvania, the prior
rulings in Lisowski would not be controlling, Judge White holds.
The district court in Pennsylvania would be tasked with addressing
the claims in this case under Missouri law. This Court is familiar
with Missouri law, and there would be no savings of judicial
resources by transferring the case to Pennsylvania.

The Court finds that the interests of justice and conservation of
judicial resources are best served by retaining jurisdiction in
this case. The Court declines to transfer or stay this action on
the basis of the first-filed doctrine.

Motion to Dismiss

Thayer moves to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), all
of the claims against it based on a number of grounds. Thayer
argues: (1) Plaintiff's attempts to impose disclosure requirements
on Thayer's labels are preempted by FDCA; (2) Thayer's trade name
cannot create an express warranty; (3) Plaintiff improperly takes
the term "natural" out of context; (4) Plaintiff has failed to
allege any unfair practices under the MMPA; (5) Plaintiff cannot
sue over products she never purchased or online statements she
never saw; (6) Plaintiff fails to allege ascertainable loss; (7)
Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief under the MMPA;
and (8) Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is not an independent
cause of action.

Preemption under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

To the extent the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the font size is
too small on Thayer's label, that Thayer must include disclaimers
on its products' labels, or that the labels on its products must
identify which ingredients are "synthetic" and which are "natural,"
these claims are preempted by the FDCA because these requirements
would be different from or in addition to what is required under
the FDCA, Judge White holds. The Plaintiff's claims about alleged
deceptions and misrepresentations, however, are not preempted, he
notes.

The Court finds, therefore, that the Plaintiff's claims regarding
the deceptive or misleading use of the term "natural" and "natural
remedies" on the labels of Thayer's products are not preempted by
the FDCA, and the Court declines to dismiss claims on this basis.

Breach of Express Warranty

Thayer argues the Court must dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for
breach of express warranty because Thayer's trade name and
contextual references to "natural" on its label, website, and
social media platforms do not create express warranties that the
products are all natural.

The Court will not hold on a motion to dismiss that the words
"THAYERS(R) Natural Remedies" cannot create an express warranty
under Missouri law and declines to follow Lisowski v. Henry Thayer
Co., 501 F. Supp. 3d at 329. Judge White notes that it is not clear
from the product's label what is part of Thayer's trade name and
what is a descriptive phrase.

As the Plaintiff suggests, the term "Natural Remedies" may be a
descriptive phrase regarding the contents of the product. But even
if the term "Natural Remedies" is part of Thayer's trade name, this
fact does not defeat the Plaintiff's claim, Judge White explains.

The Court finds the Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for
breach of express warranty under Missouri law.

To the extent Thayer is arguing Plaintiff's claims under MMPA and
for unjust enrichment also fail because they are based on Thayer's
trade name, the same analysis would apply, Judge White holds.
Thayer cites to no case law holding a MMPA or unjust enrichment
claim cannot be based on a trade name.

The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims for breach of warranty
to the extent they are based on Thayer's online statements by
Thayer. This reasoning also applies to the Plaintiff's claims under
the MMPA and for unjust enrichment. To the extent the Plaintiff
bases these claims on Thayer's online statements, they are
dismissed.

Missouri Merchandising Practices Act

Thayer also moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims asserting
violations of the MMPA. The MMPA was enacted to protect Missouri
consumers from fraudulent business practices.

Judge White notes that there are no allegations in the Complaint
that the Plaintiff purchased a Thayer's product containing an
ingredient that was missing from the ingredients list on the
label.

The Court will dismiss Counts III and IV of the Complaint. To the
extent these allege Thayer violated the MMPA because its labeling
"does not disclose that the Products contain synthetic ingredients"
or "which, if any, ingredients are synthetic," the claims are
preempted by federal law. As for the allegation that Thayer failed
to disclose the presence of certain synthetic ingredients, such as
Phenoxyethanol, on its products' labels, the Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim because the Plaintiff does not allege that that
she purchased any Thayer product with a label that did not disclose
the ingredients contained therein.

The Court declines to hold as a matter of law that Thayer's use of
the term "natural" or "natural remedies" on its products labels
could not be interpreted by a reasonable consumer to mean the
product does not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients. The
Court finds the Plaintiff has stated a claim under the MMPA case
because whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by a
product label or a reasonable consumer's understanding of the term
'natural' are questions of fact that cannot be resolved pursuant to
a motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff adequately alleges the unfair practices of deception
and misrepresentations under the MMPA, Judge White finds, among
other things.

Unjust Enrichment

Finally, Thayer moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim of unjust
enrichment. Thayer argues this claim fails for the same reasons as
her other claims--she has failed to plead that the product she
purchased did not conform to the representations about that
product.

As explained, the Plaintiff adequately alleges that the product she
purchased did not conform to the representations Thayer's made
about its product. Contrary to Thayer's assertion, the Plaintiff
does plead the required elements for a claim of unjust enrichment
under Missouri law, Judge White finds.

As for Thayer's argument that the claim is precluded because there
was a contract for the purchase of the product, the Court finds it
is disputable whether there was an "express contract" for the
purchase of the product. Moreover, Judge White opines, that it is
generally permissible to pursue alternative theories at the
pleading stage, and the Plaintiff has pleaded an alternative claim
for unjust enrichment. Thus, Thayer's motion to dismiss Count VI of
the Plaintiff's complaint is denied.

Conclusion

In sum, the Court declines to transfer or stay this action on the
basis of the first-filed doctrine, as the interests of justice and
judicial economy are best served by maintaining the case in the
Court.

As for Thayer's motion to dismiss, to the extent the Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges that the font size of the ingredients list is too
small on Thayer's labels, that Thayer must include disclaimers on
its products' labels, or that the labels on its products must
identify which ingredients are "synthetic" and which are "natural,"
these claims are preempted by the FDCA.

The Court dismisses all of the Plaintiff's claims to the extent
they are based on Thayer's online statements. The Court also finds
MMPA Counts III (Concealment or Omission of any Material Facts) and
Count IV (Half Truths) should be dismissed, as these claims are
preempted by the FDCA, and to the extent they are not, the
Plaintiff fails to allege the required elements to state a claim
under the MMPA for concealment or omission of any material facts or
half-truths. Finally, the Court dismisses any claim the Plaintiff
is asserting as an individual based on products that she did not
herself purchase. In all other respects, Thayer's Motion to Dismiss
is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Cynthia Early's Motion for Leave to File a
Surreply in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which the
Court construes as a motion for leave to file a surresponse, is
denied.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant's Request to Transfer is granted. The
Plaintiff will promptly file her Amended Memorandum without an
exhibit designation.

Defendant Henry Thayer Company, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer to the
Western District of Pennsylvania, or in the alternative, to stay
these proceedings, is denied.

Defendant Thayer's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied
in part. The motion is granted as to any claim based on allegations
that (1) the font size of the ingredients list on a Thayer's
product label is too small, (2) Thayer must include disclaimers on
its product labels, or (3) the labels on Thayer's products must
identify which ingredients are "synthetic" and which are "natural,"
as these claims are preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
21 U.S.C. Sections 301, et seq.

The Court dismisses all of the Plaintiff's claims to the extent
they are based on Thayer's online statements. It dismisses claims
under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for Concealment or
Omission of any Material Facts (Count III) and for Half Truths
(Count IV). It dismisses any claim Plaintiff Cynthia Early is
asserting as an individual that is based on products that she did
not herself purchase. In all other respects, the Motion to Dismiss
is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/pnupjau2 from
Leagle.com.


HILL'S PET: Judge Approves Settlement Over Dog Food Recall Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Tyler, writing for Pet Food Processing, reports that a
Kansas federal judge has approved an initial $12.5 million
settlement involving Hill's Pet Nutrition and a class action
lawsuit representing 71 people. The settlement would resolve a
lengthy class action lawsuit claiming damages related to the
company's widespread dog food recall in January 2019.

The recall involved 54 lots, approximately 675,000 cases of canned
dog food, that contained potentially toxic levels of vitamin D.
Multiple class action lawsuits were filed against the company by
affected pet owners in February 2019.

Additionally, $4 million was awarded in attorney fees. US District
Judge Julie A. Robinson, who approved the settlement, said more
than 3,000 hours were spent litigating the case. The settlement was
granted preliminary approval in February 2021 and allows class
members to make claims for reimbursement both for purchasing the
products and treatment of injuries to their pets. Any leftover
funds from the settlement will go to Unleashed Pet Rescue.

Multiple lawsuits against Hill's Pet Nutrition related to elevated
vitamin D claims were consolidated in July 2019, after the US
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found there were common
factual issues among the suits and that consolidating would
streamline the process.

The suits each claim that varieties of dog food sold by Hill's Pet
Nutrition contained dangerous levels of vitamin D, with some
plaintiffs alleging the food led to their pets' deaths. According
to a suit filed in New York, Hill's recalled some of its specialty
pet food products in January 2019 but should have instituted a
recall much earlier. [GN]

HORRY COUNTY, SC: Lamaire Sues Over Illegal Collection of Road Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LAMAIRE and CRYSTAL GOINGS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF HORRY and
the HORRY COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02500-RBH
(D.S.C., August 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for unjust enrichment and violations of substantive due process
rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

The case arises from the Defendants' passage and adoption of
ordinances that charge and collect road maintenance fees for the
fiscal years 2019-2021, which are assessed annually on each motor
vehicle registered in Horry County. The road fees charged by the
Defendants in each fiscal year are for the specific purpose of
maintenance and improvement of the County's road system. However,
the road fees charged in all fiscal years fail to meet the
requirements of a service fee under South Carolina Code and
therefore are unlawful service fees, the suit alleges.

County of Horry is a body politic and governmental entity located
in the State of South Carolina.

Horry County Council is the governing body of the county. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Harper T. Segui, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP
         825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
         Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com

                 - and –

         James R. DeMay, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: jdemay@milberg.com

HUDSON'S BAY: S.D. New York Grants Prelim. OK to AFCU Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants preliminary approval, with modification, of class action
settlements in the lawsuits captioned ARKANSAS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, et al., Plaintiffs v. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, Defendant. IN RE
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY DATA SECURITY INCIDENT CONSUMER LITIGATION,
Case Nos. 19-cv-4492 (PKC), 18-cv-8472 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).

The proposed Orders of Preliminary Approval submitted by the
Plaintiffs would have required objectors to submit detailed
background information about themselves and their legal counsel,
including information about fee arrangements, their historical
participation in class action settlements and evidentiary
summaries.

District Judge P. Kevin Castel opines that the proposed
requirements would have needlessly frustrated and discouraged
objections to the settlement, with no countervailing benefits to
the Court or the class.

The parties' proposed Orders of Preliminary Approval will,
therefore, be granted with modification to the procedures for
objecting. All notices to class members will conform to the
objection procedures set forth in the Orders of Preliminary
Approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ta2z5uvz from
Leagle.com.


ILLINOIS: Judge Approves Prison Segregation Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Rushton, writing for The State Journal-Register, reports that
prompted by dismal reports from experts, a federal judge in East
St. Louis has approved class-action status for a lawsuit aimed at
improving conditions for prison inmates in Illinois who've been
confined to tiny cells with rodents and filth.

Even as U.S Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty in June decided that
attorneys for a half-dozen inmates who sued five years ago will
represent inmates throughout the state prison system, a lawyer for
prisoners says that conditions have improved in segregation units,
target of the federal complaint.

"The (judge's) opinion is already out of date," said Alan Mills, a
Chicago attorney who represents inmates. "They've made some
not-insignificant changes. I'm not ready to declare victory. But
they are definitely making some changes, and I'm glad."

Pablo Mendoza, released last fall after serving 20 years for
reckless homicide, says segregation units serve no purpose. He says
he's done several stints in segregation in different prisons after
getting involved in fights, confined alone in a cell for as long as
a year.

"When you're in it for that long, you just regress -- I used to be
an extroverted person, now I'm so introverted," said Mendoza, who
lives in Chicago. "It becomes so demoralizing. You have absolutely
nothing to do. There's no programs. You might get a book. The
existence is miserable." [GN]

INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Williams Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK McDERMID,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01402-GJP
(E.D. Pa.), Lead Plaintiff Manuel S. Williams and Representative
Plaintiff Andrew R. Zenoff ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)
      (3);

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as
      Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Inovio is an American biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of synthetic DNA
products for treating cancers and infectious diseases.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xKR31C
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff Manuel S. Williams and Representative Plaintiff
Andrew R. Zenoff are represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          Trig R. Smith, Esq.
          Matthew J. Balotta, Esq.
          Sean C. McGuire, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  torg@rgrdlaw.com
                  trigs@rgrdlaw.com
                  mbalotta@rgrdlaw.com
                  smcguire@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
          SAXTON & STUMP
          280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300
          Lancaster, PA 17601
          Telephone: (717) 556-1000
          Facsimile: (717) 441-3810
          E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com

INTEREST INC: Sept. 15 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinterest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the putative securities class action
suit currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California is scheduled to be heard on
September 15, 2021.

On November 23, 2020, Pinterest and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that defendants made
material false and misleading public statements about our revenue
and user growth in 2019.

The complaint seeks damages, litigation costs, and interest.

On May 28, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which is currently scheduled to be heard on September
15, 2021.

Pinterest said, "We continue to evaluate these claims but do not
believe this litigation will have a material impact on our
financial position or results of operations."

Pinterest, Inc. operates and maintains social networking site. The
Company provides online venue for personal photos, ideas, oddities,
decorations, places to visit, recipes, and other items. Pinterest
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 9 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Iterum Therapeutics plc ("Iterum" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ITRM) in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Iterum publicly traded
securities between November 30, 2020 and July 23, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the sulopenem NDA lacked sufficient data to support approval for
the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated
susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be
non-susceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely
that the FDA would approve the sulopenem NDA in its current form;
(iii) Defendants downplayed the severity of issues and deficiencies
associated with the sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the Company received a letter from the [FDA] stating that, as part
of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem NDA], the agency has
identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the
discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." The press release further stated that "[n]o details
with respect to deficiencies were disclosed by the FDA in this
notification and the letter further states that the notification
does not reflect a final decision on the information under
review."

On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.87 per share,
or 37.99%, to close at $1.42 per share on July 2, 2021.

Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing
that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for
the sulopenem NDA, "provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its
review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA
in its present form." Specifically, "the FDA determined that
additional data are necessary to support approval for the treatment
of adult women with [uUTIs] caused by designated susceptible
microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible
to a quinolone[,]" while "recommend[ing] that Iterum conduct at
least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial,
potentially using a different comparator drug[,]" and "conduct
further nonclinical investigation to determine the optimal dosing
regimen . . . ."

On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.499 per share,
or 44.16%, to close at $0.631 per share on July 26, 2021.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Iterum
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
October 4, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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

JEFF WRIGLEY: Moore Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as "Maddi" Jeffrey Aaron
Moore, v. Jeff Wrigley, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-08159-DLR-MTM (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order:

   1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
      Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to Certify
      Class, and Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem are denied
      without prejudice.

   2. Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff
      must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and $52.00
      administrative fee or file a new complete Application to
      Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust
      account statement.

   3. If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $350.00 filing fee
      and $52.00 administrative fee or file a complete
      Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days,
      the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of
      this action without prejudice and without further notice
      to Plaintiff and deny any pending unrelated motions as
      moot.

   4. The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved
      form for filing an Application to Proceed In Forma
      Pauperis (Non-Habeas).

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's argument consists of a single
conclusory statement that the Winter factors been "overwhelmingly
satisfied." Absent any substantive discussion of those factors,
however, the Court is unable to agree. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
has failed to meet the "heavy" burden associated with a request for
mandatory preliminary injunctive relief, e.g., Hall v. 9 U.S. Dep't
of Agric., 467 F. Supp. 3d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2020), and the Court will
therefore deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction."

In her Motion to Certify Class, the Plaintiff seeks class
certification for inmates who qualify to receive Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) payments.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yFMI0R at no extra charge.[CC]

JIMMY JOHN'S: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva W. Cole, Esq., and Kevin B. Goldstein, Esq., of Winston &
Strawn LLP, disclosed that in the fast-developing area of no-poach
antitrust law, two courts have recently denied class certification
bids for former Jimmy John's and McDonald's employees in their
respective no-poach suits alleging that the chains' franchise
locations were prohibited from recruiting one another's workers.
Plaintiffs in both actions were seeking to certify a nationwide
class of former employees, but the judges found that no single
nationwide market existed for such fast-food labor, and individual
class-member differences were fatal to the class claims.

BACKGROUND ON NO-POACH AND FRANCHISE CLAIMS
No-poach and wage-fixing agreements have become an increasing focus
of both government enforcement and private litigation in the United
States. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal
Trade Commission jointly issued the Antitrust Guidance for Human
Resource Professionals (Guidance), which alerted employers to the
antitrust risks associated with wage-fixing and no-poach
agreements. The Guidance specifically warned competing employers
against entering into anticompetitive agreements that would limit
or fix individual-firm decision-making with regard to wages,
salaries, or benefits, as well as terms of employment or job
opportunities. Recently, the DOJ moved beyond civil litigation in
this area and secured its first criminal indictments for
wage-fixing and non-solicitation agreements. (See here for our
prior blog post on the DOJ's first criminal wage-fixing indictment
and here for our blog post on the challenges facing the
constitutionality of such indictments). President Biden's July 2021
Executive Order on competition reinforced that labor market
antitrust issues will remain a high priority for the foreseeable
future. (See our prior blog post and podcast on these issues).

The franchise subset of no-poach cases further developed over 2017
and 2018, as a coalition of state attorneys general investigated
and began to challenge no-poach provisions in franchise agreements
between owners of franchises and corporate headquarters. Such
agreements typically prevented employees from moving among stores
in the same corporate chain. Private plaintiffs similarly filed
dozens of class actions across the fast-food industry, often as a
follow-on to enforcer investigations. In response to the increasing
scrutiny, many of the national franchise chains announced they
would no longer enforce their no-poach agreements and entered into
settlements to avoid enforcement actions. Despite the high volume
of cases, disagreements continue to exist regarding the correct
legal standard of review that should apply to such franchise cases.
Some state attorneys general, such as in Washington, argue that
franchisees and franchisors are horizontal competitors and the
agreements are per se illegal. Under the Trump administration, the
DOJ had instead taken the position that the rule-of-reason
balancing test should apply, arguing that it is a vertical
relationship and no-poach agreements can offer procompetitive
benefits. It is unclear whether the Biden administration will take
a consistent position or back a different standard of review. (See
here for our prior blog post on the legal standards applied in the
franchise no-poach context).

RECENT JIMMY JOHN'S AND MCDONALD'S DECISIONS
On July 23, 2021, in a now-unsealed decision, the Southern District
of Illinois denied class certification in the action brought
against Jimmy John's. Conrad v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, No.
18-CV-00133, Dkt. No. 240 (S.D. Ill. July 23, 2021). According to
the allegations, the Jimmy John's franchise agreement contained a
no-poach provision that, in effect, prohibited employees from
switching between rival locations. Such provisions allegedly
stifled competition for labor in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, effectively suppressing wages and limiting worker
mobility, leading to class-wide injury and damages. The former
Jimmy John's employee who brought the case, Donald Conrad, was
denied his request to represent an estimated 615,000 current and
former employees who worked at either Jimmy John's franchises or
corporate stores during a four-year period. The class that Conrad
sought to certify included all employees at Jimmy John's-branded
restaurants, including managers who were in charge of enforcing the
no-poach provisions and nonsupervisory employees, such as
in-shoppers and drivers.

A few days later, on July 28, 2021, in a decision that aligns with
that of the Jimmy John's court, the Northern District of Illinois
denied class certification in litigation against McDonald's.
Deslandes v. McDonald's USA, LLC, No. 17-CV-4857, Dkt. No. 372
(N.D. Ill. July 28, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the franchise
agreement, from at least 1973 to 2017, had contained a no-poach
provision that violated the Sherman Act and suppressed their wages.
Former workers Leinani Deslandes and Stephanie Turner sought to
represent a nationwide class of former McDonald's employees during
a five-year period. In March 2017—just months before the private
Deslandes class action was filed—McDonald's announced it would
discontinue enforcing the same no-poach provision at issue and, in
July 2018, entered an agreement with the Washington State Attorney
General that the provision would no longer be included in future
agreements or enforced in existing agreements.

Notably, in denying class certification, both courts concluded that
a rule-of-reason balancing test should apply to the cases, relying
upon the June 2021 Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston (in
which Winston successfully represented the college athletes). The
correct standard of review to apply in no-poach cases, and within
the franchise context in particular, is a still-debated topic, and
indeed the plaintiffs here took varying positions. The plaintiff in
Jimmy John's had alleged that the no-poach provisions were "naked
restraints" on competition, or a per se violation. In McDonald's,
plaintiffs relied on earlier language from the court to argue that
a "quick look" analysis, which is a short form of the
rule-of-reason analysis, should apply. However, in both cases, the
courts rejected the plaintiffs' proposed standards and held that
the Supreme Court's reasoning in Alston meant that the rule of
reason would be the appropriate standard given defendants' evidence
of procompetitive benefits. Jimmy John's at 26; McDonald's at 11.
Of the three potential legal standards at issue, the rule of reason
requires the most extensive factual inquiry, including the need for
the ultimate finder of fact to balance the anticompetitive effects
of the conduct (e.g., decreased intra-franchise labor competition)
with the procompetitive benefits of that conduct (e.g., increased
incentive to invest in training and inter-franchise competition)
with a relevant antitrust market. Thus, at the class certification
stage, applying the rule of reason raises the bar for plaintiffs
because it increases the number of factual issues that plaintiffs
need to show are capable of resolution on a class-wide basis.
Without reaching the merits, the courts in Jimmy John's and
McDonald's both considered evidence of procompetitive
justifications and the relevant markets.

Both district courts ultimately found that plaintiffs failed to
meet the predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and
that common issues could not be determined on a class-wide basis.
Due to their failure to adequately plead predominance, the
plaintiffs were denied their requests to represent nationwide
classes. In McDonald's, the court extensively discussed the
relevant market, noting that by virtue of their labor, the
"relevant market for each plaintiff's labor is a small, geographic
area" and that "there are likely hundreds or thousands of relevant
markets among the class members." McDonalds, at 21-23. Thus, those
localized issues predominate and do not allow for determination of
the claims on a nationwide basis, as the plaintiffs sought to do.

In Jimmy John's, the court instead focused its predominance
analysis on differences in the alleged no-poach agreements and how
they were applied by different franchisees, as well as conflicting
roles of employees in the putative class, noting that managers were
often responsible for making hiring decisions of franchisee
workers. Jimmy John's, at 22-24. Further, both courts agreed the
defendants had offered persuasive evidence that the no-poach
agreements had procompetitive justifications in the franchise
context, namely that they encouraged the chains to invest in
training their employees and promoted cooperation between
franchisees. Jimmy John's, at 27-28; McDonald's, at 12-16.

Separately, the individual named plaintiff in the Jimmy John's
case, Conrad, presented unique issues that contributed to the
court's denial of class certification. Jimmy John's, at 13-14. The
plaintiff failed to establish that he had been denied the
opportunity to change employment locations because of any no-poach
agreement, and actually conceded that such provisions were
"irrelevant" to him. As such, Conrad's claims were atypical of
those of the putative class members, and simply being a former
employee of Jimmy John's was insufficient.

CONCLUSION
The denial of class certification significantly decreases the
potential exposure for both Jimmy John's and McDonald's and poses
serious questions for whether other no-poach class actions (even
outside of the franchise context) will be allowed to proceed under
a theory that a nationwide class is appropriate for such claims. It
remains to be seen whether these plaintiffs will seek to appeal
(both cases would go to the Seventh Circuit) or refile new motions
for class certification attempting to narrow their classes and/or
correct deficiencies identified by the courts. As it stands, these
decisions significantly raise the bar on attempts to bring
nationwide class claims for alleged labor market antitrust
violations, particularly in the many sectors where workers are
drawn primarily from local or regional labor pools. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Tracleer Antitrust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit related to Tracleer.

In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals
U.S., Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland and United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to
supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
TRACLEER(R).  

TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy
required by the Food and Drug Administration, which imposes
restrictions on distribution of the product.  

In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  

In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

In April 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reversed and remanded.

Discovery is ongoing.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Arbitration in Direct Purchaser Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that Janssen moved to compel
arbitration of the Direct Purchaser Action related to Zytiga.

In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO
Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen
Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research &
Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
indirect purchasers of Zytiga.

Several additional complaints were filed thereafter in Virginia and
New Jersey.

The indirect purchaser complaints generally allege that the
defendants violated the antitrust and consumer protections laws of
several states and the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation
relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry and seek
damages. The Virginia cases have been transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey and
consolidated with the New Jersey case.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in February 2021.

In April 2021, Janssen moved to dismiss the Indirect Purchaser
Action.

In May 2020, a class action complaint was filed against Janssen
Biotech Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research &
Development LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of direct
purchasers of ZYTIGA(R).

The direct purchaser complaint alleges that defendants violated the
Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in
order to delay generic entry, and seek damages and injunctive
relief.

In April 2021, Janssen moved to compel arbitration of the Direct
Purchaser Action.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial in Contact Lens-Related Suit Set for 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that trial in the consolidated
contact lens related putative class suit is set to begin in March
2022.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. and
other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers,
alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail
prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.


The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in
November 2015.

Discovery and pre-trial motion practice are complete.

Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2022.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Dismissal Bid of Gumm Suit Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in
Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, heard oral
argument on a motion to dismiss and took the matter under
advisement.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.

The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.

The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of
the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to
the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.

The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 3, 2017.

On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the motion
to dismiss and took the matter under advisement.

Johnson said, "Although the Company believes it has substantial
defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to predict the
outcome of this action."

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

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi-industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company and
its subsidiaries continue to defend several class action suits
related to Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF").

Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard and Tyco Fire
Products, have been named, along with other defendant
manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, and, in some cases,
certain subsidiaries of the Company affiliated with Chemguard and
Tyco Fire Products, in a number of class action and other lawsuits
relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S.
Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression
purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally
allege that the firefighting foam products contain or break down
into the chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or other PFAS compounds and
that the use of these products by others at various airbases,
airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals
into the environment and ultimately into communities' drinking
water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other
sites.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages
for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, diminution in
property values, investigation and remediation costs, and natural
resources damages, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive
relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination.

PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other
environmental and health agencies and researchers. The EPA has not
issued binding regulatory limits, but had initially stated that it
would propose regulatory standards for PFOS and PFOA in drinking
water by the end of 2019, in accordance with its PFAS Action Plan
released in February 2019, and issued interim recommendations for
addressing PFOA and PFOS in groundwater in December 2019.

While those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory
level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.

In March 2021, EPA published its final determination to regulate
PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. The EPA also announced in January
2021 that it will issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
solicit public comment on whether the agency should take additional
regulatory steps to address PFAS contamination, including
designating PFOA and PFOS and other PFAS as hazardous substances
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and seeking comment on whether PFOA and PFOS and
other PFAS should be subject to regulation as hazardous waste under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Agency reissued those actions in February 2021. Both PFOA and
PFOS are types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been
present in firefighting foam.

However, both are also present in many existing consumer products.
According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make carpets,
clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and other
materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water, grease or
stains.

In September 2018, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard filed a
Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to
consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one
jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order
transferring various AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation
(MDL) before the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina.

Additional cases have been identified for transfer to or are being
directly filed in the MDL.

AFFF Putative Class Actions

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 32 putative class
actions in federal courts originating from Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, New
Hampshire, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, Guam, West
Virginia, Michigan, Texas and South Dakota.

All of these cases except one have been direct-filed in or
transferred to the MDL, with one recently-filed case expected to be
transferred to the MDL shortly. Since the beginning of fiscal year
2021, three putative class actions (Jackson v. 3M Company, et al.,
direct filed on January 15, 2021 in the MDL pending in the United
States District Court, District of South Carolina; Ogden v.
Intercontinental Terminals Company LLC, et al., filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas on January 27,
2021, and transferred to the MDL; Miller v. 3M Company et al.,
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
West Virginia on July 8, 2021, and tagged to the MDL) have been
filed against the Company.

AFFF Individual or Mass Actions

There are approximately 1,270 individual or "mass" actions pending
that were filed in state or federal court in various states
including California, Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico,
Missouri, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina against Chemguard and
Tyco Fire Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs
generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged
personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in
property values.

The cases involve plaintiffs from various states including
approximately 7,000 plaintiffs in Colorado, approximately 126
plaintiffs in New York, and approximately 1,000 other plaintiffs.

All but two of these matters have been transferred to or
directly-filed in the MDL. One case, Young v. Chemguard et al., was
filed in superior court in Maricopa County, Arizona, removed to the
United States District Court, District of Arizona, and tagged to
the MDL, but was remanded to state court prior to being transferred
to the MDL.

The decision to remand the case to state court is currently being
appealed. Many of the additional filed actions were directly filed
in South Carolina by plaintiffs who were among the 660 plaintiffs
the Company had previously disclosed to have made filings in
Pennsylvania state court.

The Company anticipates that the remainder of the possible
individual product liability claims filed in Pennsylvania state
court will either soon be filed in the MDL (and that all such
claims in state court will be dismissed accordingly) or will be
dismissed in Pennsylvania without a corresponding filing in South
Carolina.

AFFF Municipal Cases

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products have been named as defendants in
119 cases in federal and state courts involving municipal or water
provider plaintiffs in Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Washington, the District of Columbia and several
municipalities or water providers from various states who
direct-filed complaints in South Carolina.

All but seven of these cases have been transferred to or directly
filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that the remaining cases
will be transferred to the MDL. These municipal plaintiffs
generally allege that the use of the defendants' fire-fighting foam
products at fire training academies, municipal airports, Air
National Guard bases, or Navy or Air Force bases released PFOS and
PFOA into public water supply wells, allegedly requiring
remediation of public property.

In May 2018, the Company was also notified by the Widefield Water
and Sanitation District in Colorado Springs, Colorado that it may
assert claims regarding its remediation costs in connection with
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
those products at the Peterson Air Force Base.

In May 2020, the Company was also notified by the Lakewood Water
District in Pierce County, Washington that it may assert claims
regarding remediation in connection with PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of those products at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

State or U.S. Territory Attorneys General Litigation related to
AFFF

In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al No.
904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from
firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including
Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air
National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in
Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified
"other" sites throughout the State.

The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages
associated with contamination at these sites. This suit has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York and transferred to the MDL.

In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in
New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at additional locations across New York.

This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In
July 2019, the State of New York filed a third lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA
contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at
further additional locations across New York. This suit has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York and transferred to the MDL.

In November 2019, the State of New York filed a fourth lawsuit in
New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at further additional locations across New York. This
suit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.

In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state
court (State of Ohio v. The 3M Company et al., No.
G-4801-CI-021804752 -000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County,
Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of
the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly
resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified
and unspecified locations across Ohio.

The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages
associated with the contamination. This lawsuit has been removed to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
and transferred to the MDL.

In addition, in May and June 2019, three other states filed
lawsuits in their respective state courts against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations
across their jurisdictions (State of New Hampshire v. The 3M
Company et al.; State of Vermont v. The 3M Company et al.; State of
New Jersey v. The 3M Company et al.).

All three of these suits have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the MDL.

In September 2019, the government of Guam filed a lawsuit in the
superior court of Guam against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within its jurisdiction.

This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to
the MDL.

In November 2019, the government of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands filed a lawsuit in the superior court of
the Northern Mariana Islands against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within its jurisdiction.

This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to
the MDL.

In August 2020, Attorney General of the State of Michigan filed two
substantially similar lawsuits—one in federal court and one in
state court—against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within the State.

The federal action has been transferred to the MDL, and the state
court action has been removed to federal court and transferred to
the MDL.

In December 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit against
a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of
the State's land and natural resources allegedly resulting from the
use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the
State.

This complaint was direct-filed in the MDL in South Carolina.

In April 2021, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in the superior
court of the State of Alaska against a number of manufacturers and
other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect
to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State's land and natural resources
allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various
locations throughout the State.

This complaint has not yet been served.

AFFF Matters Related to the Tyco Fire Products Fire Technology
Center in Marinette, Wisconsin

Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard are defendants in one lawsuit in
Marinette County, Wisconsin alleging damages due to the historical
use of AFFF products at Tyco's Fire Technology Center in Marinette,
Wisconsin.

The putative class action, Joan & Richard Campbell for themselves
and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Tyco Fire Products LP
and Chemguard Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed
Dec. 17, 2018) alleges PFAS (including PFOA/PFOS) contaminated
groundwater migrated off Tyco's property and into residential
drinking water wells causing both personal injuries and property
damage to the plaintiffs; Tyco and Chemguard removed this case to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin and it has been transferred to the MDL. On January 7,
2021, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.

The settlement provides that Tyco will pay up to $17.5 million to
compensate Town of Peshtigo residents who live in the area affected
by PFAS from the FTC for claims related to loss of real property
value, exposure and/or personal injury.

The settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by
Tyco or Chemguard and is subject to approval by the federal court
presiding over the lawsuit and other contingencies.

The court conducted a hearing regarding the proposed settlement in
May 2021; following this hearing the parties will submit for final
approval an amended settlement agreement.

The Company does not expect the settlement to have a significant
impact on its fiscal year 2021 results of operations or cash
flows.

Other AFFF Related Matters

In March 2020, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians (a federally
recognized Tribe) and two tribal corporations filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates
of the Company, and the United States with respect to PFAS
contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF
by the United States Air Force at and around Fairchild Air Force
Base in eastern Washington. This case has been transferred to the
MDL.

The Company is vigorously defending the above matters and believes
that it has meritorious defenses to class certification and the
claims asserted, including statutes of limitations, the government
contractor defense, various medical and scientific defenses, and
other factual and legal defenses.

The government contractor defense is a form of immunity available
to government contractors that produced products for the United
States government pursuant to the government's specifications. Tyco
and Chemguard have insurance that has been in place for many years
and the Company is pursuing this coverage for these matters.

However, there are numerous factual and legal issues to be resolved
in connection with these claims, and it is extremely difficult to
predict the outcome or ultimate financial exposure, if any,
represented by these matters, and there can be no assurance that
any such exposure will not be material.

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi-industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JUBILEE MART: Nelson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amanda Nelson, on behalf
of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. Jubilee Mart, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02184-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. authorizing case to proceed as a collective action for
      overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216 (b), on behalf of
      similarly-situated past and present Jubilee Mart
      employees, with the collective to be defined as follows:

      "all individuals employed by Jubilee Mart, LLC in one of
      its stores from March 30, 2018 to present and compensated
      on an hourly basis who were denied the statutorily
      required overtime premium for all hours worked in excess
      of 40 hours in a work week;"

   2. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's
      counsel within 10 days of the Order granting this Motion a
      list containing the names, the last known addresses, last
      known email addresses, and phone numbers for hourly-paid
      personnel employed by Defendants from March 30, 2018 to
      present;

   3. authorizing him to send the notice and consent to join, to
      all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
      Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and email so that
      they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of
      this litigation;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
      as of the date this action was filed;

   5. directing the Defendants to post notice in an employee
      designated area at all locations where putative class
      members work.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Oliphant, Esq.
          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com

KANZHUN LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ:BZ)

Investors Affected: June 11, 2021 - July 2, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Kanzhun Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (2) the
CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on its
BOSS Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed to "to conduct a comprehensive
examination of cybersecurity risks"; (4) Kanzhun needed to "enhance
its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities"; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/kanzhun-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=18324&from=1

Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)

This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its
Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Coinbase Global, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company required a sizeable cash injection;
(2) the Company's platform was susceptible to service-level
disruptions, which were increasingly likely to occur as the Company
scaled its services to a larger user base; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18324&from=1

CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ:CRMD)

Investors Affected: July 8, 2020 - May 13, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
CorMedix Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to an
investigational drug product, DefenCath's, manufacturing process
and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath;
(ii) in light of the foregoing deficiencies, the Food and Drug
Administration was unlikely to approve the DefenCath new drug
application for catheter-related bloodstream infections in its
present form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18324&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]

KCI USA: Palmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE PALMER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KCI
USA, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-03084-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.),  the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed
Class:

   "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
   whom KCI USA, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call
   directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone
   service, but not assigned to a KCI USA, Inc. customer, (2) by
   using an artificial or prerecorded voice, (3) from August 19,
   2015 through and including the date of class certification."

The Plaintiff additionally requests that this Court appoint her as
the representative for the proposed Class, and Greenwald Davidson
Radbil PLLC and Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP as counsel for the
proposed Class.

KCI manufactures, sells, and markets therapeutic specialty support
surfaces and medical devices.

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

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed Class, are:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Suits Over Recalled Sleep Apnea Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Legal Examiner reports that since Philips recalled
millions of CPAP and Bi-Pap machines back in June 2021, several
class-action lawsuits have been filed against the company, with
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement costs for the machines. These
cases are the first few in what is expected to be a large number of
similar class-action claims, along with individual injury claims
file by those believing their respiratory illnesses and other
health problems to be related to the recalled devices.

Three Class-Action Lawsuits Filed Against Philips
Oregon Truck Driver Robbed of Required Sleep Equipment

On June 29, 2021, an Oregon professional truck driver filed a
class-action lawsuit against Philips in the District of
Massachusetts, claiming that after the recall, he was unable to use
his Bi-PAP machine. He is required to treat his sleep apnea to be
able to drive, and since Philips did not offer a replacement
device, the recall caused him to lose work.

He also stated that he developed atrial fibrillation because he was
no longer able to get sufficient sleep without the use of an
appropriate device to help him breathe right. He filed the case on
behalf of himself and all other citizens similarly situated in the
nation and the state of Oregon.

Virginia Woman Forced to Buy a New CPAP Machine

On July 5, 2021, a Virginia woman filed a similar class-action
lawsuit against Philips in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
She purchased a Philips DreamStation CPAP machine about three years
ago through the Comprehensive Sleep Care Center in Northern
Virginia. She used the device every night at the advice of her
doctor.

When Philips announced the recall of the DreamStation CPAP
machines, the plaintiff consulted with her doctor. She has since
had to order a new CPAP machine, which she will have to pay for out
of her health insurance deductible. She is seeking reimbursement
for the replacement, as well as all other appropriate damages, and
wants to represent herself and others similarly situated in the
nation and the state of Virginia.

Four Men from the Various States Left Without CPAP Machines

On July 9, 2021, four plaintiffs together filed a new class-action
lawsuit against Philips in the District of Massachusetts. Two of
the plaintiffs are from New York, one is from Illinois, and one is
from Indiana. All of them were using the Philips DreamStation
devices to treat health conditions before the recall, and all will
now have to replace those machines at considerable cost.

They seek to represent others similarly situated throughout the
nation and in the four respective states.

Three Class-Action Lawsuits Filed Against Philips
On June 30, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
issued a safety communication warning doctors and patients of the
Philips recall. The administration stated that the polyester-based
polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement form used in the devices
could break down and potentially enter the device's air pathway.

Should this occur, black debris from the foam or certain chemicals
released into the air pathway could be inhaled or swallowed by
patients using the devices. This could result in serious injuries
that could be life-threatening, cause permanent impairment, and
require medical intervention.

The plaintiffs in all of these cases claim that Philips knew about
this foam problem long before implementing the recall. The company
has received several complaints about the presence of black
debris/particles within the device's air pathway, as well as
reports of headaches, upper airway irritation, cough, chest
pressure, and sinus infection that could be related to this issue.
[GN]

LAUREL OAK: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Jimy Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Laurel Oak Landscaping, Inc., SouthEast Landscaping
II, LLC, Liudmila Rivas and Raul Torres, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-22826, (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2021) seeks to recover money
damages in the amount of $577.31 in unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act including statutory damages and corresponding
liquidated damages of $577.31.

Rodriguez worked as an assistant landscaper for the Defendants at
different times. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without overtime premiums. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Use of CCC System Violates Policy, Katchuk Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA KATCHUK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 132160831 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough
Cty., August 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes.

The case arises from the Defendant's use of the CCC ONE Market
Value system, a proprietary electronic database product licensed
from CCC Information Services Inc., to adjust and pay its total
loss claims in Florida. The CCC System allegedly breaches the
Liberty Mutual insurance policy covering damage to motor vehicles
because it is not a generally recognized used vehicle industry
source as required by the insurance policy and it is not designed
to and does not calculate the actual retail cost to purchase a
comparable motor vehicle, but rather something different, the value
of the total loss vehicle immediately prior to the total loss
event. Moreover, the Defendant's use of CCC system breaches the
face of the policy because, as each report generated by the CCC
system states on its face multiple times, it is supposedly designed
to provide the market value of a total loss vehicle, not its
replacement cost less depreciation, as Florida law defines actual
cash value as used in the policy, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek a declaratory judgment to
address the doubt they have about their rights under Florida law
and the policy and their ongoing controversy with Liberty Mutual
over the legality of the CCC system used by Liberty Mutual to
calculate the cash payments it made on their total loss claims.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company,
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
         THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
         954 First Avenue North
         St. Petersburg, FL 33705
         Telephone: (727) 894-2929
         E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                 khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
                 rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

                 - and –

         Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
         CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
         320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
         Tampa, FL 33606
         Telephone: (813) 251-8800
         E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com
                 maria@rothburdpa.com

                 - and –

         Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
         NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
         P.O. Box 15063
         St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
         Telephone: (727) 342-0617
         E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

                 - and –

         Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
         Mark Fistos, Esq.
         ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
         110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2900
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 989-6333
         E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                 mfistos@zpllp.com

                 - and –

         Alec Schultz, Esq.
         HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
         1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 630-8304
         E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com

                 - and –

         Andrew Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE
         14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

LIBERTY OILFIELD: Cobb and Joseph IPO Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits initiated by
Marshall Cobb and Marc Joseph.

On March 11, 2020, Marshall Cobb, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the state District Court of Denver County, Colorado
against the Company and certain officers and board members of the
Company along with other defendants in connection with the initial
public offering (IPO).

The Cobb Complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
and board members of the Company violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading
statements allegedly contained in the registration statement filed
in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and
costs.

The Cobb Plaintiffs also allege control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.

On April 3, 2020, Marc Joseph, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado against the
Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along
with other defendants in connection with the IPO and requests
unspecified damages and costs.

The Joseph Complaint, which is based on similar factual allegations
made in the Cobb Complaint, alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of
inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
IPO.

The Joseph Complaint also alleges control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.

The Company has hired counsel and plans to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Securities Lawsuits.

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

Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. is an independent provider of
hydraulic fracturing services and goods to onshore oil and natural
gas exploration and production companies in North America. The
company had grown from one hydraulic fracturing fleet in December
2011 to 24 fleets in the first quarter of 2020, including the
addition of one fleet in January 2020. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Seeks to Strike McCarthy's Class Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET MCCARTHY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04668-SB-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order striking the
Plaintiff's class allegations and setting a briefing schedule on a
motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff McCarthy failed to
file her motion for class certification within the June 25, 2021
deadline set by the Court.

Loyola Marymount is a private Jesuit and Marymount research
university in Los Angeles, California. It is located on the west
side of the city, near Playa Vista.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vito A. Costanzo, Esq.
          Kristina S. Azlin, Esq.
          Stacey H. Wang, Esq.
          Qian (Sheila) Shen, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 896-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 896-2450
          E-mail: vito.costanzo@hklaw.com
                  kristina.azlin@hklaw.com
                  stacey.wang@hklaw.com
                  qian.shen@hklaw.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Settlement in Barnes Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants in part
and denies in part the motion for settlement approval in the
lawsuit styled MICHELLE BARNES, et al., Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-03205-PX (D.
Md.).

The motion for settlement approval is jointly filed by Plaintiffs
Michelle Barnes and Paige Stroman, along with fellow opt-in
Plaintiffs Cynthia Arrington and Michelle Freeman-Kenton, and
Defendant Marriott International, LLC.

The Plaintiffs brought this action on Nov. 4, 2020, asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs worked as customer service representatives at
Marriott call centers across the country. They aver Marriott failed
to pay them for necessary pre-, mid-, and post-shift activities,
such as logging onto their work systems and checking work-related
emails, in breach of their employment agreements. They also allege
Marriott paid them insufficient overtime wages.

On Nov. 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional class
certification pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b). After several weeks of settlement negotiations, the
parties now seek this Court's approval of their proposed settlement
agreement.

The parties propose a settlement amount of $32,000, to be
distributed as follows: $1,500 to Plaintiff Barnes, $1,600 to
Plaintiff Stroman, $1,500 to opt-in Plaintiff Arrington, $100 to
op-in Plaintiff Kenton, and $27,300 in attorney's fees to counsel
for the Plaintiffs. Although the Plaintiffs initially brought this
case as a collective action, they no longer seek to certify said
class or collective.

Fairness and Reasonableness of the Settlement

To evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, the
Court may consider the following: (1) the extent of discovery
undertaken; (2) the stage of the proceedings, including the
complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the
absence of fraud or collusion in the settlement; (4) the experience
of plaintiffs' counsel; (5) the opinions of counsel; and (6) the
probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits, and the amount of
settlement contrasted with the potential recovery (Hackett v. ADF
Rest. Invs., 259 F.Supp.3d 360, 365 (D. Md. 2016)).

The Court believes that the proposed settlement as to the
Plaintiffs' recovery is fair and reasonable. As to the first two
factors, although no formal discovery has taken place, the parties
engaged in settlement negotiations lasting several weeks. During
this time, the Defendant produced each of the Plaintiffs' pay
statements, which, along with the Complaint and sworn declarations,
would have formed the basis of the Plaintiffs' wage demands.

As for the next three factors, the Plaintiffs' counsel is certainly
experienced in litigating FLSA collective actions, and no evidence
suggests that the settlement agreement is the product of fraud or
collusion, District Judge Paula Xinis notes. Further, the proposed
settlement is only between the individual Plaintiffs and the
Defendant, and so the rights of potential class members are not
affected or prejudiced by this settlement.

The sixth factor also supports granting the proposed settlement,
Judge Xinis holds. After reviewing the pay records for each
individual Plaintiff, counsel has determined that the agreed-upon
settlement represents a strong outcome for the Plaintiffs, each of
whom stands to recover a substantial percentage of their alleged
damages. Further, according to counsel, this amount fairly takes
into account the Plaintiffs' calculated potential damages and the
risk, expenses, and uncertainty of litigation, including the risk
to the Plaintiffs of not recovering anything at all. Thus, Judge
Xinis holds that the amount awarded to the Plaintiffs appears fair
and reasonable.

Reasonableness of Attorney's Fees

The Plaintiffs are represented by Jason Thompson and Charles R.
Ash, IV with the law firm Sommers, Schwartz, P.C. Two paralegals at
the firm, Debbie Nichols and Wendy Vaughn, also assisted in this
matter. After reviewing the time records for these four
individuals, the Court is satisfied counsel reasonably expended 66
hours on this case. However, they have proposed hourly rates that
substantially exceed local guidelines, and without adequate
justification. The Court must, therefore, adjust these rates
accordingly.

Mr. Thompson has been admitted to the bar for nearly 30 years. He
worked 8.4 hours on this case, at a rate of $725 per hour, for a
total of $6,090. Judge Xinis observes that Mr. Thompson's hourly
rate dwarfs the maximum hourly rate of $475 in the Appendix B
guidelines for an attorney with 20 years of experience or more. He
responds that this rate is what he typically charges and that it is
consistent with rates customarily charged in Detroit, Michigan, and
the national legal market for class action FLSA litigation.

But the hourly rate Thompson may be able to charge in other
jurisdictions does not support this Court's adjustment of the
presumptively reasonable rate for this District, Judge Xinis
opines. She notes that Thompson offers no other grounds to justify
a 53% increase in this Court's presumptively reasonable hourly
rate. Accordingly, the Court adjusts Thompson's hourly rate to $475
per hour, the high end of the presumptively reasonable range in
this district.

Attorney Ash has practiced law since 2010. His practice is almost
exclusively class and collective action wage and hour cases. For
attorneys with nine to 14 years of experience, the local guidelines
recommend an hourly rate of $225 to $350. Ash has charged an hourly
rate of $450.51 for a total of 52.1 hours of work. Similar to
Thompson, Ash provides no support for the Court to adopt an hourly
rate substantially higher than the presumptively reasonable range
in this district. The Court will, therefore, adjust Ash's hourly
rate to $350, also the high end of the guidelines range for someone
with his experience.

The Court approves counsel's proposed hourly rate of $150 for the
5.7 hours of work performed by their paralegals, as it is
presumptively reasonable.

Thus, the lodestar amount must be adjusted accordingly to reflect
the lower hourly rates for Thompson and Ash.

The Court believes the adjusted attorney's fees are fair and
reasonable. In addition to the lodestar amount, the Court also
approves an award of $440.89 for related costs and expenses, for a
total of $23,295.89.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court approves the proposed settlement
amount for each individual Plaintiff. The Court will also approve
an award of attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $23,295.89.

Because the Court has only approved the settlement agreement in
part, the parties must inform the Court how they wish to proceed.
The parties are free to revise the settlement terms according to
the amounts as approved in this decision and submit a revised
agreement to the Court in a renewed motion for approval.

Alternatively, the parties may renegotiate the terms of the entire
settlement and submit a revised proposed agreement that reallocates
the settlement amounts and attorneys' fees differently. Lastly,
either party is free to declare the proposed settlement null and
void and elect to resume litigation. The parties are to submit a
joint status report within 14 days informing the Court how they
wish to proceed.

Finally, the Plaintiffs have represented they no longer seek class
certification in this action. The Court will, therefore, deny
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, with leave to refile in the event the case does not
settle. If the case proceeds to litigation, the Court will schedule
a status conference to discuss an appropriate schedule going
forward.

A separate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/kdnym8zn from
Leagle.com.


MCDONALD'S USA: Extension of Class Cert. Reply Brief Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA RIES, et al., v.
McDONALD's USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00002-HYJ-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline for the filing of reply briefs in support of class
certification-connected motions and summary judgment motions by two
weeks, in order to accommodate counsel's unforeseen family
scheduling issues and a serious medical condition affecting one
counsel's family member, and to allow for orderly completion of
briefing.

This is a putative class action, in which the four Named Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of women who worked at the McDonald's
restaurant located at 730 North Cedar Street in Mason, Michigan,
alleging that they and putative class members were subjected to
sexual harassment and a hostile work environment in violation of
Title VII and ELCRA.

On February 26, 2020, this Court entered a Case Management Order.
This Court entered an Order, dated August 3, 2020,
which modified some of the deadlines in this Court's original Case
Management. On December 21, 2020, this Court subsequently modified
some of the deadlines in its August 3, 2020 Order. On April 8,
2021, the Court modified some of the deadlines in its December 21,
2020 Order to accommodate a serious medical condition affecting a
family member of one of the Parties' lead counsel.

McDonald's operates a chain of restaurants.

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

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:

          Darcie R. Brault, Esq.
          MCKNIGHT, CANZANO, SMITH,
          RADTKE & BRAULT, P.C.
          423 N. Main Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 354-9650
          E-mail: dbrault@michworkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          Elizabeth Vissers, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
                  evissers@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Gillian Thomas, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          WOMEN'S RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 284-7356
          E-mail: gthomas@aclu.org

The Attorneys for Defendants MLMLM Corporation and M.A.A.K.S. Inc.,
are:

          C. Thomas Ludden, Esq.
          LIPSON NEILSON, P.C.
          3910 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 593-5000
          E-mail: tludden@lipsonneilson.com

The Attorneys for McDonald's USA LLC and McDonald's Corporation,
are:

          Jennifer W. Plagman, Esq.
          Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Plagman, Esq.
          Andrew J. Clopton, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 269-4374
          E-mail: emcree@jonesday.com
                  jplagman@jonesday.com
                  aclopton@jonesday.com

MDL 2913: California Court Tosses Some Claims in Bellwether Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC.,
MARKETING SALES PRACTICE AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part the motions to
dismiss personal injury bellwether complaints.

Defendants Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria
Client Services LLC (ACS), and Altria Group Distribution Company
(AGDC) are collectively named "Altria." Defendants James Monsees
and Adam Bowen are collectively named the "Founder Defendants."
Defendants Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Hoyoung Huh are
collectively named the "Other Director Defendants" or "ODDs."

Three sets of Defendants--the Altria entities, the Founder
Defendants, and the Other Director Defendants (ODDs)--challenge
claims asserted by each of the 18 bellwether personal injury
plaintiffs. Four out of the 24 initial bellwether plaintiffs
selected by the parties voluntarily dismissed their cases (Potter,
Smigiel, Dixon, Wilson). One additional plaintiff was selected
(Rosenfield), but then she and two others (Mangham and Arnett)
voluntarily dismissed their cases. 18 bellwether plaintiffs
remain.

While the allegations regarding residence and use are particular to
each Plaintiff, the substantive allegations regarding each
Defendant's conduct in the Amended Master Complaint (Personal
Injury) and repeated in each of the personal injury bellwether
complaints at issue here are materially consistent with those
alleged in the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("SACAC") and the Second Amended Public Entity Complaints (PECs).
Those substantive and material allegations have been identified and
discussed in depth in two of the Court's prior Orders and will not
be repeated here (See In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales
Practices, and Products Liab. Litig., 497 F.Supp.3d 552 (N.D. Cal.
2020) (JUUL I); In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, and
Products Liab. Litig., 19-MD-02913-WHO, 2021 WL 1391540 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 13, 2021) (JUUL II)).

District Judge William H. Orrick notes that not surprisingly, his
rulings on the pending motions to dismiss are consistent with those
prior orders. While the issues he addresses here are too numerous
to summarize neatly, the Judge holds that he is dismissing with
prejudice the strict products liability claims against the Founder
Defendants and ODDs, as well as some state law claims as required
by particular state statutes. The other issues raised in the
motions are denied.

The Plaintiffs' opposition briefs identify numerous claims that
they "do not intend to defend" against with respect to these
bellwether plaintiffs, while reserving the right to seek economic
damages related to some of those claims through the class cases. As
a result, the claims at issue in these motions are limited to,
generally, strict liability claims, negligence claims, fraud and
misrepresentation claims, and claims for medical monitoring.

I. Pritzker, Huh and Valani's Motion to Dismiss

In their opposition to the ODD's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs
clarify that they "will not defend" the bellwether plaintiffs'
claims against the ODDs based on the following theories: (1)
negligent failure to recall or retrofit, (2) unjust enrichment, (3)
statutory consumer fraud, (4) breach of warranty, and (5)
intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims still at
issue on the ODD's motion are: (1) strict product liability, (2)
negligence, (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, and (5)
medical monitoring.

Defendants Pritzker, Valani, and Huh argue, as they did on their
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaints and the
Public Entity Complaints, that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege that each of them "personally participated" in
wrongdoing sufficient to hold each of them liable under any of the
claims. They contend that the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the
ODD's control of the board are insufficient to allege "personal
participation" and that the Plaintiffs' allegations amount to
"benign" corporate activity insufficient to hold them liable for
tort-based claims.

In his April 13, 2021 Order on the motions to dismiss the SACAC and
seven PECs, Judge Orrick addressed the fraud-based RICO claims,
state law unfair competition/consumer protection claims, as well as
negligence and nuisance claims asserted against the ODDs and
concluded that the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding their
individual conduct--repeated in the bellwether complaints at issue
here--were sufficient.

On this issue of standing, Judge Orrick holds that the Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged that their injuries flow generally from the
ODD's conduct. How the alleged youth-marketing impacted the four
young adult Plaintiffs cannot be resolved at this juncture, the
Judge points out, among other things.

Judge Orrick also finds that even if directors like the ODDs could
be held liable in a non-closely held corporation, the Plaintiffs
identify no specific "public welfare statute" and simply invoke
unspecified "product liability statutes." But the Plaintiffs cite
no evidence that any strict product liability statute that could be
invoked by a bellwether plaintiff contemplates imposing strict
product liability on directors by its "plain language and intent."
The responsible corporate officer doctrine cannot be used to
stretch strict product liability claims to the ODDs.

Hence, the ODD's motion to dismiss the strict product liability
claims asserted against them by bellwether plaintiffs is granted.

Judge Orrick also agrees that the Plaintiffs' product-type claims
against the ODDs related to damages suffered as a result of their
use of JLI's product fall under the unified statutory causes of
action in Louisiana, Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee.
However, to the extent the bellwether plaintiffs from these four
states can allege non-strict product liability claims that are
otherwise cognizable under and within those statutes against the
ODDs (e.g., negligent failure to warn claims), the Plaintiffs may
pursue such claims under their state's unified statutory cause of
action.

The ODDs and the Plaintiffs agree that "medical monitoring" is not
a stand-alone claim in Kentucky and Mississippi but is instead a
form of relief. These two stand-alone claims, therefore, are
dismissed, Judge Orrick rules. The Plaintiffs' allegations therein
are incorporated as relevant to relief under their other claims.
The parties dispute and cite contrary authority under Tennessee
law; absent definitive authority, the claim is not dismissed at
this juncture.

The ODDs initially challenged whether medical monitoring was a
claim under Florida and Utah law, but in the face of the
Plaintiffs' authority demonstrating that stand-alone claims exist
in those jurisdictions, change tack and argue instead that the
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege facts in support of the
medical monitoring claims under Florida and Utah law.

Judge Orrick holds that those claims have been sufficiently
alleged. He adds, among other things, that whether the Plaintiffs
meet their evidentiary burdens for them can be tested on summary
judgment and at trial.

II. Bowen and Monsees' Motions to Dismiss

In their combined opposition to Defendants Monsees and Bowen's (the
"Founder Defendants") separate motions, the Plaintiffs clarify that
they "will not defend" their claims under the theories of: (1)
breach of express or implied warranty, (2) statutory consumer
fraud, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The claims remaining at issue against the
Founder Defendants on these motions are: (1) negligence, (2) strict
products liability, (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5)
and medical monitoring.

The Founder Defendants argue that the bellwether plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently allege the Founder Defendants' personal participation
in the acts these Plaintiffs assert caused their harm. As with the
ODDs and consistent with Judge Orrick's prior determinations, the
acts the personal injury bellwethers allege that each Founder
Defendant took plausibly support both of their personal
participation (including their intent, aims, and control over) the
testing, design, marketing, and sales of the product.

Judge Orrick notes that the Plaintiffs never squarely address why
and how--as a matter of statutory construction or public
policy--designers who work within the corporate structure of the
manufacturer or seller defendant should be individually strictly
liable separate and apart from the manufacturer or seller
defendant. As with the ODDs, the strict product liability claims
against the Founder Directors are dismissed with prejudice, Judge
Orrick holds.

III. Altria's Motion to Dismiss

The Plaintiffs clarify in opposition that they will not pursue "for
purpose of Altria's motion to dismiss" the following claims against
Altria: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) strict products
liability, other than in Florida and Rhode Island, (3) statutory
consumer fraud; (4) negligent failure to warn; (5) breach of the
implied warranty; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
or (7) unjust enrichment. The remaining claims at issue on Altria's
motion are: (1) negligence, (2) fraud, (3) negligent
misrepresentation, (4) strict products liability under Florida and
Rhode Island, and (5) medical monitoring.

Altria claims that none of the remaining bellwether plaintiffs, who
assert claims against Altria, allege sufficient facts to
demonstrate that personal jurisdiction may be exercised over the
Altria entities by this Court. The dispute centers on whether each
bellwether plaintiff's claims against Altria "arise out of or
relate to" Altria's contacts with California. As the Supreme Court
recently clarified in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist.
Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026 (2021), the "relates to" test does not
require a causal nexus, but instead focuses on the relationship
between the claims alleged against the defendant and the
defendant's acts in the jurisdiction.

Reviewing the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Altria's own
conduct--acts the Altria entities took in coordination with
California-based JLI and the California-based Founder and Director
defendants to maximize the reach of and sales of the JUUL products,
including steps to preserving the mint-flavored products, as well
as its advertising and distribution services provided to JLI--as
well as the alleged efforts it undertook to gain influence over the
Director Defendants and control of JLI in order to maximize
Altria's profits in the long-run, are sufficient, Judge Orrick
holds.

The Judge observes that these efforts were not only directed to
California and implemented in California but were effectuated in
part by meetings that took place in California, not to mention the
hiring by JLI in California of Altria executives. The acts
allegedly committed by the Altria entities are sufficiently and
directly connected to the claims asserted by and injuries suffered
by the bellwether plaintiffs.

Judge Orrick finds that there is a sufficient connection between
Altria's acts in California and the Plaintiffs' claims. Altria
remains free to argue based on the evidence at summary judgment or
trial that, with respect to any specific plaintiff, its acts could
not have caused her injuries. But the Plaintiffs' plausible
allegations establish specific jurisdiction in this forum over
Altria, the Judge points out.

IV. Motions to Seal

The ODDs filed their motion to dismiss (and Exhibits A and B),
their reply and amended reply (and related exhibits) conditionally
under seal because those documents cite (to some undisclosed
extent) materials designated confidential by the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants. Judge Orrick finds that they have failed to comply with
Civil Local Rule 79-5 because they conditionally filed under seal
the whole briefs (and exhibits) without either narrowly tailoring
their sealing requests to cover only the confidential portions of
their documents or identifying what information in their briefs or
the exhibits should remain under seal in whole or part.

Judge Orrick directs the parties to meet and confer to determine
what (if any) material cited in the ODD's submissions should remain
under seal, and within 14 days of the date of the Order the
designating party of any information that should remain under seal
will submit a declaration identifying that information and the
compelling justifications for its continued sealing.

The Plaintiffs filed portions of their opposition to Altria's
motion to dismiss and exhibits under seal because they reference
specifically identified materials that Altria and the ODDs have
designated as confidential. With respect to the material referenced
from paragraph 587 of the Westfaul complaint, that information
concerns the amount of money the Director Defendants earned from
the Altria investment.

Judge Orrick states that he has, to this point, allowed that
information to be sealed and this reference may remain under seal
at this time. However, he will not be inclined to seal this
information to the extent it becomes relevant on summary judgment
or during trial.

The other information conditionally under seal are references to
Exhibits 23, 38 and 39 of Howard Willard deposition, designated as
confidential by Altria. Altria has not submitted a declaration in
support of continued sealing of those references or exhibits. Judge
Orrick holds that within seven days of the date of this Order,
Altria will submit a declaration identifying what information it
believes should remain under seal and the compelling justifications
for its continued sealing.

Conclusion

The Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the claims the
Plaintiffs have expressly abandoned at this juncture--identified in
Ex. A to the ODD reply--are granted and the identified claims are
dismissed with prejudice with respect to the 18 Plaintiffs at
issue.

The strict product liability claims of the bellwether plaintiffs
are dismissed with prejudice against the ODDs and Founder
Defendants.

The product-type claims asserted against the ODDs and Founder
Defendants related to damages suffered as a result of their use of
JLI's product that fall under the unified statutory causes of
action in Louisiana, Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee are
dismissed, Judge Orrick rules. To the extent the bellwether
plaintiffs from these four states can allege non-strict product
liability claims that are otherwise cognizable under and within
those statutes against the ODDs and Founder Defendants, the
Plaintiffs may pursue those claims and leave to amend is granted as
necessary for Fairess (Louisiana), Westfaul (Mississippi), G.F.
(Connecticut), and B.B. (Tennessee) within 20 days of the date of
this Order.

The gross negligence claims under Rhode Island (Pesce), Mississippi
(Westfaul), and Connecticut (Faulds) are dismissed against all
Defendants with prejudice, but the facts underlying those claims
may be asserted in a claim for punitive damages. The negligent
misrepresentation claims under Arkansas (D.H.) and North Carolina
(J.L.K.) law are dismissed against all Defendants with prejudice.

The fraudulent concealment claims under Connecticut (G.F.),
Louisiana (Fairess), Oregon (Keffer/M.K.), and Virginia (Miles) are
dismissed against all Defendants with prejudice, but the
allegations thereunder are deemed to be included in each of those
Plaintiffs' existing fraud claims.

The stand-alone conspiracy to defraud claims under North Carolina
law (J.L.K.), New York Law (Edwards, J.D., Gregg), and Tennessee
(Bain) are dismissed against all Defendants with prejudice, but
these Plaintiffs' allegations are incorporated into the other
fraud-based claims or as a basis for joint and several liability as
appropriate.

The loss of consortium stand-alone claim under Oregon law
(Keffer/M.K.) is dismissed against all Defendants with prejudice.

The "medical monitoring" stand-alone claims under Kentucky (Fish)
and Mississippi (Westfaul) law are dismissed against all Defendants
with prejudice, but those Plaintiffs are entitled to see that form
of relief as appropriate under their other claims.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss are otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2twpc4j4 from Leagle.com.


MESA AIR: Arizona Court Trims Claims in Lowthorp Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in the
lawsuit captioned David G. Lowthorp, Plaintiff v. Mesa Air Group
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-00648-PHX-MTL (D.
Ariz.).

The Plaintiffs bring this federal securities class action pursuant
to Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15
U.S.C. Section 77a, et seq., on behalf of themselves and all others
who purchased Mesa Air Group, Inc. securities "pursuant and/or
traceable to" the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). The
Plaintiffs also assert claims against several Mesa Air officers and
board members, as well as the financial institutions that
underwrote the IPO.

Defendants Mesa Air, Jonathan G. Ornstein, Michael J. Lotz, Daniel
J. Altobello, Ellen N. Artist, Mitchell Gordon, Dana J. Lockhart,
G. Grant Lyon, Giacomo Picco, Harvey Schiller, and Don Skiados's
("Mesa Defendants") have moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs'
claims. Defendants Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC, Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc., and Imperial Capital, LLC ("Underwriter
Defendants") have joined the Mesa Defendants' motion.

Background

The case arises out of offering documents that Mesa Air filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with
the Company's IPO. The First Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") alleges certain facts, which the Court takes
as true for purposes of resolving the pending motion.

Mesa Air is a regional air carrier that operates flights for
American Airlines, Inc. ("American") and United Airlines, Inc.
("United") pursuant to terms detailed in respective capacity
purchase agreements ("CPA"). Mesa Air derives all its operating
revenue from the CPAs. As of March 2018, the American CPA accounted
for 54% of Mesa Air's total revenue; the United CPA supplied the
remaining 46%.

In August 2018, Mesa Air conducted its IPO, selling nearly 11
million shares of common stock to the investing public at $12 per
share. Ahead of the IPO, Mesa Air filed a registration statement
and prospectus with the SEC. Of significance here, the registration
statement touted Mesa Air's relationship with American and the
Company's operational performance. It indicated that Mesa Air
possessed 145 aircraft, including one unassigned operational spare.
The offering documents cautioned investors about risks that may
adversely affect Mesa Air's prosperity.

On Jan. 31, 2019, Mesa Air filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing that its board of directors had ratified the Company's
entry into a term sheet with American, which amended the American
CPA. The Form 8-K described the CPA amendments as follows: (1) "the
conversion of two aircraft under the CPA to operational spares,
resulting in a decrease in the number of guaranteed
revenue-generating aircraft operated by Mesa for American from 64
to 62, effective April 1, 2019;" (2) new and revised operational
performance criteria; and (3) if Mesa Air "failed to comply with
the new and revised operational performance criteria, American
would have the unilateral right to permanently withdraw one
aircraft from the CPA, up to two aircraft from the CPA in any
calendar month, and up to six aircraft in total."

In May 2019, Mesa Air reported disappointing quarter two financial
and operating results. The Company reported adjusted net income of
$16 million and adjusted earnings per share ("EPS") of $0.46, which
fell below analysts' estimates of $0.55 per share. As to total
operating revenue, Mesa Air reported $177 million, $1.5 million
less than analysts' estimates.

The Company's financial woes continued through quarter three. It
reported an adjusted EPS of only $0.30, and the Company's total
operating revenue was $3 million less than analysts' estimates.
Mesa Air also reported increased maintenance expenses of $54
million, more than analyst estimates of $47 million, and total
operating expenses of $163 million, nearly $14 million more than
analysts projected. In the days following the earnings call, Mesa
Air's stock price dropped to $5.84 per share.

By April 1, 2020, Mesa Air's stock plummeted to $3.03 per share.
The same day, Plaintiff David G. Lowthorp initiated this action.
After reviewing three lead plaintiff motions as required under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the Court
appointed DeKalb County Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLC, as lead counsel. The Pension Fund purchased just over
30,000 shares of Mesa Air common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the IPO.

On Aug. 17, 2020, the Pension Fund filed the Amended Complaint,
asserting claims for relief under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act.

The Mesa Defendants, joined by the Underwriter Defendants, have
moved to dismiss the Pension Fund's claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They also move
the Court to either incorporate by reference or take judicial
notice of 13 documents. Both motions are ripe for ruling.

Discussion

To support their motion to dismiss, the Mesa Defendants ask the
Court to incorporate by reference or take judicial notice of 13
documents, labeled as exhibits for ease of reference. The Pension
Fund does not object to the Court recognizing the existence of the
offered documents and the statements made within. The Pension Fund
does, however, object to the Court accepting as true any of the
statements or information contained in the at-issue documents.

Incorporation by Reference

The Defendants seek to have Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12
incorporated into the Amended Complaint. Exhibit 1 contains
excerpts from Mesa Air's prospectus, as filed with the SEC on Form
424B4 on Aug. 10, 2018. Exhibit 2 is an index of exhibits
identified in Mesa Air's Form S-1/A, as filed with the SEC on July
30, 2018, et al.

Exhibit 12 is S&P Global's Transcript of Mesa Air's FQ2 2019
Earnings Call, dated May 10, 2019. This transcript is extensively
referenced in the Amended Complaint. The Court will, therefore,
incorporate the transcript.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the Mesa Defendants' request to
incorporate Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12 into the
Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Judicial Notice

The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of Exhibits 8,
10, 11, and 13. Exhibit 8 is a February 10, 2020 press release,
which was filed with the SEC as an exhibit to Mesa Air's Form 8-K.
Thus, the Court must "consider--and identify--which fact or facts
it is noticing" from the SEC filing. For purposes of resolving the
motion to dismiss, the Court will judicially notice that Mesa Air
filed a press release with the SEC on February 10, 2020 and that
Mesa Air made the statements contained therein.

Exhibit 10 is S&P Global's Transcript of Mesa Air's FQ1 2020
Earnings Call, dated Feb. 10, 2020. The Court will judicially
notice that there was an investor call on Feb. 10, 2020. The Court
will also take judicial notice that the speakers made the
statements included in the transcript. The Court will not take
judicial notice of the substance of the statements because those
facts may be subject to reasonable dispute.

Exhibit 11 is a Department of Transportation bulletin titled
"Preliminary Air Traffic Data, April 2020: 96% Reduction in U.S.
Airline Passengers from 2019." The Court finds the Department of
Transportation bulletin is appropriately subject to judicial
notice. Thus, the Court will take judicial notice that on June 10,
2020, the Department of Transportation issued the bulletin.

Exhibit 13 is a news article published by the Consumer News and
Business Channel ("CNBC") on June 9, 2019. The Court will take
judicial notice of the CNBC article "only to 'indicate what was in
the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of [the]
article[] [was] in fact true,'" citing Gerritsen v. Warner Bros.
Ent. Inc., 112 F.Supp.3d 1011, 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Motion to Dismiss

The Pension Fund alleges that Mesa Air's registration statement
contained material misstatements and omissions, giving rise to
liability under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act. The Mesa Defendants move to dismiss each claim.

The Pension Fund takes issue with two statements relating to the
American CPA. First, the registration statement indicates that Mesa
Air's long-term capacity purchase agreements provide the Company
with guaranteed monthly revenue for each aircraft under contract.
Second, it describes the American CPA as a stable, long-term
revenue-guarantee."

The Mesa Defendants move the Court to dismiss the claims relating
to the American CPA on several grounds. Among other things, the
Mesa Defendants argue that the claim is time-barred, the challenged
statements are immaterial puffery, and the Pension Fund relies on
blatant mischaracterizations of post-IPO statements.

The Court will dismiss the Section 11 claim insofar as it arises
from the American CPA statements because the claim is barred by the
statute of limitations and the statements at issue are
non-actionable puffery.

Moreover, based on the Amended Complaint's allegations, the Court
finds the Plaintiffs had actual knowledge of potential Securities
Act claims related to Mesa Air's operational performance. The
limitations period expired one year later, in February 2020.
Because Mr. Lowthorp waited to file this lawsuit until two months
after the statute of limitations expired, the Court will dismiss
the Section 11 claim insofar as it is premised on statements
concerning Mesa Air's operational performance.

The Pension Fund challenges one statement in the offering documents
pertaining to the quantity of Mesa Air's spare aircrafts. The Court
will dismiss the Pension Fund's Section 11 claim to the extent it
arises from Mesa Air's operational spares.

As to aircraft maintenance, the Amended Complaint alleges that
three statements are materially false or misleading, including this
statement: "(1) Low-Cost Operator. We believe that we are among the
lowest cost operators of regional jet service in the United States.
There are several key elements that contribute to our cost
efficiencies...."

The Mesa Defendants argue the Pension Fund has not plausibly
alleged a Section 11 claim because these statements are
non-actionable opinions and immunized from liability under the
bespeaks caution doctrine. The Mesa Defendants contend that the
challenged statements "are quintessential opinions" because they
begin with "we believe" or "we expect." The Pension Fund disagrees,
arguing the statements are actionable because they contain an
embedded statement of untrue fact and were misleading in context.
For support, the Pension Fund proffers a portion of an earnings
call from May 2019. During that call, Mesa Air CEO Jonathan
Ornstein said: "We knew that in the last year, 18 months, I mean,
we were hamstrung by the fact that we had expanded a lot, we needed
more pilots, we got hung up a little bit in pilot training,
maintenance became more difficult in terms of qualified maintenance
people."

District Judge Michael T. Liburdi finds the Pension Fund has
plausibly alleged that Mr. Ornstein's assertion rendered Mesa Air's
statement that its success depended on its "ability to continue to
attract and retain qualified personnel" misleading to a reasonable
person. The Court, therefore, rejects the Defendants' argument that
the statements at issue are non-actionable opinions.

Judge Liburdi also finds that the Mesa Defendants have not made the
"stringent showing" needed for the Court to find, as a matter of
law, that the bespeaks caution doctrine bars the Pension Fund's
claim at the pleading stage. Therefore, the Court will deny the
Mesa Defendants' motion to dismiss insofar as it relates to the
statements concerning Mesa Air's maintenance solutions.

The Amended Complaint is devoid of allegations that the Pension
Fund knew of adverse trend regarding Mesa Air's operational
performance or spare aircraft count at the time of the IPO, Judge
Liburdi notes. Accordingly, the allegations under Item 303 are
dismissed insofar as the alleged violation stems from Mesa Air's
operational performance or spare aircraft.

The Court, however, finds that the Pension Fund has plausibly
alleged a violation of Item 303 with respect to Mesa Air's
maintenance operations. Accordingly, the Pension Fund's alleged
Item 303 violation survives the motion to dismiss to the extent it
arises from Mesa Air's maintenance operations.

Section 12(a)(2)

The Mesa Defendants contend that the Pension Fund lacks standing to
bring claims under Section 12(a)(2). The Court agrees.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the Pension Fund purchased
securities "pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO." Judge Liburdi
holds that this conclusory allegation is insufficient to establish
standing under Section 12(a)(2). He points out that if the Pension
Fund did in fact purchase stock directly from the IPO, it should
have said so.

Thus, the Pension Fund's Section 12(a)(2) claim is dismissed for
failing to allege facts giving rise to standing.

Section 15

A claim under Section 15 is a derivative claim: it requires an
underlying primary violation of the securities laws.

The Mesa Defendants argue that the Pension Fund's Section 15 claim
must be dismissed because it failed to state plausible claims under
Sections 11 and 12. Because the Court finds that the Pension Fund
has plausibly stated a claim under Section 11, the Court will deny
the motion to dismiss as to the Pension Fund's Section 15 claim.

Conclusion

In sum, the Court will grant the Mesa Defendants' motion to dismiss
in part. The Court will dismiss the Pension Fund's Section 11 claim
to the extent it arises from statements concerning the American
CPA, Mesa Air's operational performance, and Mesa Air's operational
spares. The Court will dismiss the Pension Fund's Section 12(a)(2)
claim because the Pension Fund has not alleged facts giving rise to
standing.

The Pension Fund's Section 11 claim survives Defendants' motion to
dismiss insofar as it is premised on statements concerning Mesa
Air's maintenance solutions. The alleged Item 303 and Item 503
violations survive the motion to dismiss to the extent they relate
to Mesa Air's maintenance solutions. The Section 15 claim also
survives the motion to dismiss.

At oral argument the Pension Fund requested leave to amend if the
Court found any of the allegations in the Amended Complaint
deficient. This request was not made in the moving papers, and the
Court finds the Pension Fund's request inadequate to meet the
requirements of a motion to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Thus, the Pension Fund's request is denied without prejudice to the
Pension Fund filing a written motion to amend if it believes it can
cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. The Court is
mindful that the Pension Fund is a newly appointed lead plaintiff,
who has filed only one complaint to date. And, in considering any
motion to amend, the Court will be guided by Rule 15's directive
that it should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires.
Any motion to amend must be filed within the deadline set at the
upcoming scheduling conference.

Accordingly, the Court issued an order: granting in part and
denying in part the Mesa Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as described
in this Order; granting the Mesa Defendants' request for
incorporation by reference and judicial notice to the extent
described in this Order; and that, by separate order, the Court
will set a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference in this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26w4va5w from Leagle.com.


MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Stockholders' Putative Class Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the consolidated
putative class action suit entitled, In re Minerva Neurosciences,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-12176, has been closed.

On December 8, 2020 and January 11, 2021, purported stockholders of
the Company filed two putative securities class action complaints
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled McCoy v. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc., et
al., No. 1:20-cv-12176 and Ao v. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. et
al., No. 1:21-cv-10051, respectively, against the Company and the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The complaints are nearly identical and allege that the Defendants
made material false and/or misleading statements regarding the
development of the Company's drug candidate roluperidone
purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired the Company's
common stock between May 15, 2017 and November 30, 2020.

The complaints do not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and others who acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

On March 5, 2021, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions into a case captioned In re Minerva Neurosciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-12176 and appointing lead
plaintiffs and their counsel.

On March 19, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated proposed order
with the Court staying the Defendants' response to the complaint
until after plaintiffs file an amended complaint.

On May 5, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order
voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit on behalf of the appointed lead
plaintiffs.

Also on May 5, 2021, a second plaintiff filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, which the Court granted on May 21,
2021.

On June 9, 2021, before the lead plaintiff's deadline to amend the
complaint and before defendants filed any response to the
complaint, the parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal of the
lawsuit on behalf of the appointed lead plaintiff.

The Court entered the parties' stipulation of dismissal on July 9,
2021 and closed the case.

Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on the development and commercialization of
proprietary product candidates to treat patients suffering from
central nervous system diseases. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.


MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Court Narrows Claims in Goyette Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jared Goyette et al., v.
City of Minneapolis et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-01302-WMW-DTS (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order:

   1. granting the State Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
      Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due-process claim and denying
      in all other respects; and

   2. denying the Defendant Robert Kroll's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs allege that Kroll implicitly and explicitly directed
officers to use unnecessary force on the citizens of Minneapolis
"by thwarting discipline and enabling a culture and practice of
immunity from sanction for constitutional violations." The
Plaintiffs assert that Kroll used his power as a law enforcement
officer to cloak his policy goals in state power, and that he used
the Federation's financial and political power to exert influence
over the MPD's customs and practices. Plaintiffs contend that the
MPD's unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, which
resulted in injuries to Plaintiffs, derive "at least in part from
the acts done under the color of state law by Kroll." As such, the
SAC plausibly alleges that Kroll is a willful participant in any
conspiracy with the State Defendants and City Defendants.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs plausibly allege facts establishing that
Kroll, as a private actor, was a willful participant in the
conspiracy who acted in concert with the State Defendants and City
Defendants. The Court, therefore, denies Kroll's motion to dismiss.


On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died as a result of an encounter with
four officers of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). Video of
the encounter captured by bystanders shows the MPD officers placing
Floyd in handcuffs and pinning him to the ground face down, while
then-officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck. Floyd and several
bystanders pleaded with Officer Chauvin to change his position to
allow Floyd to breathe. Officer Chauvin refused and continued to
kneel on Floyd's neck for several minutes after Floyd became
unresponsive. Video of the encounter circulated rapidly, and
hundreds of citizens began protesting in Minneapolis and Saint
Paul, as well as nationally
and around the world.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jK9sGQ at no extra charge.[CC]

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the complaint in the class action suit initiated by Jarrod Johnson
is pending.

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama (the "Gadsden Water Board") filed an individual
complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against
certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing
specific PFCs, including the Company. In May 2017, the Water Works
and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the "Centre Water
Board") filed a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee
County, Alabama.

The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek
monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water
supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants,
including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case
arguing that the Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction
over them. These motions were denied.

In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the
Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus
directing each lower court to enter an order granting the
defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20,
2019.  

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for
Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the court to
reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme Court
denied the application for rehearing.

On August 21, 2020, certain defendants, including the Company,
petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review of the
matter. On January 19, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for review.

In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia filed a complaint in
the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is similar to the
Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board complaints, again
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to PFCs.  

Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to
represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and
Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department
and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of
alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for
the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their
drinking water.  

In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to
federal court.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of these cases.

On December 17, 2020, the Superior Court of Floyd County denied the
Company's motion to dismiss in the Rome case.

The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to
defend them vigorously.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Toss Shareholder Suit in Georgia Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint filed in the putative shareholder class
action suit is pending.

On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019 ("Class Period").

On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities
Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on
the same claims and the same Class Period.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company (1) engaged in
fabricating revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were
closed and recognizing these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced
product to report higher operating margins and maintained
significant inventory that was not salable; and (3) valued certain
inventory improperly or improperly delivered inventory with
knowledge that it was defective and customers would return it.

On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit filed before the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, remains stayed.

The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020. The complaint alleges that defendants
violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.

On March 27, 2020, the court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact
discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related
Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  

Mohawk said, "The stay may be lifted according to the terms set
forth in the court's order to stay litigation. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against the claims."

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MONEY ONE: Settlement Deal in Curry Suit Get Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE CURRY, on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MONEY ONE
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-03467-DKC (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Deborah K. Chasanow entered an order that:

   1. granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary
      approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying the following class of individuals pursuant to
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) & 23(b)(3):

      "All Maryland consumers whose vehicles were repossessed
      and sold by Money One Federal Credit Union ("Money One")
      or contractors acting on its behalf from December 5, 2015
      to January 21, 2019, pursuant to a credit contract
      governed by Md. Code Ann., Com. Law section 9-101, et
      seq., ("UCC") and as to whom CU Collections sent post-
      repossession notices which stated that consumers had 15
      days to redeem their vehicles;"

      Excluded from the settlement class are: (a) individuals
      who now are or have ever been executives of Defendants and
      the spouses, parents, siblings, and children of all such
      individuals, (b) any individual who was not a resident of
      the State of Maryland as of the date that his or her
      vehicle was repossessed, (c) any individual who was
      granted a discharge pursuant to the United States
      Bankruptcy Code or state receivership laws after the date
      of his or her contract, unless he or she reaffirmed his or
      her obligations with approval of the bankruptcy court, and
      (d) any individual against whom a deficiency judgment has
      already been obtained relating to their contract with
      Money One;

   3. appointing the Plaintiff Candice Curry as as the
      representative of the Class;

   4. appointing the law firm of Santoni, Vocci, & Ortega, LLC
      to serve as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g); and

   5. appointing the Casey Group as the Settlement Administrator
      for the Settlement Agreement.

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


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Class Suit Over Ties to Ripple Labs Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
related to the company's business relationship with Ripple Labs,
Inc. and MoneyGram's use of Ripple's XRP cryptocurrency.

On March 1, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.

A second substantially similar putative class action was filed
March 10, 2021 in the same court.

The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its business relationship
with Ripple Labs, Inc. ("Ripple") and MoneyGram's use of Ripple's
XRP cryptocurrency.

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs and attorneys' fees.

On April 8, 2021, by agreement of the parties, the court
consolidated the two lawsuits and transferred the consolidated
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, where the case remains pending.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter."

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission in October
2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement that MoneyGram
entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Justice in
November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

On May 16, 2019, MoneyGram filed a motion to dismiss which the
court has yet to rule upon.

MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter."

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

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


NETGEAR INC: Seeks Dismissal of Renewed Pham Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Netgear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2021, that the Company, Arlo and
other co-defendants have jointly filed a motion to dismiss and a
demurrer to the state court action in the renewed state class
action filed by the three individuals John Pham, Perros, and Patel.


On March 11, 2021, the federal court in Northern District of
California issued the approval order for the settlement, thereby
concluding the federal matter.

Three individuals who filed suit in state court requested exclusion
from the settlement.

On June 4, 2021, the three individuals John Pham, Perros, and Patel
renewed their state class action case in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara with an amended Complaint.

In response, the Company, Arlo and other co-defendants have jointly
filed a motion to dismiss and a demurrer to the state court action
on June 21, 2021 and July 7, 2021, respectively.

It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the
Company resulting from this litigation matter.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Martucci
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated June 30, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment, classifying
Evelyn Martucci as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action,
and holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to monetary and
injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries
she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be the
Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-1831, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on July 29, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
          INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2400

Plaintiff-Appellee Evelyn Martucci is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend OFPRS Suit
---------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden.

The action was filed on September 6, 2018 and is captioned Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Extension to Respond to 3rd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN PASCAL and MARIA
MENGONI, et. al., on behalf of themselves and all others, v. NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. extending the deadline for NNA to respond to Plaintiffs'
      Third Amended Complaint from August 12, 2021 until
      September 10, 2021; and

   2. extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion
      for class certification from August 13, 2021 until April
      14, 2022 or until such other date as set forth in any
      order on the concurrently filed Stipulation to Continue
      Dates.

The Plaintiff filed its TAC in this matter on July 28, 2021. Under
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, NNA would
ordinarily have 14 days, or until August 12, 2021 to answer or
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' TAC. As the Court is aware from
prior motion practice, this case is very complex and contains 43
plaintiffs from 24 different states.

In 1990, NNA, was created to coordinate all of Nissan's various
activities in North America to enhance the design, development,
manufacturing, and marketing of Nissan vehicles.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew J. Detherage, Esq.
          Garrett S. Llewellyn, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: andrew.detherage@btlaw.com
                  garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-8000
          Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
          E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Holden Allowed to File 1st Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, granted in part and deemed moot in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in the
lawsuit styled LAUREN HOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTONLIFELOCK INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-279-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.).

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to File First Amended Complaint and Unopposed Motion for Extension
of Time to Respond to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed
April 29, 2021. The Defendant filed a response on May 13, 2021.
With leave of Court, the Plaintiff on June 18, 2021, filed a reply
to the Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to
File First Amended Complaint.

Motions to amend pleadings before trial are generally governed by
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states
that a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's
written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.

Upon review of the parties' arguments regarding futility, District
Judge James R. Klindt finds that the arguments are better addressed
in a procedural posture of a dispositive motion and response. He
explains that this is not a case where the argument for futility is
so clear-cut that amendment should be foreclosed altogether at this
stage.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted in part and deemed
moot in part.

The Motion is granted to the extent that the Clerk of the Court
will file the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint as
of the date of this Order. The Motion is deemed moot to the extent
that the Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied as
moot. The Defendant will respond to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The temporary stay of discovery imposed by Endorsed Order remains
in place pending further Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hvx5hzm from Leagle.com.


OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Wins Final Nod of Deal in Cameron v. Bouchard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, issued an opinion and order overruling
objections and granting final approval of the proposed class action
settlement in the lawsuit entitled JAMAAL CAMERON, RICHARD BRIGGS,
RAJ LEE, MICHAEL CAMERON, and MATTHEW SAUNDERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL
BOUCHARD, CURTIS D. CHILDS, and OAKLAND COUNTY, Defendants, Case
No. 20-10949 (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit at the start of the COVID-19
pandemic, seeking release of Oakland County Jail inmates, who are
at increased risk of serious outcomes if they contract the virus
and certain safety protocols to protect all jail inmates from the
virus. The Court subsequently certified the matter as a class
action and the parties, more recently, reached a settlement of the
Class members' claims.

On May 27, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the Class
Settlement, directed notice of the settlement to the Class, and
scheduled a fairness hearing for July 7, 2021.

For the reasons articulated by Class Counsel at the July 7 hearing,
the Court finds the Class Settlement fair, adequate, and
reasonable. Only three Class members raised "objections" to the
agreement and many of their complaints did not address issues
relevant to whether the settlement should be approved.

District Judge Linda V. Parker finds that the Class Settlement
accomplishes most, if not more, of what the Plaintiffs sought in
this action aside from the release of medically-vulnerable
inmates--a goal the Sixth Circuit's decision in the case reflects
Class Counsel was not likely to achieve. While the Court had two
concerns related to the Oct. 31, 2021 termination of its
jurisdiction to enforce the Class Settlement, counsel's responses
to those concerns at the hearing assured the Court that the
deadline was crucial to Class Counsel achieving other significant
concessions in the Class Settlement.

The Court received written "objections" to the Class Settlement
from two Oakland County Jail inmates: Keith James Koerber, II, and
Megail Aaron, II (ECF No. 188). Class Counsel also informed the
Court that a third inmate, Timothy Austin, contacted them, not to
object to the Class Settlement but to inform them of the
Defendants' breach of the agreement. All three inmates were heard
at the July 7 fairness hearing.

Mr. Aaron's concerns relate to: (a) the Class Counsel's failure to
accomplish the release of inmates; (b) his belief that Defendants
will not comply with the agreement; and (c) the potential
termination of the Court's jurisdiction before the end of the
pandemic.

As noted, Judge Parker states, the Plaintiffs were not likely to
secure the release of inmates in this matter. It would not have
been in the best interests of the Class for Class Counsel to pursue
this unlikely relief and jeopardize the benefits they could secure.
The settlement provides a mechanism to monitor and address any
breach of its terms. Therefore, Mr. Aaron's fear that the
Defendants will not abide by the agreement is not grounds for
rejecting it. The Court already addressed his final issue.

Mr. Koerber voiced four complaints related to this matter at the
hearing: (a) allowing the Defendants to administer the Johnson &
Johnson vaccine to inmates as opposed to the vaccine produced by
Pfizer or Moderna; (b) the Defendants' practice of housing
vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals together; (c) the
Defendants' failure to provide N-95 masks to inmates; and (d) the
exclusion of hypertension as a condition qualifying a Jail inmate
from inclusion in the subclass of medically vulnerable
individuals.

As explained by Class Counsel at the hearing, there were sound
reasons for not pressing the Defendants to accept these terms as
part of the Class Settlement, Judge Parker notes. For one, a
one-shot vaccine (i.e. the Johnson & Johnson vaccine) is more
likely than a two-shot vaccine (i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna
vaccines) to achieve full vaccination of a transient population,
such as inmates in a county jail. Moreover, the Johnson & Johnson
vaccine is an approved vaccine, which has been proven to be
effective against COVID-19.

The agreement requires the Defendants to supply inmates with masks
and replace them if they become soiled, and non-N-95 masks are now
understood to be effective against the spread of COVID-19 and are
what many non-incarcerated individuals also only have available.
Further, the Defendants are required to take precautions to isolate
infected inmates from other inmates. Even in the general public the
segregation of vaccinated and nonvaccinated individuals is not
guaranteed.

Finally, Class Counsel originally asked the Court to include
individuals with hypertension in the subclass of medically
vulnerable inmates; however, the Court declined to do so--likely
because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") did
not recognize this condition as placing individuals at greater risk
of severe illness or death if they contracted COVID-19. In any
event, the Settlement Agreement does not afford the subclass of
medically-vulnerable inmates any greater benefits than the Class.
As such, whether Mr. Koerber is or is not considered to be a member
of the subclass has no bearing on the fairness of the Class
Settlement.

Mr. Austin had no objections to the Class Settlement but wanted to
inform the Court of the ways in which he believes the Defendants
already violated its terms. According to Class Counsel, Mr.
Austin's concerns already were shared with them and counsel planned
to address any alleged breaches with defense counsel in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Class Settlement. Mr. Austin
does not present objections warranting the Court's rejection of the
settlement.

For these reasons, the Court overrules the objections to the Class
Settlement and concludes that it reflects a fair, reasonable, and
adequate resolution of this matter. The Court, therefore, grants
the Plaintiffs' oral motion for final approval of the agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/6vexr4t2 from
Leagle.com.


OCEAN BAY: Ye Zhao Jun Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers
-------------------------------------------------------------
YE ZHAO JUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN BAY SEAFOOD RESTAURANT LLC, D/B/A
OCEAN BAY SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, XING CHU ZHENG, "JOHN" GAO (first
name unknown), Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04456 (E.D.N.Y., August
6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage
notice at the time of hiring, and failure to provide detailed
paystub information to employees.

The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher at the Defendants' Ocean
Bay Seafood Restaurant located at 8302 Queens Blvd, Queens, New
York from May 11, 2021 to July 20, 2021.

Ocean Bay Seafood Restaurant LLC is an owner and operator of a
restaurant under the name Ocean Bay Seafood Restaurant located at
8302 Queens Blvd, Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Shan Zhu, Esq.
         HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
         Flushing, NY 11354
         Telephone: (718) 353-8588
         Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
         E-mail: szhu@hanglaw.com

OHIO: Court Dismisses Caregivers' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.C. and Y.C., minors by
their Next Friend, T.M., et al., v. Governor of the State of Ohio,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00944-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Michael R. Barrett entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant DeWine's Motion to Dismiss, as he
      is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity;

   2. granting the Defendant Damschroder's Motion to Dismiss, as
      Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
      granted; and

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motions for Class
      Certification and for a Preliminary Injunction.

The Court is compelled to note that this holding is not one that
the Court takes lightly. Although eligible non-licensed relative
caregivers can now receive state-provided payments under Ohio's
KSP, the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with the
new program in light of its limited available time-period, unequal
payment amount when compared to Plaintiffs' licensed foster
caregiver counterparts, lack of supplementary payment amount for
children with special needs, and contingency on funds being
available in the Ohio Treasury. The Court acknowledges that foster
children, one of Ohio's most helpless and vulnerable populations,
and the relatives who care for them, certainly deserve more. The
Court recognizes that a foster child's need for food, clothing,
shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, personal incidentals,
and travel does not vary by the licensure status of the home in
which the children lay their heads down at night. The Court also
recognizes that non-licensed foster caregivers in Ohio are called
to do much of the same work as their licensed foster caregiver
counterparts, but must do that work on a fraction of the provided
payment. This difference in payment due to a difference in
placement, in a licensed home or not, is neither ideal nor even
satisfactory.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UamQLr at no extra charge.[CC]

OSMOSE UTILITIES: Fisher's Bid for Prelim. OK of Class Deal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an order adopting findings and recommendations and denying
the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement in the lawsuit styled TODD FISHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSMOSE
UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-1704-NONE-EPG
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Todd Fisher brings this putative class action alleging
state law wage and hour violations against Defendant Osmose
Utilities Services, Inc. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for issuance of
findings and recommendations.

On April 5, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations recommending that the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement be denied.
Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and
contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed
within 14 days after service. On April 9, 2021, the parties filed a
stipulation requesting an extension of time to file their
objections, which the magistrate judge granted. On May 14, 2021,
the parties each filed objections to the findings and
recommendations.

The Plaintiff also filed a request for judicial notice in support
of his objections. He requests that the Court take judicial notice
of a motion for final approval of a class action settlement and the
supporting declarations filed in a previous wage and hour class
action against the Defendant in the San Bernardino County Superior
Court, Contreras v. Osmose Utility Services, Inc., Case No.
CIVDS1513998. Because the Court may take judicial notice of
undisputed matters of public record, including documents on file in
federal or state courts, the Plaintiff's request for judicial
notice will be granted.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.
At the outset, the Court observes that the objections to the
pending findings and recommendations essentially ask the Court to
trust counsels' judgment, based on their experience, and to
preliminarily approve the parties' settlement, especially because
class members have demonstrated their support for that settlement.
Under the law, the Court says it has an independent duty to review
the terms of the settlement, including how the settlement award was
reached and calculated.

With that said, the Court turns to the parties' substantive
objections to the findings and recommendations, which primarily
take issue with the magistrate judge's findings that the parties
conducted insufficient discovery and failed to consider enough
information to make an informed decision regarding the value of the
claims. For the reasons set forth in this Order and in the pending
findings and recommendations, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiff has failed to establish that the settlement is fair or
reasonable in light of the evidence before the Court.

In recommending the denial of the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval, the magistrate judge found, in part, that the
Plaintiff's counsel's description of the extent of discovery seems
to indicate that any investigation was limited, and does not
provide the Court with sufficient detail to determine whether the
parties had enough information to fairly evaluate the merits and
values of the putative class claims.

In his objections, the Plaintiff explains that counsel interviewed
18 class members (including him), spoke extensively with the
Plaintiff, reviewed declarations from additional class members
provided by the Defendant, reviewed the Contreras settlement, and
"reviewed policy and procedure documents and data provided by
Defendant about the number of workweeks and a breakdown of the
number of Class Members, as well as their wage rates, for purposes
of calculating damages based on the theories alleged."

In support of the motion for preliminary approval, the Plaintiff's
counsel declares that he prepared his damages analysis by
interviewing the Plaintiff extensively about his experiences, and
also by reviewing the records provided by the Defendant. However,
at the motion hearing before the magistrate judge, the Plaintiff's
counsel conceded that no depositions had been taken in this action
and that only the named Plaintiff had been interviewed, District
Judge Dale A. Drozd notes.

In response to the magistrate judge's expressed concerns that the
parties did not speak to anyone other than the named Plaintiff, his
counsel specifically requested from the Defendant contact
information for Class Members who worked as both foreman and crew
members during the Class Period, i.e. hybrid workers like the
Plaintiff, because those individuals would share the perspective of
both the broader Class and the Subclass, as well as be more likely
to have worked for a longer period of time (i.e. greater level of
experience and insight) and, due to their supervisory role, be more
attuned to and mindful of the experiences of their colleagues.

Out of 857 class members, the Defendant provided Class Counsel with
contact information for 33 Class Members (plus the Plaintiff), and
Class Counsel was able to speak with 18 (plus the Plaintiff), and
from that, the Plaintiff's counsel provided the court with
declarations from only the named Plaintiff and four putative class
members.

Based on this, Judge Drozd agrees that it appears the parties
relied on insufficient information to make an informed decision
about the proposed settlement given that the Plaintiff's counsel
relies heavily only on information provided by the named Plaintiff
and the Defendant. While the extent of discovery conducted in a
case is but one factor to be considered, the lack of sufficient
information retrieved during the pendency of this action affects
the overall determination of whether the parties' proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, Judge Drozd points
out.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff contends that the valuation of claims
embodied in the proposed settlement is fair and proper in light of
the class members' declarations and support for the settlement, as
well as the Contreras settlement which involved the same defendant
and similar allegations but resulted in a lower payout to class
members. Judge Drozd opines that this objection fails to address
the deficiencies noted by the magistrate judge and, instead,
provides support for the conclusion reached in the findings and
recommendations that counsels' calculations are based largely on
assumptions and guesses as to the violation rates and overall
potential damages.

Judge Drozd agrees with the magistrate judge that the Plaintiff has
failed to make a preliminary showing that the proposed settlement
is reasonable in light of such a broad release provision. The
Plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations in this
regard assert that the court in Contreras approved a release that
was equally broad and involved the same allegations.

Again, the fact that another court approved of a settlement
including a similar provision does not justify why that same
provision should be found acceptable here, Judge Drozd points out.
Again, this is especially the case since the Plaintiff's counsel
has failed to adequately explain how the value of the settled
claims was calculated in this case, he adds.

Overall, the Plaintiff's explanations confirm that counsel's
calculations embodied in this proposed settlement are based largely
on nothing more than assumptions and that the lack of evidentiary
support or even adequate explanations raise significant concerns
about whether the interests of the absent putative class members
were adequately represented in settlement negotiations and the
extent to which the settlement is the product of a well-informed
negotiation, Judge Drozd opines. Without more, the Court simply
cannot conclude that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable
and cannot determine whether the release provision is appropriate.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties'
objections, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge's
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by
proper analysis.

Accordingly:

   1. The findings and recommendations entered on April 5, 2021,
      are adopted in full; and

   2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class
      action settlement is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yw7td7t5 from Leagle.com.


P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Vasquez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-05143-PKH (W.D. Ark., August 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the wage
and hour laws of the state of Arkansas including failure to pay
minimum wages, unlawful wage deductions, failure to tender all
wages due on separation, unlawful usurious pay advance charges, and
unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an over-the-road truck
driver since January 1, 2020.

P.A.M. Transport, Inc. is a provider of over-the-road
transportation of freight located in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
         Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
         Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
         SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
         1101 Kings Hwy N., Suite 402
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
         Telephone: (856) 685-7420
         Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Allison Sues Over Misleading Recall Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11265 (D. Mass., Aug. 3,
2021) seeks to compel the Defendants to stop using the recall as a
marketing scheme, and to start providing consumers with the
warranty service, refunds, or other compensation to which the law
entitles them.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactures, markets,
and sells a particular line of respiration products called
continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") and bilevel positive
airway pressure (BiPAP) devices for patients with obstructive sleep
apnea. The Defendants has, for years, known of serious risks posed
to owners of its machines by a type of foam the Defendants used for
sound insulation in the machines, known as polyester-based
polyurethane ("PE-PUR") foam, says the suit.

On June 14, 2021, the Defendants issued a recall for many of its
CPAP and BiPAP machines, as well as certain ventilators (the
"Problem Products"). Philips, through the recall, admitted to and
advised of the serious health risks related to the Problem
Products. In their recall, the Defendants do not provide owners of
the Problem Product machines, such as the Plaintiff, with a new
BiPAP or CPAP machine, money for a new BiPAP or CPAP machine, or
parts or other methods to repair their current BiPAP or CPAP
machine. Instead, the "recall" is not a recall at all but instead
is simply an informational bulletin about the harmful effects of
the Problem Products.

Although Philips recently launched a new model of the DreamStation,
the "DreamStation 2," which does not have the same problems or pose
the same health risks as the DreamStation owned by the Plaintiff,
the Defendants does not offer to replace the Problem Products with
the new, properly functioning, non-harmful machines such as the
DreamStation 2. Instead, the Defendants uses the so-called "recall"
as a sales pitch to encourage owners to purchase a new machine from
the Defendants. That is, the Defendants is actively profiting from
its so-called "recall," the suit asserts.

PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC manufactures and markets medical devices.
The Company offers therapy products for obstructive sleep apnea and
portable ventilation, as well as monitoring devices for newborns,
sleep diagnostics, and products for the treatment of respiratory
disorders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Two Seaport Lane, Floor 6
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  imcloughlin@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com
                  pvallely@shulaw.com

               -and-

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Fascimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law

PLAID INC: Settles Consumer Data Sharing Class Suit for $58 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finextra reports that Plaid has settled a $58 million class action
lawsuit over claims that the fintech firm passed on personal
banking data to third party firms without user consent.

The settlement encompasses five separate lawsuits combined as one.
Each claims that Plaid used consumers' banking login credentials to
gather and distribute detailed financial data without prior
consent.

Approximately 98 million people are affected by the settlement.
Claimants will be given the option to receive the settlement money
automatically through payment platforms such as PayPal and Venmo.

If all 98 million people were to file a claim, each would receive
just 60 cents. [GN]


PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL: GTL & Medico's Bids to Toss Kurt Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LARITA KURT, JOLENE KRAMER, FRANK BANISTER,
CAROLYN BANISTER, DON BURDOCK, and CARLA BURDOCK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE, INC., WAYNE BRIGGS, TYLER BRIGGS,
MEDICO CORP LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 19 C 4520 (N.D. Ill.), the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants GTL and Medico Corp's motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Larita Kurt, Jolene Kramer, Carolyn Banister, Frank
Banister, Don Burdock, and Carla Burdock have brought this action
against Defendants Platinum Supplemental Insurance, Inc., Wayne
Briggs, Tyler Briggs, Medico Corp Life Insurance Company, and
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company, alleging that the
Defendants devised, directed, participated in, or benefited from a
life insurance "twisting" scheme that targeted senior citizens in
primarily rural communities. The Plaintiffs use "twisting" as a
term of art used in the insurance industry to describe a practice
by which an insurance agent uses material misrepresentations and
omissions to induce a policyholder to cancel his or her existing
policy and purchase a new policy with a new carrier.

Each Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims:
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company, for failure to state a
claim; Tyler Briggs, Wayne Briggs, and Platinum Supplemental
Insurance, Inc., for failure to state a claim and lack of standing;
and Medico Corp Life Insurance Company, for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Defendants Platinum Supplemental Insurance, Inc., and
Tyler and Wayne Briggs also move to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations.

Background

Platinum Supplemental Insurance, Inc., is a Dubuque-based Iowa
corporation that markets and sells insurance policies on behalf of
insurance underwriters, primarily through door-to-door sales and
with a special focus on reaching potential customers in rural
communities. Wayne Briggs founded and is the current president of
Platinum; his son, Tyler Briggs, works as a sales associate. Both
Wayne and Tyler Briggs reside in Galena, Illinois.

From 2002 through 2015, Platinum had a Development and Exclusive
Marketing Agreement with Guarantee Trust Life, an Illinois mutual
legal reserve company that develops, underwrites, issues, and
administers life and health insurance products. Under their
agreement, Platinum and GTL jointly developed cancer, heart attack,
stroke, and longer-term care supplemental medical insurance
policies, and Platinum sold these GTL-underwritten products as
GTL's exclusive agent.

Unlike comprehensive health insurance coverage, supplemental
insurance policies are sold on an individual basis and are designed
to put cash in the patient's pocket upon the occurrence of a
specific medical event--like a cancer diagnosis or heart attack--to
help mitigate the costs, burdens, and other indirect expenses
associated with diagnosis and treatment of that medical event not
otherwise covered by comprehensive insurance policies. GTL's
policies also included a "return of premium" benefit rider, which
provided that, under certain circumstances, the supplemental
insurance policyholder would be entitled to the return of premiums
paid on the policy, less any benefits paid out during the policy
term.

This policy, the Plaintiffs allege, guarantees that the
policyholder will realize some minimum cash benefit in an amount
equal to the total premium he or she pays into the policy, in
either benefit payments for covered medical events, return of
premium payments, or some combination of the two, depending on the
insured's subsequent medical history. The benefit is forfeited,
however, if the insured either cancels the GTL policy or allows it
to lapse.

The relationship between GTL and Platinum deteriorated after GTL
was named a party in several lawsuits arising from
misrepresentations Platinum agents made to customers regarding
GTL's insurance products. In one case, Platinum's conduct led to a
$4 million punitive damage verdict against GTL that Platinum
refused to indemnify it for, in violation of the terms of the
parties' agreement. GTL terminated the sales and marketing
agreement effective July 17, 2015.

Shortly after its agreement with GTL ended, Platinum entered new
sales and marketing agreements with State Mutual Insurance Company,
Inc., a Georgia insurance company, and Medico Corp Life Insurance
Company, a Des Moines, Iowa-based corporation.

The Plaintiffs allege that in response to the loss of GTL's
business, and armed with a list of GTL policyholders, Platinum--at
the direction of Wayne Briggs and with the assistance of Tyler
Briggs--endeavored to "flip" each and every one of GTL's
policyholders to policies issued by its new underwriting partner,
Medico. They did so, the Plaintiffs claim, through high pressure,
door-to-door sales encounters with GTL supplemental insurance
policy customers and a range of misrepresentations about Platinum's
relationship with GTL, GTL's relationship with Medico, and the
insurance products being sold, including that Platinum was
"upgrading" existing GTL policies for its customers; that Platinum
"is GTL," though their affiliation had been severed; that Medico
had either merged with or been bought by GTL; that Platinum had the
authority to cancel existing GTL policies; that GTL supplemental
polices were "no longer available" or that GTL was "going out of
business."

Sales representatives also omitted the crucial fact that the
insured's decision to cancel their existing GTL policy would cause
the policyholder to forfeit his or her return of premium benefit
and otherwise obscured, concealed, or deceived policyholders about
the consequences of cancellation on their return of premium
benefits. When sales representatives' tactics paid off, GTL
alleges, Platinum was rewarded two-fold: first, with the
satisfaction of having successfully "flipped" a GTL customer to
Medico, and second, with a "first year" commission for the agent
from the sale of a new policy.

The Plaintiffs in the case are alleged victims of Platinum's
multi-state "twisting" scheme. All three of the insureds allege
that they were "duped" into terminating their GTL supplemental
policies by Platinum and its agents. They also allege that Platinum
engaged in the same high-pressure twisting scheme with customers
across Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming, among others.

Based on the alleged conduct, the Plaintiffs have filed a putative
class action against Platinum, Wayne and Tyler Briggs, Medico Corp
Life Insurance Company, and Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company.
The complaint includes nine counts as to Platinum, Wayne and Tyler
Briggs, and Medico Corp, outlining a variety of legal theories by
which they seek damages from these Defendants. They assert
fraudulent misrepresentation (Count I), fraud by concealment,
silence, or omission (Count II), negligent misrepresentation (Count
III), negligence per se (Count IV), violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count V), and
the Illinois statute regarding financial exploitation of elderly
persons (Count VI), tortious interference with contract (Count
VII), civil conspiracy (Count VIII), and unjust enrichment (Count
IX). In Count X, the Plaintiffs bring a separate unjust enrichment
claim against GTL.

Each Defendant has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b) for lack of
standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, or for failure to state a
claim. The Briggs Defendants and Platinum also separately move to
strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations.

Discussion

1. The Plaintiffs Failed to State a Claim Against Guarantee Trust
Life.

The Plaintiffs raise just one unjust enrichment claim against
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company. They argue that GTL has
unfairly benefitted through its retention of the aggregate premiums
paid by the Plaintiffs and the Class Members while disavowing the
very obligations for which the Plaintiffs and the Class Members
paid premiums, and contend that, because the Plaintiffs were
operating under mistakes of material fact at the time they
cancelled their GTL policies, equity requires that GTL disgorge the
benefits GTL has retained as a result of Platinum's deceptive
conduct.

GTL counters that, taking the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it
is just as much a victim of Platinum's conduct as the Plaintiffs
are--and, both because the Plaintiffs' claims for damages are
speculative and because a specific contract governed GTL's
obligations to the Plaintiffs--the doctrine of unjust enrichment
has no application under Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas law and so the
Plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed.

Because there were valid, written contracts governing GTL's
relationship with each of the Plaintiffs--including detailed
provisions outlining the eligibility criteria for policyholders to
receive the return of benefit premium--GTL argues that the
Plaintiffs do not, as a matter of law, have an unjust enrichment
claim against it. The Plaintiffs do not dispute the existence or
validity of their written contracts, but raise two arguments to
support their claim: first, that it was the termination of the
Plaintiffs' contractual relationship with GTL that gave rise to
their unjust enrichment claims and, thus, no enforceable contract
governed their relationship during the relevant time frame; and,
second, that no terms of the GTL policies governed the particular
subject matter at issue in the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim."

District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., finds that neither argument is
persuasive. He notes that the Plaintiffs contend that the unjust
enrichment claims arose after the end of their contractual
relationships with GTL and principally depend on the termination
(i.e., the non-existence) of GTL's contractual obligations to the
Plaintiffs." And the Plaintiffs cite a case from this district,
Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., to counter the notion
that the existence of a written contract between parties precludes
an unjust enrichment claim.

Judge Tharp opines that in the case, neither the Plaintiffs nor GTL
provided the other with payment, goods or services after the
Plaintiffs formally terminated the parties' contractual
relationship. As a result, unlike in Hetran, neither party
conferred a benefit on the other outside the temporal bounds of
their contractual relationship.

Unjust enrichment "is a means of recovering something that the
defendant is not entitled to but is unfairly possessing to the
plaintiff's detriment," Judge Tharp notes, citing Cleary v. Philip
Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511, 520 (7th Cir. 2011).

Based on the allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint, whether GTL
was entitled to retain their premium payments was clearly governed
by the parties' written, enforceable contract--and the existence of
that contract precludes an unjust enrichment claim under Illinois,
Kansas, and Iowa law. As a result, Judge Tharp holds, GTL's motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted.

2. The Court Does Not Have Personal Jurisdiction over Medico Corp
Life Insurance Company.

Next, Defendant Medico Corp has moved to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support, Medico
notes that the Plaintiffs' claims are based on representations made
by an Iowa insurance agency in Iowa and Kansas, no alleged injury
occurred in Illinois, Medico is incorporated and headquartered in
Iowa, and Illinois supplies just 2.3% of the total premiums
generated by Medico's insurance business that spans 44 states and
the District of Columbia.

As a result, Medico argues that subjecting it to personal
jurisdiction in Illinois would violate its federal due process
rights and exceed the territorial limits of the state's power. The
Plaintiffs counter that Medico has sufficient contacts with the
forum state because it targets Illinois customers and has "several
thousand" active policies in the state, such that Medico is on
notice of being hauled into court in Illinois.

Judge Tharp notes that Medico has almost no physical presence in
the state--it has never maintained an office here, has never owned
or leased real property in Illinois, and has never had an Illinois
telephone number or mailing address. Illinois workers have never
accounted for more than 3% of Medico's workforce.

Even assuming everything alleged in the complaint is true, Medico
had no reason to think that it would be brought to court in
Illinois to adjudicate Kansas- and Iowa-centric claims arising from
out-of-state Plaintiffs' supplemental insurance policies, Judge
Tharp opines. He points, among other things, that the obstacle for
the Plaintiffs' assertion of specific jurisdiction is not that
Medico has insufficient contacts with the state of Illinois but
that the Plaintiffs' specific claims do not arise out of those
contacts. Hence, Medico's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted.

3. At Least Some Claims May Proceed Against the Briggses and
Platinum.

Individual Defendants Tyler and Wayne Briggs and Defendant Platinum
Supplemental Insurance Company have moved to dismiss most of the
Plaintiffs' complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that at least
some of the Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their claims,
and under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Tyler Briggs
and Platinum do not contest the adequacy of the allegations
supporting Counts I, II, III, or IX, as they pertain to Plaintiffs
Larita Kurt and Jolene Kramer.

But, as to the other Plaintiffs and the remaining counts, the
Defendants' arguments are varied. They contend that: the Burdock
and Banister Plaintiffs do not have standing under Article III
because they have not alleged a concrete, particularized injury;
their damages are too speculative to warrant relief under any claim
premised on the return of premium benefit; the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the Illinois Financial Exploitation of an Elderly
Person Act do not have extraterritorial application; and the
plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged tortious interference with
contract, civil conspiracy, or negligence per se claims.

Judge Tharp finds that: (a) the Banister and Burdock Plaintiffs'
have adequately alleged standing and damages; (b) the Plaintiffs
cannot bring Illinois statutory claims; (c) the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged a tortious interference with contract claim; (d)
the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a civil conspiracy claim;
and (e) the Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim survives.

Judge Tharp states that it may be that the relevant state insurance
statutes or regulations do not establish a duty or standard of care
on the part of insurance sales agents like Platinum, or that the
regulations are not intended to protect consumers like the
Plaintiffs. But those issues were not briefed, so the Court does
not decide them here. Judge Tharp opines that the Defendants are
wrong that an individual right of action is a necessary element of
a negligence per se cause of action under Iowa and Kansas law,
however, and so the Plaintiffs' negligence per se claims may
proceed.

4. The Plaintiffs Have Adequately Plead Wayne Briggs's Direct
Involvement.

Separately, Wayne Briggs moves to dismiss the claims against him
because the Plaintiffs have made no allegations that he did
anything wrong to any Plaintiff and are, instead, seeking to hold
Briggs liable for the action of other Defendants.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the complaint has
sufficiently plead a basis for Wayne Briggs's liability in the
alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions--and, contrary
to the Defendant's assertions, they do so without relying on
conspiracy or piercing the corporate veil. According to the
Plaintiffs' allegations, Wayne Briggs played an instrumental role
in devising and overseeing the fraudulent twisting scheme carried
out by his company's sales agents, as described in the complaint.

At this stage, Judge Tharp holds that is sufficient for the
Plaintiffs' surviving claims to proceed against Wayne Briggs in his
individual capacity, regardless of whether he personally made any
of the misrepresentations at issue.

5. The Defendants' Motion to Strike the Class Allegations Is
Premature.

The Briggses and Platinum also move to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations. The Defendants argue that every key question in this
misrepresentation case--the existence of the representations, their
truth or falsity, reliance, and damages--can be answered only on an
individual basis, such that the common questions (if any) do not
predominate over the putative class members' individualized
issues.

Judge Tharp finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint does not suffer
from the type of facial or inherent defect that would warrant
striking their class allegations at this early stage of the
proceedings, without the benefit of class discovery. He opines that
the arguments the Defendants raise are enmeshed with the factual
and legal merits of the Plaintiffs' class allegations and, as such,
are most appropriately addressed through a motion for class
certification after appropriate discovery. He adds that at this
stage, the complaint does not demonstrate any irremediable defect
that requires denial of class certification as a matter of law.

GTL's and Medico Corp's Motions to Dismiss

Defendant Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim and Defendant Medico Corp Life
Insurance Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction are both granted.

The motions to dismiss by Tyler Briggs, Wayne Briggs, and Platinum
Supplemental Insurance are granted in part and denied in part.
First, Judge Tharp holds, the named Plaintiffs all have standing to
pursue their claims and have adequately plead damages for their
fraud- and misrepresentation-based causes of action. Second, the
Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim is adequately plead.

Third, the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly state a claim for
tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, or
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act or Financial Exploitation of an Elderly Person Act.
Leave to amend, consistent with this ruling and Rule 11, is
granted. Finally, the Defendants' motion to strike the class
allegations is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
July 22, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jjwkfhc from
Leagle.com.


PLUG POWER: Beverly, Tank & Smolicek Suits Consolidated in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidates these three lawsuits: DAWN BEVERLY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG
POWER, INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B. MIDDLETON, Defendants;
LAXMAN TANK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG POWER, INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B.
MIDDLETON, Defendants; and BRANISLAV SMOLICEK, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG POWER,
INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B. MIDDLETON, Defendants, Case Nos. 21
Civ. 2004 (ER), 21 Civ. 3985 (ER), 21 Civ. 4832 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Dawn Beverly first filed this putative class action on
March 8, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10b and 20a of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Before the Court is movant Manfred Schumacher's motion to
consolidate the Beverly action with Case No. 21 Civ. 3985, Tank v.
Plug Power, Inc., et al., to be appointed as lead plaintiff, and
for approval of his selection of Bernstein Liebhard LLP as lead
counsel. Schumacher has also filed a lead plaintiff appointment
motion in Smolicek v. Plug Power, Inc., et al, No. 21 Civ. 4832,
which was first filed in the Central District of California on
March 18, 2021, but was transferred to this District on June 1,
2021, and subsequently assigned to the Court.

Background

All three of the complaints raise substantially similar allegations
regarding allegedly false or misleading statements by Plug Power,
Inc., a company that develops fuel cell technology, and two of its
officers, Andrew Marsh and Paul B. Middleton. These include
allegations that the Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Plug
Power would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to
delays stemming from review of, inter alia, the classification of
certain costs; (2) that Plug Power was reasonably likely to report
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (3) that as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about their business were materially misleading. All
complaints allege that Plug Power's stock fell $3.68, or 7%, upon
Plug Power's filing a notification of late filing with the SEC on
March 2, 2021, and continued to fall thereafter.

All cases allege Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims under the
Securities Exchange Act against the same three Defendants. The
class periods alleged in Beverly and Smolicek are identical:
"persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Plug
securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive."
The proposed Tank class is the same, except that the class period
extends to March 16, 2021.

Consolidation

The complaints allege substantially similar claims against the same
defendants, arising out of the same statements that allegedly
caused the decline in Plug Power's value. Because the actions
involve the same company and the same defendants, facts, claims,
and legal theories, consolidation will prevent needless duplication
and possible confusion, as well as potentially inconsistent jury
verdicts, District Judge Edgardo Ramos opines, citing Crowe v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Nos. 09 Civ. 778 (RWS), 08 MDL 1963 (RWS),
2009 WL 3852381, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2009).

Judge Ramos also adds, among other things, that there is also
little to no risk of prejudice to the parties from consolidation,
and no party has opposed the request for consolidation.

In light of this, the Court finds that the Beverly and Tank actions
involve common questions of law and fact and, therefore, warrant
consolidation. Moreover, in light of all parties' consent to the
later transfer of the Smolicek matter to this District, and the
substantial similarities between Smolicek, Beverly and Tank, the
Court will sua sponte consolidate all three cases.

Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

Mr. Schumacher has moved for lead plaintiff appointment in both
Beverly and Smolicek. In Beverly, a total of 13 lead plaintiff
motions were filed. However, 11 of these other movants either
withdrew their motions or filed notices of non-opposition. The
remaining movant, Ashkan Shademan, did not file any papers in
response to Schumacher's motion.

Similarly, in Smolicek, 10 movants sought lead plaintiff status,
and eight subsequently withdrew their motions or filed notices of
non-opposition. The remaining movant in Smolicek, Patrick McGovern,
did not file any response to Schumacher's application. The Court,
therefore, deems Schumacher's motions unopposed.

Judge Ramos notes that it is undisputed that Schumacher has
satisfied the first requirement of the PSLRA by filing a timely
motion on May 7, 2021, in response to the public notice issued by
Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP on Businesswire. He has also proffered
evidence that he suffered the greatest financial loss, as he has
lost approximately $1,285,469.09 under the LIFO method ("last-in,
first-out" or "LIFO" methodology to calculate loss). While his
motion is now unopposed, Schumacher has also provided a chart
demonstrating that he has suffered the largest loss of all movants
by a significant margin. Thus, Schumacher is presumed to have the
greatest financial stake in this litigation.

The Court also finds that Schumacher's claims are typical of the
claims of the whole class. He has also made a sufficient showing of
adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In light of this, Schumacher is entitled to a presumption that he
is the "most adequate plaintiff" to serve as lead plaintiff.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), Judge Ramos holds. That presumption
stands unrebutted, because no other class member has come forth
with proof that Schumacher "will not fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class" or is subject to "unique defenses" that
render him incapable of adequately representing the class. The
Court, therefore, appoints Mr. Schumacher as lead plaintiff.

Approval of Lead Counsel

Mr. Schumacher has moved for approval of Bernstein Liebhard as lead
counsel. No party or movant has objected to the proposed selection.
After reviewing Schumacher's submission detailing Bernstein
Liebhard's experience, the Court concludes that the law firm is
qualified to serve as lead counsel of the class. Accordingly, the
Court approves Bernstein Liebhard as lead counsel.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, Mr. Schumacher's motion for appointment
as lead plaintiff, approval of Bernstein Liebhard as lead counsel,
and consolidation of Beverly, 21 Civ. 2004 and Tank, 21 Civ. 3985
is granted. The Court also sua sponte consolidates Smolicek, 21
Civ. 4832, into this action. All future filings in this case will
be filed under 21 Civ. 2004 and bear the case caption In re Plug
Power, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Pursuant to the March 24 stipulation and order between Beverly and
the Defendants, the parties will meet and confer regarding
scheduling and will submit a stipulation for the Court's approval
within 14 days.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the corresponding
motions under 21 Civ. 2004: Docs. 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28,
36, 37, 41, 47, and 50. The Clerk of Court is further directed to
terminate the following motions under Case No. 21 Civ. 3985: Docs.
6, 9, 12, and 16.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ru7fkcd from
Leagle.com.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Settlement Approval in Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Lead
Plaintiff filed an application for Court approval of the settlement
in the class action suit entitled, In re Portland General Electric
Company Securities Litigation, which is pending.

During September and October, 2020, three putative class action
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned Hessel v.
Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01523, Cannataro v.
Portland General Electric Co., No. 3:20-cv-01583, and Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General
Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01786.

Two of these actions were filed on behalf of purported purchasers
of PGE stock between April 24, 2020, and August 24, 2020; a third
action was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock
between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020.

During the fourth quarter of 2020, the plaintiff in Hessel
voluntarily dismissed his case and the court consolidated Cannataro
and PERS of Mississippi into a single case captioned In re Portland
General Electric Company Securities Litigation and appointed Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi lead plaintiff.

On January 11, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements
and omissions regarding, among other things, PGE's alleged lack of
sufficient internal controls and risks associated with PGE's
trading activity in wholesale electric markets, purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and
August 24, 2020.

The Amended Complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory
damages of an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs'
costs, and attorneys' and expert fees. On March 12, 2021, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On July 11, 2021, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement to fully resolve the Securities Action.

The Agreement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for a
settlement payment of $6.75 million in exchange for the complete
dismissal with prejudice and a release of all claims against the
defendants in connection with the Securities Action, without any
admission of fault or wrongdoing by the defendants.

On July 16, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an application for Court
approval of the settlement, which is pending.

The Company anticipates that the settlement payment will be paid by
the Company's insurance provider under its insurance policy. In
light of the Agreement, the court removed the hearing on the
defendants' pending motion to dismiss from the calendar.

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Must Face Axsesstoday Bondholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that PricewaterhouseCoopers has lost its bid to
shut down a class action launched by bondholders of collapsed asset
finance lender Axsesstoday. [GN]

RAYMOND JAMES: Seeks to Stay Remaining Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY NGUYEN, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. RAYMOND JAMES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00195-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying the remaining
deadlines for class certification and Daubert motions until further
order of the Court, or in the alternative, granting an extension
until September 3, 2021 for RJA to file its response to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Daubert motions
related to class certification.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. operates as a wealth management
firm.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caycee D. Hampton, Esq.
          John E. Clabby, Esq.
          Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
          E-mail: jclabby@carltonfields.com
                  champton@carltonfields.com
                  mleventhal@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          Bernard R. Suter, Esq.
          Bryce M. Cullinane, Esq.
          KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
          450 Pacific Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 398-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 981-0136
          E-mail: ben.suter@kyl.com

REKOR SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

REKR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rekor-systems-inc-f-k-a-novume-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18395&wire=1
YMM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd-information-request-form?prid=18395&wire=1
DIDI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18395&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ:REKR)

REKR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 12, 2019 -
May 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rekor-systems-inc-f-k-a-novume-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18395&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Rekor
Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Rekor's automatic license plate recognition ("ALPR") technology and
uninsured vehicle enforcement diversion ("UVED")-related business
is outclassed by global competitors with an established, dominant
market share; (ii) it was unlikely that states would pass
legislation authorizing deals similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED
partnership because of, inter alia, state and local privacy laws
and related public concerns; (iii) Rekor's UVED partnership was not
as profitable as Defendants had led investors to believe because of
known impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the
partnership; (iv) accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential
revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related
business prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YMM)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Full Truck's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Full Truck's June 2021 initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd-information-request-form?prid=18395&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) Full Truck's apps Yunmanman
and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the
Chinese government; (2) the Chinese government would require Full
Truck to suspend new user registration; (3) FTA needed to conduct a
"comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity risks"; (4)
Full Truck needed to "continue to improve its cybersecurity systems
and technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times and negligently prepared.

Didi Global Inc. F/K/A Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. (NYSE:DIDI)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering; and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 21,
2021, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18395&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) DiDi's apps did not comply
with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection
and the collection of personal information; (2) as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace
Administration of China; (3) the CAC had already warned DiDi to
delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network
security; (4) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were
reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China, which
would have an adverse effect on its financial results and
operations; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

RENNES GROUP: Sorenson Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE SORENSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE RENNES GROUP, INC. and RENNES ASSISTED
LIVING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00920-WCG (E.D. Wis.,
August 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a caregiver in
Wisconsin since January 2019.

Rennes Group, Inc. is a company that owns, operates, and manages
assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, and rehabilitation
facilities throughout the State of Wisconsin, with its principal
office address located at 261 French Street, Peshtigo, Wisconsin.

Rennes Assisted Living Corp. is a company that owns, operates, and
manages assisted living facilities throughout the State of
Wisconsin, with its principal office address located at 261 French
Street, Peshtigo, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                          
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

RENOVACARE INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of September 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against RenovaCare, Inc
("RenovaCare" or the "Company") (OTC Pink: RCAR) and reminds
investors of the September 14, 2021 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in RenovaCare
stock or options between August 14, 2017 - May 28, 2021 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/RCAR.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
at the direction of Rayat, RenovaCare engaged in a promotional
campaign to issue misleading statements to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price; (2) when the OTC Markets inquired,
RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press
release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling
shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's
promotional materials; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 28, 2021, the SEC issued a litigation release stating that
RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud.
According to the complaint, between July 2017 and January 2018,
Rayat "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a promotional
campaign designed to increase the company's stock price."

Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the
promotion and editing promotional materials," by providing "false
information to StreetAuthority regarding the efficacy of
RenovaCare's experimental burn-wound healing medical device." Among
other things, these promotional materials described a patient who
purportedly recovered from severe burns in three days using
RenovaCare's SkinGun, when in reality, the "before" and "after"
pictures were taken five years apart. The materials also claimed
that SkinGun "could soon be approved by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug
Administration] . . . . RenovaCare has submitted a 510(k) filing to
the FDA . . . ." However, at the time, the Company did not have a
pending 510(k) application and had withdrawn its only application
(seeking approval for use in clinical studies).

Rayat also arranged for monthly payments to the publisher "to be
made through third parties for the fraudulent purpose of concealing
Rayat's and the company's involvement." According to the complaint,
Rayat knew or was reckless in not knowing that the publisher was
required to disclose payments from RenovaCare pursuant to Section
17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, especially because in 2000,
Rayat had settled a case with the SEC for violating the same
statute.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on
June 2, 2021.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding RenovaCare's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALONA HEATH, et al, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00125-LAG (M.D. Ga.),
the Plaintiff Walona Heath asks the Court to enter an order
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 7, and Middle District of Georgia Local
Rule 7.1:

   1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff Heath's claims for
      unpaid overtime wages as a collective action pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. requiring the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel,
      within five days of the Court's Order, a list, in
      electronic, importable, and searchable format, of all
      persons who worked for Defendant Resource Management
      Systems, Inc., as a Driver, or similar positions with the
      same job duties as Plaintiffs since July 7, 2017,
      including their names, job titles, mailing addresses, e-
      mail addresses, dates of employment, and dates of birth;

   3. authorizing the issuance of Plaintiff Heath's Proposed
      Notice of Lawsuit to be mailed to all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time since July
      7, 2017;

   4. authorizing the conspicuous posting of the Proposed Notice
      in laminate form with all pages visible at Defendant's
      facility where notices of employee rights are customarily
      posted, including in a prominent place where Drivers, or
      employees employed in similar positions with the same job
      duties as Plaintiffs, routinely begin and/or end their
      shifts with Defendant;

   5. permitting putative class members to file a consent form
      to participate in this action for 60 days from the date
      notice is sent; and

   6. extending the discovery deadline to 60 days after the
      deadline for putative class members to file a consent to
      participate form.

RMS provides payroll, benefits, regulatory compliance assistance,
and other HR services to small and mid-sized companies.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. MacNamara, Esq.
          Robert M. Scott, Esq.
          J. Clint Wallace, Esq.
          SCOTT & WALLACE, LLP
          209 E. Brevard Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 222-7777
          Facsimile: (850) 222-7778
          E-mail: matt@scottandwallacelaw.com

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Latifi Suit Against TDL Group Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021,
that The TDL Group Corp. continues to defend a class action
complaint initiated by Samir Latifi.

In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against TDL in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia by Samir Latifi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleges
that TDL violated the Canadian Competition Act by incorporating an
employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form
franchise agreement all Tim Hortons franchisees are required to
sign.

The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself
and other members of the class.

In February 2021, TDL filed and served an application to strike
which was heard in May 2021.

Restaurant Brands said, "While we currently believe this claim is
without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oakville, Canada.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary
of Restaurant Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Plaintiffs' Oral Argument Set for September
--------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021,
that oral argument on the appeal made by the plaintiffs on the
court's order denying their motion for leave to amend the complaint
is scheduled for September 2021.

On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation
("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the
defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required
to sign.

Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or
herself and other members of the class.

On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend their complaint.

On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave
to amend.

The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their
complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs are appealing this
ruling.

Oral arguments are scheduled for September 2021.

Restaurant Brands said, "While we currently believe these claims
are without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oakville, Canada.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary
of Restaurant Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Suits Over Data Collection Underway in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021,
that the company continues to defend class action suits in Canada
related to its alleged collection of geolocation data through the
Tim Hortons mobile application.

On June 30, 2020, a class action complaint was filed against
Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp. in the
Quebec Superior Court by Steve Holcman, individually and on behalf
of all Quebec residents who downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile
application.

On July 2, 2020, a Notice of Action related to a second class
action complaint was filed against Restaurant Brands International
Inc., in the Ontario Superior Court by Ashley Sitko and Ashley
Cadeau, individually and on behalf of all Canadian residents who
downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile application.

On August 31, 2020, a notice of claim was filed against Restaurant
Brands International Inc. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
by Wai Lam Jacky Law on behalf of all persons in Canada who
downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile application or the Burger King
mobile application.

On September 30, 2020, a notice of action was filed against
Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership, The TDL Group Corp., Burger King
Worldwide, Inc. and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by William Jung on behalf of a to be
determined class.

All of the complaints allege that the defendants violated the
plaintiff's privacy rights, the Personal Information Protection and
Electronic Documents Act, consumer protection and competition laws
or app-based undertakings to users, in each case in connection with
the collection of geolocation data through the Tim Hortons mobile
application, and in certain cases, the Burger King and Popeyes
mobile applications.

Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for
himself or herself and other members of the class.

Restaurant Brands said, "These cases are in preliminary stages and
we intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits, but we are
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any of these cases or
estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oakville, Canada.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary
of Restaurant Brands International Inc.


RIO TINTO: External Review Rejects Mongolian Alibi Amid Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Ker, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
Rio Tinto's claim that weak geology was the major driver of massive
cost and schedule blowouts on Mongolia's Oyu Tolgoi copper mine has
been rejected by an external review that has instead blamed a
dysfunctional approach to project management.

Commissioned by Rio's minority partners in the $US6.75 billion Oyu
Tolgoi mine, the review found the plan to build a giant underground
expansion had fallen behind schedule within six months of its
sanction in May 2016.

The review also took aim at the suitability and performance of the
engineering and construction contractors Rio selected to work on
the project and called for the "demobilisation" of the team led by
chief contractor Worley.

Rio estimated last year that the project was 22 months behind
schedule and $US1.45 billion over budget, saying weaker than
expected rock had forced it to make major changes to mine design
out of concerns for safety and stability.

While some geology issues were encountered and Rio did redesign the
first section of the underground mine, the review found they were
not significant contributors to the cost and schedule given the
delays that were already evident.

"Isolated ground condition surprises are not considered significant
contributors to the overall design, schedule and cost variances,"
said the report.

It instead found the main cause of delay was the compound effect of
multiple tasks running late, from the earliest remediation works in
2016 through to the sinking of shafts and installation of crucial
infrastructure like underground ventilation.

The review found the installation of a large underground crusher
was the most time-sensitive aspect of the project, but its delivery
was slowed by the aforementioned delays to crucial infrastructure.

Most significantly, it found there was poor integration between the
project teams doing excavation and those building underground
infrastructure, partly because they were working on different
technology programs and oversight was inadequate.

The delays meant the project had to spend more on labour and other
inputs, while the review also found abnormally large cost blowouts
on concrete, piping, electrical equipment, conveyors, dewatering
services and crushing equipment.

The review recommended a swifter and cheaper approach to completing
the project, including through the "complete" demobilisation of the
current engineering, procurement, construction management (EPCM)
team, which is led by ASX listed giant Worley.

Worley's contract on the project was increased by $346 million and
while a portion of that was related to approved scope changes, the
review was unable to determine whether the rest of the blowout was
due to poor productivity or an unrealistically low initial estimate
of contractor costs.

The review also called for some outstanding tasks to be completed
by the mine owners rather than external contractors.

Other Australian contractors on the project include Clough and
shaft-sinking company RUC.

Boardroom defiance
The review was conducted by a panel of mining industry experts,
some of whom had previously worked at Oyu Tolgoi for Rio and for
rival engineering contractors on the project.

The review is the product of November's extraordinary act of
boardroom defiance by Toronto-listed company Turquoise Hill
Resources, which acted against the wishes of its 50.79 per cent
owner Rio when it supported a Mongolian government motion for an
independent review of the blowouts.

Oyu Tolgoi is 66 per cent owned by Turquoise Hill and 34 per cent
owned by the Mongolian government.

Rio has no direct stake in the mine, but has traditionally
controlled Oyu Tolgoi's progress through its controlling stake in
Turquoise Hill and the fact Turquoise Hill and the Mongolian
government have hired Rio to be the mine's operator and developer.

Turquoise Hill chief executive Ulf Quellmann resigned three months
after commissioning the review when Rio signalled it would use its
majority stake to vote against his re-election to the board.

The Mongolian government, which is at odds with Rio over a long
list of issues, said it was disappointed the findings of the review
contradicted the explanations Rio had provided.

"We are concerned to learn from the final report's conclusion that
geotechnical issues identified during the underground project
execution are unlikely to have contributed to the significant
delays of up to 22 months for the project completion and cost
variances," said the government in a statement.

"This would be contrary to the explanations the government
received.

"We will seek official explanations from Rio Tinto for any
discrepancies and contradictions between Rio Tinto's explanations
and findings of the independent review."

A Rio spokesman said the company would focus on "constructively
engaging" with the Mongolian government to unlock the greatest
value for all stakeholders.

"We are proud of the work done to date in building one of the
world's largest pieces of modern mining infrastructure in the Gobi
Desert and we welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with
our project partners, as we all aim at moving forward and
completing the underground," he said.

Further cost
The findings of the independent review echo the testimony provided
to a US class action lawsuit in May, when former workers on the
project poured scorn on the notion that poor geology was the major
cause of the blowouts.

That class action is investigating whether Rio and Turquoise Hill
were too slow to tell investors about the cost and schedule
blowouts and was initially built upon evidence provided by former
Oyu Tolgoi worker Richard Bowley.

The review of Oyu Tolgoi's problems between 2016 and 2020 comes as
two factors threaten to impose further cost and schedule delays on
what is hoped to eventually become one of the world's top-five
copper mines.

Travel and supply chain restrictions have made it difficult to get
pivotal pieces of equipment and staff to Oyu Tolgoi in the first
six months of this year and Turquoise Hill said in July the delays
could blow out the project cost by about $US100 million, with
further costs accruing for the period after June 30.

The review noted that had certain aspects of the project been
better managed, they would have been substantially completed before
the pandemic caused further delays.

The second factor that could delay the project further is the poor
state of the relationship between Rio and the Mongolian
government.

Virus may add $US1b to Rio's Mongolian blowout
Rio says it wants more clarity from the Mongolian government on
geological and financial issues before it conducts a mining act
called the "undercut", which is a pivotal act to get the
underground mine into production.

The Mongolian government says there is nothing stopping Rio from
going ahead with the undercut and Turquoise Hill said a major delay
to the undercut (originally expected to occur in May) would have a
"material impact" on the overall project schedule.

Turquoise Hill said on July 29 it expected "further impacts on
overall project cost and schedule", but the exact size of the
further blowouts was not quantified.

A cost range published by Turquoise Hill in May suggested the final
cost could be up to $US1 billion higher than the $US6.75 billion
estimate published last year. [GN]

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Investors' Class Action Lawsuits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ephrat Livni, writing for Money Control, reports that Robinhood is
now a party to the phenomenon it helped create. The newly public
company became a so-called meme stock, riding retail trader glee to
riches after a disappointing market debut. The investing app was
worth $46 billion at the close of trading on Aug. 6, up around 60%
from its valuation a week before.

It is perhaps the inevitable evolution of a market driven by forces
unleashed by the popular, commission-free trading app. It is also a
striking turnaround from six months ago, when Robinhood was the
tool of choice for traders in the original meme stocks, like
GameStop and AMC Entertainment. That role prompted congressional
hearings, regulatory interest and a major federal lawsuit in
Florida consolidating 50 class actions from thousands of aggrieved
investors nationwide.

In complaints filed just before Robinhood's initial public offering
July 29, the investors echoed the concerns raised by officials that
the company's business model is fundamentally problematic.
Robinhood may be riding high now, but its legal troubles cast a
shadow on its success and threaten its grand ambition to
"democratize finance for all."

In Robinhood's IPO registration document, a description of the
legal proceedings pending against the company filled seven pages.

Some of the issues relate to Robinhood's actions in late January,
when it abruptly limited trading for customers clamoring for meme
stocks that were soaring as groups of small investors united on
social media and squeezed the institutional players betting against
the shares. Robinhood's curb on trading during the frenzy hurt its
customers and benefited its business associates, according to
investors in the class action. They accuse the company of gross
negligence and violations of antitrust and securities laws.

Robinhood's counsel did not respond to a request for comment.

Robinhood said it had restricted trading in meme stocks to protect
itself and customers, citing regulatory obligations to monitor and
maintain capital requirements. The class action could reveal more
about what motivated the company's decisions. That may challenge
Robinhood's pitch that it is a platform for "everything that you
use your money for," as Vlad Tenev, its chief executive, told The
Associated Press last month.

Building customer trust is key to Robinhood's expansion beyond
fee-free trading into new business lines, muscling in on more
established rivals' turf and justifying its heady market
capitalization.

Although the class action names many other financial businesses,
like Citadel Securities, Charles Schwab, Melvin Capital Management
and SoFi Securities, Robinhood is the main antagonist. It is a
defendant in nearly all of the dozens of original actions, is
facing almost all the claims and appears on nearly every page of
the filings. The complaint calls Robinhood "a true amateur among
institutional brokers."

Investors taking part in the class action argue that Robinhood's
business model has a built-in conflict of interest. The company
generates about 80% of its revenue from payment for order flow,
which allows it to offer commission-free trading to users. In this
arrangement, the broker sells customer orders to market-making
firms (primarily Citadel Securities, in Robinhood's case) that
execute the trades. Robinhood makes more from this practice than
other brokers because its traders are more active.

Critics of payment for order flow, who include some lawmakers and
regulators, say it presents a conflict for brokers who are paid by
market makers but owe a fiduciary duty to customers. And because
brokers make more money if customers trade more, the incentive is
to "gamify" trading, which could be against the investors'
interests. (In March, Robinhood removed the digital confetti that
celebrated trades in the app.)

There is "no question" the decision to limit trading during the
January chaos harmed retail traders and cast doubt on Robinhood's
claims of leveling the playing field for the small investor against
big institutions, said Marc Steinberg of Southern Methodist
University's law school, the author of "Rethinking Securities
Law."

"The question is to what degree we are going to hold parties
liable," Steinberg said.

These sorts of lawsuits are an important enforcement mechanism,
forcing more transparency from companies, Steinberg said. The class
action will take at least 18 months to resolve if it goes to trial,
said Maurice Pessah, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs.
Robinhood has told the court that it will seek a dismissal.

The plaintiffs have not yet determined how much they are seeking in
damages if they succeed. Regardless, Robinhood is accustomed to
paying up and moving on.

In July, it was hit with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority's largest-ever penalty, $70 million, for service outages
and the misleading of customers. Late last year, the Securities and
Exchange Commission imposed a $65 million fine on the company for
its failure to disclose "true costs" to customers. The SEC has
promised a report on January's trading frenzy this summer and
warned that changes to how brokerage apps operate might follow.

Does it matter? So far, Robinhood's enthused users do not seem
fazed. In the year to June, Robinhood more than doubled its funded
user accounts, to 22.5 million, and tripled its assets under
custody, to more than $100 billion.

On the day that Robinhood's shares began trading, Tenev told CNBC
that "we're optimizing for happy customers, and we're optimizing
for the long term." Given the company's unresolved legal issues,
even the status that comes from being a meme stock may not be
enough to put the past behind it. [GN]

ROCKET COMPANIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Rocket Companies, Inc.
("Rocket" or the "Company") (NYSE: RKT) and reminds investors of
the August 30, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Rocket stock
or options between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/RKT.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate
in two years as a result of increased competition among mortgage
lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner
Network operating segment and compression in the price spread
between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (2) Rocket was
engaged in a price war and battle for market share with its primary
competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing
margins in Rocket's Partner Network operating segment; (3) the
adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result,
Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140
basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a result of
the above, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the
Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain
on sale margins had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins
had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019;
(5) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's
Company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below
recent historical averages; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business
operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On May 5, 2021, Rocket issued a press release announcing its first
quarter results and second quarter outlook. Rocket reported that it
was on track to achieve closed loan volume within a range of only
$82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a
range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the
mid-point, this gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis
point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline
sequentially, which represented the Company's lowest quarterly gain
on sale margin in two years. The collapse in the Company's gain on
sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions
purportedly being experienced by the Company during the Class
Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain
the results, Defendant Booth revealed that the sharp decline in
quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three factors:
(i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to Rocket's
lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a compression in
price spreads between the primary and secondary mortgage markets.
Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of these trends began
"at the end of Q1" -- i.e., before the massive insider sales by
RHI.

On this news, Rocket's Class A common stock price fell $3.79 per
share, or 16.62%, to close at $19.01 per share on May 6, 2021, on
heavy volume of over 37 million shares traded. As the market
continued to digest the news in the days that followed, Rocket's
Class A common stock price continued to decline, falling to a low
of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Rocket's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

SAINT LOUIS, MO: Cody Suit Seek to Certify Classes of Inmates
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al., v.
CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
classes of pretrial detainees and post-trial inmates held at the
City of St. Louis Medium Security Institution pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.
Its iconic, 630-ft. Gateway Arch, built in the 1960s, honors the
early 19th-century explorations of Lewis and Clark and America's
westward expansion in general.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iAu6tr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Jacki J. Langum, Esq.
          John M. Waldron, Esq.
          Matthew Dollan, Esq.
          Maureen G. V. Hanlon, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. 4 th Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (855) 724-2489 ext. 1012
          Facsimile: (314) 925-1307
          E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
                  jlangum@archcitydefenders.org
                  jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org
                  mdollan@archcitydefenders.org
                  ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org
                  mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Gail Rodgers, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 335-4501
          E-mail: gail.rodgers@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Dennis Kiker, Esq.
          2525 East Camelback Road, Ste 1000
          Phoenix, AZ
          Telephone: (480) 606-5100
          Facsimile: (480) 606-5101
          E-mail: dennis.kiker@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Saher Valiani, Esq.
          33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02215
          Telephone: 617-406-6000
          Facsimile: 617-406-6100
          E-mail: saher.valiani@dlapiper.com

SAYER LAW: Thome Seeks Certification of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY THOME on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE SAYER LAW GROUP,
P.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-03058-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing Mary Thome as Class Representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel, Samuel Z. Marks
      and Thomas J. Lyons, as Co-Class Counsel for the Class
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and

   4. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper.

The Sayer Law Group, PC is a professional law firm in Waterloo,
Iowa providing high-quality legal services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yMBUy8
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Z. Marks, Esq.
          MARKS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4225 University Ave.
          Des Moines, IA 50311
          Telephone: (515) 276-7211
          Facsimile: (515) 276-6280
          E-mail: sam@markslawdm.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          367 Commerce Ct.
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651)704-0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin J. Visser, Esq.
          Nicholas Petersen, Esq.
          SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
          115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266
          Telephone: (319) 366-7641
          Facsimile: (319) 366-1917
          E-mail: kvisser@spmblaw.com
                  npetersen@spmblaw.com

SEBA ABODE: Wofford's Bid to Amend CMO & Amend Complaint Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Case Management Order and
Amend Her Complaint in the lawsuit styled KWEILIN WOFFORD,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and UDAY ROY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.).

In the action, the Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants Seba
Abode, Inc., D/B/A BrightStar Care, a home health agency, and its
owner and President, Uday Roy, (collectively, "Defendants") to
challenge the Defendants' alleged policy of reducing the hourly pay
rates of its employees who regularly work overtime. The Plaintiff
asserts, and the Defendants do not in any material way challenge,
that the only substantive amendment sought by way of her Motion to
Amend is to add Tara Sears and Nicki Odell as named plaintiffs and
proposed class representatives in this matter.

The Plaintiff filed her first "Collective and Class Action
Complaint" against Seba Abode on Jan. 17, 2020. Seba Abode filed an
Answer on March 13, 2020. Following a Telephonic Initial Case
Management Conference in this matter on April 9, 2020, the Court
entered a Case Management Order, which, in pertinent part, set
forth the following deadlines: (1) a deadline of June 8, 2020, for
the parties to move to amend the pleadings or add new parties; (2)
a deadline of July 8, 2020, to complete alternative dispute
resolution; and (3) a deadline of Oct. 6, 2020, for the completion
of phase one of fact discovery, which was limited to discovery
relevant to class and conditional collective certification and/or
identification of potential additional defendants.

The April 9, 2020 Case Management Order also set forth deadlines
for the filing of dispositive motions and Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and motion for conditional certification. The
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 8, 2020, and the Defendants
filed an Answer on June 22, 2020.

On July 6, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion seeking an
extension of the Case Management Order's deadline to complete
alternative dispute resolution in this matter so that they could
pursue a second mediation session at a later date. The Court
subsequently entered an Order dated July 8, 2020 granting the
extension requested by way of this Joint Motion. Upon a subsequent
Joint Motion of the parties filed on Aug. 28, 2020, the Court
entered an Order extending the deadline for the completion of phase
one of fact discovery and the deadlines for filing of dispositive
motions and the Plaintiff's anticipated motions by approximately
100 days.

The parties filed another Joint Motion on Nov. 6, 2020, again
seeking an extension of the deadline to complete alternative
dispute resolution in this matter. Upon consideration of this Joint
Motion, the Court entered an Order granting the extension requested
by the Joint Motion.

Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell opted-in to the instant action to pursue
FLSA claims on Oct. 22, 2020. On Feb. 12, 2021, the parties filed a
Joint Motion advising the Court of the Plaintiff's intention to the
file the Motion to Amend presently at issue, and further requesting
that the deadlines for the filing and briefing of dispositive
motions and Plaintiff's class certification motion be stayed
pending the Court's resolution of the Motion to Amend.

By Court Order dated Feb. 12, 2021, the Court granted the stay
requested by the Joint Motion. The Plaintiff filed the Motion to
Amend and a Brief in Support on March 1, 2021. The Defendants filed
a Brief in Opposition on March 11, 2021, and the Plaintiff filed
her Reply on March 18, 2021.

Discussion

The Plaintiff seeks an extension of the June 8, 2020 deadline
provided by this Court's April 9, 2020 Case Management Order for
motions to join additional parties and motions to amend the
pleadings, and further seeks leave to file an amended complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell were subjected
to the same "hourly pay rate reduction policy" that is at issue in
this litigation, and that, for as long as this action has been
pending, they have been pursuing materially identical claims
related to the Defendants' pay practices via their own putative
class action lawsuit against the Defendants in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County at the case docketed as Sears v.
BrightStar Group Holdings, Inc., Case No. GD-20-846.

The Plaintiff asserts that, upon the filing of the proposed amended
complaint in this matter, Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell intend to file an
amended state court complaint in Sears removing all claims arising
out of the Defendants' alleged rate reduction policy. The Plaintiff
seeks to combine these purportedly parallel class actions, and
asserts that doing so would allow for all claims challenging the
Defendants' alleged rate reduction policy to be heard in one
forum.

District Judge Robert J. Colville finds that the Plaintiff failed
to seek an extension of the Case Management Order's June 8, 2020
deadline for motions to file amended pleadings and/or add new
parties prior to the expiration of that deadline, and she did not
so move the Court until March 1, 2021, despite having filed several
motions to extend other deadlines in this action between June 8,
2020, and March 1, 2021.

As explanation for this delay, the Plaintiff first advances
argument that Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell could not have been dilatory
with respect to the June 8, 2020 deadline for amendment of
pleadings in this matter because they were not parties to this
action. The Court agrees that it must look to the movant's, i.e.
the Plaintiff's, diligence in this matter in determining whether
amendment is appropriate under Rule 16(b)(4).

In explaining her failure to move to amend the deadlines in this
case at an earlier date, the Plaintiff argues that she could not
compel two individuals, who were represented by separate counsel
and who were pursuing their own class action, to join this action
as named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. The Court
generally agrees with this statement, and further notes that Ms.
Sears and Ms. Odell, despite not being named plaintiffs and
proposed class representatives in this matter, have seemingly been
treated as such by the Defendants.

The Court also notes that the proposed amendment in this matter is
relatively minor, does not add new claims, and will result in all
claims related to the Defendants' alleged rate reduction policy
being heard in a single forum. More importantly, there is no
indication in this action that the Plaintiff herself has not
pursued her class action claims related to the Defendants' alleged
pay practices diligently. Further, Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell have
seemingly been active participants in this litigation, and this
participation has come with the Defendants' knowledge and
encouragement. Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell also participated in the
mediation that took place in this action on Nov. 10, 2020.

Judge Colville observes that the Defendants' actions in the case
belie any assertion that the requested amendment or Ms. Sears' or
Ms. Odell's participation in the case come as a surprise to the
Defendants. Ms. Sears and Ms. Odell have seemingly been treated as
though they were parties even before they opted-in to pursue FLSA
claims. While the approximately nine-month delay between the June
8, 2020 deadline for motions to amend and the March 1, 2021 filing
of the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend represents a relatively long
period of time, the Court finds, given the active participation of
the Plaintiff, Ms. Sears, and Ms. Odell in the instant matter, that
there is a basis to find that the Plaintiff has been diligent in
pursuing her class action claims related to the Defendants' pay
practices in this matter.

For these reasons, the Court finds that there is a basis for a
finding of good cause to allow for the amendment of the scheduling
order to allow the Plaintiff to pursue the amendment requested in
the Motion to Amend.

Because the Court found that the Plaintiff has established good
cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) for amendment of the schedule
in this matter, it must now consider whether the requested
amendment of the Complaint would be appropriate under Rule 15(a)'s
more liberal standard.

The Court has already held that the Plaintiff has established good
cause with respect to her delay in seeking the specific amendment
at issue. The Court further finds that the delay will not result in
an unwarranted burden on this Court, and that the Defendants have
not made a sufficient showing of prejudice to warrant denial of the
Motion to Amend. Importantly, no significant motion practice has
taken place in the case to date, and the parties have only recently
completed phase one of discovery, which was limited to discovery
relevant to class and conditional collective certification and/or
identification of potential additional defendants.

The Court finds that the Defendants have not established that a
brief reopening of phase one of discovery to allow for discovery
related to the two new named plaintiffs will amount to a level of
prejudice such that amendment is inappropriate under Rule 15(a)'s
liberal standard. This is especially true in this case, where the
deadlines for class certification motions and dispositive motions
have been stayed, and where the Defendants would, if the
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is denied, eventually be required to
take the same discovery in the Sears matter, and incur the costs
associated with the same, that it now asserts constitutes prejudice
in the instant action. For the reasons discussed, the Court finds
that leave to amend, as requested in the Motion to Amend, should be
granted under Rule 15(a)(2).

Conclusion and Order of Court

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is granted. The
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint was due on July 29, 2021.

The Defendants will file an answer to the amended complaint. The
parties will, by Aug. 19, 2021, file a joint proposed scheduling
order with respect to the potential reopening of phase one of
discovery and deadlines for the same, as well as deadlines for the
filing and briefing of dispositive motions and Plaintiff's class
certification motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/prxbjf2m from
Leagle.com.


SEBA ABODE: Workers Class Conditionally Certified in Wofford Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification filed
in the lawsuit captioned KWEILIN WOFFORD, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEBA ABODE, INC.,
D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and UDAY ROY, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff alleges that she is a home health care companion, who
worked for Defendants Seba Abode, Inc., D/B/A BrightStar Care, a
home health agency, and its owner and President, Uday Roy
(collectively, "Defendants"). She alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by reducing
employees' regular hourly rates if those employees worked over 40
hours per workweek, thereby, violating the FLSA's mandate that
employers pay employees, who work overtime at least "one and
one-half times" their "regular rate" of pay.

The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of this proposed
collective: All present and former non-exempt employees of Seba
Abode, Inc. who were paid a reduced hourly rate as a result of
working over 40 hours a week within three years of the date of the
Court's order granting the motion.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court: (i) grant
conditional certification of the employees described above; (ii)
order the Defendants to produce a list of all such individuals,
including each person's name, employee ID number, last known
address, last known email address, and last date of employment;
(iii) approve the form of the Notice attached to the Plaintiff's
Motion as Exhibit 1; (iv) permit her to send that Notice by
first-class U.S. mail and email to all such persons within 7 days
of receipt of the list; (v) permit her to re-mail and re-email that
Notice to any nonresponsive persons within 30 days of the date of
the original provision of Notice; and (vi) permit such persons up
to 60 days from the date of the original provision of Notice to
opt-in to the case by returning the Consent to Opt-In form to the
Plaintiff's Counsel.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 8, 2020. The Defendants
filed an Answer on June 22, 2020. Following an Initial Case
Management Conference in this matter, the parties engaged in the
first phase of discovery, which was limited to discovery relevant
to class and conditional collective certification and/or
identification of potential additional defendants. Tara Sears and
Nicki Odell opted-in to the instant action to pursue FLSA claims on
Oct. 22, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' pay practices amount to a
"'pay deduction' scheme in which a lower 'regular rate' is paid
when an employee works overtime, and the new lower rate is
justified by no factor other than the fact that the employee worked
overtime," and further asserts that such a policy is not
permissible under the FLSA.

Conditional Class Certification

District Judge Robert J. Colville holds that the Court has reviewed
each of the Exhibits submitted by the Plaintiff, as well as the
entire record, and finds that she has met her burden with respect
to conditional certification.

Judge Colville notes that the Plaintiff has set forth sufficient
evidence of an employer policy in the case, specifically the
Defendants' policy of subjecting their employees to pay rate
reductions if those employees worked over 40 hours per workweek.
Similarly, the Complaint, the Plaintiff's Motion and relevant
briefing, and Exhibits, including the May 9, 2019 email and the
copies of her earnings statements, also constitute, at least, a
modest factual showing that she was subjected to a pay reduction as
a result of working overtime, i.e. the employer policy at issue.

The Court is satisfied that a conditionally certified collective in
the case may include employees from each of the Defendants' four
Western Pennsylvania locations. In light of all of the above, the
Court will enter an Order conditionally certifying this
collective:

     All present and former non-exempt employees of Seba Abode,
     Inc. who were paid a reduced hourly rate as a result of
     working over 40 hours per workweek within three years of
     July 22, 2021.

Notice

The Defendants oppose both procedural elements and the content of
the opt-in and notice forms submitted by the Plaintiff.

While the Court will direct the parties to confer in an attempt to
resolve their disagreements respecting the content of the notice
and consent form, the Court finds, with respect to the Plaintiff's
request that the Court permit notice to be distributed through both
mail and email, that these facilitative measures are appropriate
under the circumstances of this case, citing Belt v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 3821, 2020 WL 3829026, at *9 (E.D.
Pa. Jul. 8, 2020).

The Court finds the Plaintiff's request to send a second letter and
email to be reasonable and appropriate in this matter. Rather than
being redundant, a reminder letter gives notice to putative
plaintiffs who do not receive, open, or view the initial letter; it
also helps putative plaintiffs who misplace or forget about the
initial letter, Judge Colville opines, citing Belt, 2020 WL
3829026, at *9.

In their Brief in Opposition, the Defendants do not object to the
Plaintiff's request for an opt-in period of 60 days for the
collective members to return the consent form. Accordingly, when
the Court enters an order approving notice and consent forms in
this matter, such an order will provide for a 60-day opt-in
period.

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the contents
of the notice and consent form to be provided to potential
collective members. Further, the parties will meet and confer with
respect to any schedule for phase two of discovery and will, as
directed by the Court's Order accompanying this Memorandum Opinion,
file a joint proposed case management order, which will also
include a proposed briefing schedule for final certification of the
FLSA collectives.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, the Court will grant the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification, but will defer entering an
order with respect to notice at this time. An appropriate Order of
Court follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fjc9t9d from
Leagle.com.


SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Mason Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PORTIA MASON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHISEIDO AMERICAS CORPORATION d/b/a NARS;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-06384
(C.D. Cal., August 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.narscosmetics.com/, allegedly contains access barriers
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits
of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general
public through the website. These access barriers include, but not
limited to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent; empty links that contain no text, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same uniform resource locator (URL)
address, and linked images missing alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Shiseido Americas Corporation, doing business as Nars, is a
cosmetics company, with its headquarters located in Rutherford, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thiago Coelho, Esq.
         Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
         Binyamin Manoucheri, Esq.
         WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
         3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-9988
         Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
         E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

STABLE ROAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRAC) (NASDAQ: SRACW) (NASDAQ: SRACU) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, and
docketed under 21-cv-06287, is on behalf of all purchasers of
Stable Road securities (the "Class") between October 7, 2020 and
July 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Stable
Road securities during the Class Period, you have until September
13, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Stable Road was launched as a special purpose acquisition company,
or "SPAC."

October 7, 2020, Stable Road and Momentus Inc. ("Momentus"), an
acquisition target of Stable Road, issued a joint press release
announcing that the Company had agreed to acquire Momentus in a
proposed merger, subject to shareholder approval (the "Merger").
Although outside of Stable Road's claimed target industry, the
press release stated that the Merger would "create the first
publicly traded space infrastructure company at the forefront of
the new space economy." The release also stated that "[i]n 2019,
the Company successfully tested its water plasma propulsion
technology in space."

On October 13, 2020, Stable Road filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K an investor presentation
regarding the Merger. The investor presentation stated that
Momentus had an enterprise value of $1.2 billion and stated that
its "Groundbreaking Water Propulsion Technology" had been
"[s]uccessfully tested . . . on a demo flight launched mid-2019."
The investor presentation also highlighted the "Exceptional Team"
at Momentus led by the company's "Visionary Founder," Defendant
Mikhail Kokorich.

On November 2, 2020, Stable Road filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form S-4 for shares to be issued in the Merger
("Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement highlighted
Momentus's "Valuable Intellectual Property," and stated in
pertinent part: "Since its founding in 2017, Momentus has developed
a portfolio of technologies, including its cornerstone water plasma
propulsion technology, which it successfully tested in space in
2019." The Registration Statement also represented that Momentus
was on track to achieve $19 million in revenues during 2021, which
was expected to rise to $152 million in revenues by 2022 and over
$4 billion in revenues by 2027. Furthermore, although the
Registration Statement stated that Momentus was considered a
"foreign person" by The Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States and thus subject to a national security review, it
omitted any disclosure that Defendant Kokorich himself was
considered by U.S. government officials to pose a serious national
security threat, thereby jeopardizing Momentus's launch schedule
and undermining its revenue projections.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, prospects, and Stable Road's due diligence
activities in connection with the Merger, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, as follows: (i) that
Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a water plasma
thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal
pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype
that was not designed to generate commercially significant amounts
of thrust; (ii) that the U.S. government had conveyed that it
considered the CEO of Momentus, Defendant Kokorich, a national
security threat, which jeopardized Defendant Kokorich's continued
leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business
prospects; (iii) that, as a result of (i) and (ii) above, the
revenue projections and business and operational plans provided to
investors regarding Momentus and the commercial viability and
timeline of its products were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (iv) that Stable Road had
failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of Momentus and its
business operations and Defendants had materially misrepresented
the due diligence activities being conducted by Stable Road
executives in connection with the Merger.

On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced that Defendant Kokorich had
resigned his position as CEO of Momentus "in an effort to expedite
the resolution of U.S. government national security and foreign
ownership concerns surrounding the Company."

On this news, the price of Stable Road Class A stock fell $4.75
over three trading days, or 19%, to close at $20.10 per share on
January 27, 2021.

On July 13, 2021, the SEC announced charges against Stable Road,
SRC-NI Holdings, Momentus, Defendant Brian Kabot and Defendant
Kokorich for making "misleading claims about Momentus's technology
and about national security risks associated with Kokorich." The
release stated that all parties other than Defendant Kokorich had
settled the charges against them for $8 million in total, while the
case against Defendant Kokorich continued.

Also on July 13, 2021, the SEC publicized a cease-and-desist order
and complaint against Defendant Kokorich which detailed Defendants'
scheme to defraud investors in connection with the Merger.

On this news, the price of Stable Road Class A stock fell $1.22 per
share, or 10%, to close at $10.66 per share on July 14, 2021.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

STICKER MULE: Bonefort Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIERRA BONEFORT, on behalf
of herself, and all Others similarly situated, v. STICKER MULE, LLC
and PRINT BEAR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01222-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class,
      for settlement purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(b)(3);

   3. appointing Kessler Matura P.C. and Law Offices of Raphael
      A. Katri as Class Counsel;

   4. approving the proposed Notice;

   5. appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement
      Administrator; and

   6. scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of the
      settlement, to be held after the close of the Opt-Out
      Period, approximately 150 days after the issuance of the
      Order Granting Preliminary Approval.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VMgSRg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective and
Class, are:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com

               - and -

          Raphael Katri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
          8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 940-2034
          E-mail: rkatri@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott P. Quesnel, Esq.
          Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C.
          20 Corporate Woods Blvd.
          Albany, NY 12211
          Telephone: (518) 462-0300
          E-mail: spq@girvinlaw.com

SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Term Sheet Entered in Lowry Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Surgalign Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 29, 2021, that the
company entered into a binding Term Sheet to fully resolve the
previously-disclosed putative class action litigation captioned
Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 20 C 01939
(MFK).

On July 27, 2021, Surgalign Holdings, Inc. entered into a binding
Term Sheet to fully resolve the previously-disclosed putative class
action litigation captioned Lowry v. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 20 C 01939 (MFK), pending against the Company, a
current officer, and certain former officers of the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


The Term Sheet provides for a settlement payment of $10.5 million
in exchange for the complete dismissal with prejudice of the Action
and a release of all claims against the defendants in connection
with the Action, without any admission of fault or wrongdoing by
the defendants.

The proposed settlement is subject to court approval.

The Term Sheet requires the parties to use their best efforts to:
(a) reduce the Term Sheet to a Stipulation of Settlement to be
signed within 40 days after execution of the Term Sheet; (b) move
for preliminary approval approximately 14 days from the date of the
Stipulation of Settlement; and (c) obtain final court approval of
the settlement.

Surgalign Holdings, Inc. is a global medical technology company
advancing the science of spine care, focused on delivering
innovative solutions that drive superior clinical and economic
outcomes.


SYRIA: Liable to Paris Terrorist Attack, Wilson Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN JANE WILSON, VALERIE WILSON HUDSON, CYNTHIA LAHNE, MELANIE
ANN NICHOLSON, and TIM WILLIAM RUSSELL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02114 (D.D.C., August 6, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act.

The case arises from the personal injuries, suffering and losses of
the Plaintiffs as a result of the coordinated Paris terrorist
attacks, particularly the Bataclan Theatre attack committed on
November 13, 2015. These coordinated attacks were carried out by a
Foreign Terrorist Organization, The Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, or
IS). The Defendant allegedly provided material support and
resources to ISIS, enabling the terrorist organization to carry out
a murderous campaign of terrorism in different countries, which
resulted in the death and injuries of American citizens.

Syrian Arab Republic is a country in Western Asia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Richard D. Heideman, Esq.
         Noel J. Nudelman, Esq.
         Tracy Reichman Kalik, Esq.
         Joseph H. Tipograph, Esq.
         HEIDEMAN NUDELMAN & KALIK, PC
         5335 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 440
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (202) 463-1818
         Facsimile: (202) 463-2999

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Bid to Nix Mart Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint filed in Brian Mart v. Tactile
Systems Technology, Inc., et al., File No. 0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT,
is pending.

The company and certain of its present or former officers were sued
in a purported securities class action lawsuit that was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
September 29, 2020, and that is pending under the caption Brian
Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al., File No.
0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT.

On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
the company and eight of its present and former officers and
directors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
investors who purchased the company's common stock in the market
during the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020
("alleged class period").

The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: (1) that the company
and certain officer defendants made materially false or misleading
public statements about our business, operational and compliance
policies, and results during the alleged class period in violation
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (2) that the company and the
individual defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in
order to allow the individual defendants to sell our stock in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (3) that the
individual defendants engaged in improper insider trading of the
company's stock in violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act;
and (4) that the company and the individual defendants are liable
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because each defendant is a
controlling person.

On June 18, 2021, the company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

The motion has not been decided yet.

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., a medical technology company that
develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment
of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.


TD AMERITRADE: Seeks Sep. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK FORD, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, Case No.
8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting a 45-day extension of time, up to and
including Thursday, September 30, 2021, to file their brief in
opposition to Plaintiff Roderick Ford's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment
of Class Counsel.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yN0dMb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation,
TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Fredric Tomczyk, are:

          Thomas H. Dahlk, Esq.
          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com
                  vicki.buter@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Eamon P. Joyce, Esq.
          Jon W. Muenz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
                  ejoyce@sidley.com
                  jmuenz@sidley.com

TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a purported securities class action suit entitled, Reiner v.
Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.

On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a former
officer.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3,
2016 through December 5, 2018.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous
executive officers.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On November
30, 2020, the SDNY granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint but granted the plaintiff the opportunity to refile,
which refiling was made on December 30, 2020.

The Company believes that the claims against the Company and its
officers continue to be without merit, and the Company and its
named officers intend to defend the Company vigorously, including
filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Best Doctors, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.

On May 14, 2018, the purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc.

The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors
violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other
recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or
permission.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential
loss is currently deemed to be immaterial.

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Antitrust Class Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Tradeweb Markets Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the antitrust class actions related to trading practices in
the United States Treasury securities auctions are pending.

The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other
financial institutions, in antitrust class actions (consolidated
into two actions) relating to trading practices in United States
Treasury securities auctions.

The cases were dismissed in March 2021, with the Court granting the
Plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint by no later than
May 14, 2021.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on or about May 14, 2021,
and the Company served its motion to dismiss on Plaintiffs on June
14, 2021.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
Amended Complaint and intends to continue to vigorously defend its
position.

The motions to dismiss are scheduled to be fully briefed by the
first week of August 2021.

Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating
electronic marketplaces for its global network of clients across
financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of clients
across the institutional, wholesale and retail client sectors,
including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge funds,
insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers, proprietary
trading firms and retail brokerage and financial advisory firms, as
well as regional dealers. The company is based in New York, New
York.


TRUEBECK CONSTRUCTION: Alvarez Labor Code Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCO ANTONIO ALVAREZ-FLOREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUEBECK CONSTRUCTION,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG20062750, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on August 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06078 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay
final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures,
and unfair business practices.

Truebeck Construction, Inc. is a construction company based in San
Mateo, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq.
         Laura Tovar, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 433-1940
         Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
         E-mail: jcliffe@littler.com
                 ltovar@littler.com

U.S. XPRESS: Final Arbitration Hearing Set for June 6, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the arbitrator in
the putative class action suit filed in  U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, issued a scheduling order,
setting a final arbitration hearing for June 6, 2022.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.

The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for
U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers
from March 26, 2016 to present.

The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus
subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay
practices for the putative class members violated the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to
present. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated
the requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements it
entered into with the putative class members.

The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to comply
with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease
purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members,
that it violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease
purchase program to the putative class members, and that it was
unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations.

The Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18,
2019. On January 17, 2020, the court granted that motion, in part,
compelling arbitration on all of the plaintiff's claims and denying
the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective action. The court further stayed the matter pending
arbitration, rather than dismissing it entirely.

On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff petitioned the court to certify the
decision for an interlocutory appeal. The Company filed an
opposition to plaintiff's motion on March 20, 2020, and plaintiff
filed her reply on April 3, 2020, purportedly relying, in part, on
a recent case from Massachusetts. In response to that newly cited
case, the Company was granted leave to file a surreply, which it
filed on April 13, 2020.

On September 3, 2020, the district court denied Plaintiff's
petition. The plaintiff initiated arbitration on December 16, 2020.


On March 25, 2021, the arbitrator issued a scheduling order,
setting a final arbitration hearing for June 6, 2022.

U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint and demand are without merit
and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset- based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


U.S. XPRESS: Settlement Reached in Independent Contractors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that parties in the
putative collective and class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, agreed to
settle the matter, for a nominal amount and have finalized the
settlement agreement and submitted it to the Court for approval.

On June 25, 2020, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress,
Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The putative class and collective action includes all current and
former over-the-road truck drivers classified as independent
contractors who performed work for the Company during the
applicable statute of limitations.

The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees subject to
the the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay practices for
the putative collective and class members violated the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA for the period from June 25, 2017 to the
present.

The complaint further alleges that we failed to pay the plaintiff
and members of the class for all miles they drove and breached the
contract between the parties and that we were unjustly enriched as
a result of the foregoing allegations. The plaintiff agreed to
submit his claims to individual arbitration and filed an
arbitration demand on July 31, 2020.

The parties agreed to settle the matter, for a nominal amount and
have finalized the settlement agreement and submitted it to the
Court for approval.

The parties will also ask the court to dismiss the case, with
prejudice. The Company continues to deny the allegations made in
the complaint and demand.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset- based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


U.S. XPRESS: Stockholders Suits in Tennessee and New York Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend stockholders putative class action suits in
Tennessee and New York.

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
Company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").

All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation. The
company is currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. The
company believes the allegations made in the complaints are without
merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

As to the Tennessee State Court Cases, two of five complaints were
voluntarily dismissed and the remaining three were consolidated
with a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed on May 10,
2019 in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
Company, five of our current and former officers or directors, and
the seven underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial
public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2)  and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The putative class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative class.

On June 28, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Tennessee State Court Cases for failure to allege facts sufficient
to support a violation of Section 11, 12 or 15 of the Securities
Act.

On November 13, 2020, the court presiding over the Tennessee State
Court Cases entered an order, granting in part and denying in part
the defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated State Court
Complaint.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for
violation of the Securities Act with respect to the majority of
statements challenged as false or misleading in the Consolidated
State Court Complaint.

The court, however, held that the Consolidated State Court
Complaint sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act
with respect to one statement from the June 2018 IPO registration
statement and prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or
misleading, both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and
material omissions.

Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the
pleading stage, but only with respect to the statement deemed
sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the
truth of the plaintiffs' allegations.

The Tennessee State Court Cases are currently in discovery.

As to the Federal Court Cases, the operative amended complaint was
filed on October 8, 2019, which named the same defendants as the
Tennessee State Court Cases.

The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative
class. In addition to claims for alleged violations of Section 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer.

On December 23, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Federal Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege
facts sufficient to state a claim under either the Securities Act
or the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that Motion on March 9,
2020, and the defendants filed their Reply brief on April 23,
2020.

On June 30, 2020, the court presiding over the Federal Court Cases
issued its ruling granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint. The
court dismissed entirely the plaintiffs' claims for alleged
violations of the Exchange Act and further held that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with
respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or
misleading in the Amended Federal Complaint.

The court, however, held that the Federal Amended Complaint
sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act with respect
to two statements from the June 2018 IPO registration statement and
prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or misleading,
both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and material
omissions.

Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the
pleading stage, but only with respect to the statements deemed
sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the
truth of the plaintiffs' allegations.

On February 12, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and certified a class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired USX stock pursuant
to and/or traceable to the IPO and who were damaged thereby.

The Federal Court Cases are currently in discovery.

As to the New York State Case, on March 14, 2019, a substantially
similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by a different
plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act against the same defendants as in the Tennessee
State Court Cases.

On December 18, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay
the New York State Case both on the merits and in deference to the
pending actions in Tennessee.

On March 5, 2021, the court residing over the New York State Case
dismissed the case.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and a motion to vacate the
dismissal, which remain pending.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset- based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


U.S. XPRESS: Trial in Former Driver Suit Set for March 1, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the district court
handling the class action suit initiated by a fromer driver set the
trial date for March 1, 2022.

On December 23, 2015, a former driver filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.

The Company removed the case from state court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The district court denied plaintiff's initial motion for class
certification of a class comprised of any employee driver who has
driven in California at any time since December 23, 2011, without
prejudice, under Rule 23 due to lack of commonality amongst the
putative class members.

The Court granted the plaintiff's revised Motion for Class
Certification, and the certified class now consists of all employee
drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State
of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress at any time since December
23, 2011.

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or rest breaks, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid the California
minimum wage for all hours worked in that state, were not provided
accurate and complete itemized wage statements and were not paid
all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation
of California law.

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed on grounds of
preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal
and rest breaks or premium pay for failure to provide such breaks
under California law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the
administrative ruling that formed the basis for the district
court's ruling. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary
judgment on the remaining claims, and the Company filed a motion to
decertify the class.

The court issued its ruling on the pending cross-motions: (1) the
court denied the Company's motion to decertify the class; (2) the
court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiff's minimum wage claim for non-driving duties such as
pre-trip and post-trip inspection, fueling, receiving dispatches,
waiting to load or unload, and handling paperwork for the loads for
January 1, 2013 forward (leaving the minimum wage claim only for
the approximate one-year time period from December 23, 2011 to
December 31, 2012); (3) the court granted the plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment for the time spent taking Department of
Transportation-required 10-hour breaks while hauling high value
loads in California for solo drivers and for the designated team
driver responsible for the load; and (4) the court denied the
balance of cross-motions.

The plaintiff filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the court's decision on the minimum wage
claim, which the district court and the Ninth Circuit both granted.


On June 22, 2021,  the Ninth Circuit issued its memorandum decision
upholding the court's ruling dismissing the plaintiff's post-2012
minimum wage claim.

The district court recently held a status conference on June 15,
2021 and set a trial date for March 1, 2022. Discovery has been
completed.

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset- based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Atlantic ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in the
lawsuit entitled ATLANTIC NEUROSURGICAL SPECIALISTS P.A., et al.,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED HEALTHCARE GROUP INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 20-13834 (KM)(JBC) (D.N.J.).

Two medical providers, Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, P.A. and
American Surgical Arts, P.C., bring the action on behalf of
themselves and four patients, C.L., F.L., P.T., and J.C. Those
Patients were insured by health plans issued by one of the
following Defendants: UnitedHealth Group Inc.; United Healthcare
Services, Inc.; United Healthcare Insurance Company; United
HealthCare Services LLC; Oxford Health Plans, LLC; or Oxford Health
Insurance, Inc. (collectively, "United").

United denied coverage, in whole or in part, of the medical
services provided to each of the four patients by the Plaintiffs,
who were out-of-network ("ONET") providers. The Plaintiffs, as the
patients' purported "authorized representatives," attempted to
pursue an administrative appeal of those denials. United refused to
hear the appeals, however, because the Plaintiffs did not comply
with United's procedures for selecting an authorized
representative. United declined to process the appeals because the
purported designation of authorized representative form ("DAR
Form") submitted on behalf of each patient lacked required
information.

The Plaintiffs, then, initiated this action against United,
submitting that its procedure for designating an authorized
representative violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA"), and its accompanying regulations. The Plaintiffs
also seek class certification of similarly-situated insureds whose
appeals of adverse benefit determinations were denied by United.

Before the Court is United's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint on the basis that (1) the Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing, (2) the Plaintiffs lack standing under ERISA, and (3) the
Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Procedural History

The Plaintiffs initiated this action on Oct. 2, 2020. Their
Complaint asserts that United's Uniform DAR Denial Policy violates
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and its accompanying
regulations because it constitutes an unreasonable procedure for
determining whether an individual has been authorized to act on
behalf of a claimant. Additionally, the Plaintiffs submit that the
Policy "effectively mandates the use of the United DAR Form for
health care providers, and especially ONET health care providers."

The United DAR Form, however, requires an "automatic expiration
one-year from its execution--regardless of whether a beneficiary
has exhausted all rights to a fair and full review of an adverse
benefit determination." In imposing such an expiration date, the
Plaintiffs contend, United seeks to minimize the ability of ONET
providers to assist their patients appeal improper benefit denials,
including gross underpayments, by creating unreasonable obstacles
specifically targeting ONET providers.

The Complaint asserts three Counts: Count I - Claim for relief
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B)); Count II - Claim for
relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(A), only to the
extent that the Court finds injunctive relief unavailable pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); and Count III - Claim for
relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(B), only to the
extent that the Court finds equitable relief unavailable pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) or 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3)(A).

The Plaintiffs seek class certification, appointment as Class
Representative, a declaratory judgment that United's Uniform DAR
Denial Policy violates ERISA, and a permanent injunction barring
United from engaging in the alleged misconduct. The Plaintiffs also
seek payment to "all class members, with interest, for the amount
of ONET benefits denied as a result of United's ERISA violations,"
or, alternatively, an order compelling "United to reprocess all
wrongfully denied appeals in compliance with plan terms and without
the improper reductions." As an alternative remedy, the Plaintiffs
seek an order compelling "United to make an equitable payment to
Plaintiff and members of the Class."

The United Defendants now collectively move to dismiss the
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Discussion

District Judge Kevin McNulty notes that this lawsuit is an ERISA
case. ERISA imposes certain duties on those who manage employee
benefit plans (fiduciaries), with the purpose of protecting
participants and beneficiaries, citing Sweda v. Univ. of Penn., 923
F.3d 320, 327 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 2565 (2020).

Judge McNulty agrees with United that the Court should dismiss the
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish Article III standing. He
explains that the claimed injury--denial of benefits--cannot be
traced to the challenged conduct--the Uniform DAR Denial Policy.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs, because of the manner in which they have
limited the scope of their substantive claim, have not demonstrated
Article III standing to seek relief for the denial of benefits.

The Plaintiffs' second claimed injury is the alleged denial of full
and fair review in the administrative appeals process. But the
administrative process, as such, is not the source of a concrete
injury, Judge McNulty opines. The Plaintiffs could establish an
injury only if further review of their claims would have resulted
in the payment of additional benefits. That has not been alleged
factually, the Judge finds.

The Plaintiffs maintain that this case is about the wrongful denial
of benefits. However, Judge McNulty notes, the Plaintiffs do not
challenge the underlying reasons for United's adverse benefit
determination. Instead, they challenge United's procedure for
allowing (or not allowing) an authorized representative to appeal
an adverse determination on behalf of a patient.

The claimed injury (denial of benefits) occurred before that
alleged wrong (the application of the Uniform DAR Denial Policy to
deny administrative appeals). Judge McNulty holds that the
Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to establish that they
were entitled to the benefits prior to United's application of its
DAR Denial Policy.

Based on these, Judge McNulty finds that the Plaintiffs have not
established Article III standing to assert their claims. He also
finds that based on the plain language of the regulation and the
repeated holdings of courts in this district, that the Claims
Procedure Regulation does not itself confer standing to an
authorized representative to assert an ERISA claim in court. Hence,
Judge McNulty will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss on that
basis.

The Plaintiffs request leave to file an amended complaint alleging
that they possess powers of attorney to act on behalf of their
Patients. Those POAs, they submit, suffice to confer statutory
standing under ERISA.

Such an amendment, however, would be futile, because medical
practices cannot act as attorneys-in-fact under the New Jersey
Revised Durable Power of Attorney Act, N.J.S.A. 46:2B-8.1, et seq.,
Judge McNulty opines, citing Somerset Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v.
Horizon Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. 19-8783, 2020 WL 1983693, at
*8 (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2020). Judge McNulty sets aside the objection
that a footnote in an opposition brief is not a proper means of
filing a motion to amend the complaint, and he finds that the
proposed amendment would be futile.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Judge McNulty grants United's motion to
dismiss the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/9y2nbk5u from Leagle.com.


UNITED SERVICES: Spielman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER I. SPIELMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01359-TJH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure of the following Class:

   "All individuals and entities in California insured by United
   Services Automobile Association or USAA Casualty Insurance
   Company and whose insurance covered or covers a leased
   vehicle with private-passenger physical damage coverage,
   including collision or physical damage other than collision
   coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed within four
   years of the date the lawsuit was filed through September 12,
   2020, that was adjusted by United Services Automobile
   Association or USAA Casualty Insurance Company as a total
   loss and who received an actual cash value payment from
   United Services Automobile Association or USAA Casualty
   Insurance Company that did not include sales tax and/or
   Vehicle Title and Registration Fees."

Mr. Spielman further requests that his counsel -- Tycko & Zavareei
LLP, Edelsberg Law, PA, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, and Shamis & Gentile, P.A. -- be appointed as Class
Counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated August 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lUQZd4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (213) 425-3657
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG
          GILBERT
          One West Las Olas, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30 th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

UNITED STATES: District of Montana Dismisses Grigg v. Sen. Tester
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald W. Molloy of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana, Missoula Division, dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiff's complaint in the lawsuit entitled PETER GRIGG,
Plaintiff v. SENATOR JON TESTER, Defendant, Case No. CV 21-40-M-DWM
(D. Mont.).

Plaintiff Peter Grigg resides in Kalispell and is an illegal alien.
Pro se and using a form complaint from the Montana district court
in Flathead County, Grigg filed a complaint against "Senator John
Tester" in February 2021. The allegations include: Grigg accuses
Tester of discrimination; not fulfilling elected public duties and
roles; lack of interest in him (constituent); defamation of his
character; non-assistance as elected; and preventing him legal
employment and residence.

Mr. Grigg requests relief in the form of assistance from Tester in
securing legal employment and residence, 10 years of earnings to
which he otherwise would have been entitled if not for his alien
status, and Tester's punishment to the full extent of law for abuse
of power. Along with his complaint, Grigg filed a letter from the
Montana Department of Labor and Industry stating that he would not
receive an unemployment benefits check because of a separation from
work issue.

The United States timely removed Grigg's complaint to this Court.
Removal is based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, which permits the
United States to remove a civil action directed at any officer of
either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the
discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.

Subsequently, the United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Grigg objected to the
United States' motion. Grigg's response lays out fragmented
arguments against dismissal, including repeated references to this
case as a "class action."

After the United States filed its reply, Grigg moved for a hearing
on the motion to dismiss. The United States opposed Grigg's motion
for a hearing. The United States' motion is granted, and Grigg's
motion is denied. Because the defects in Grigg's motion cannot be
cured with amendment, his complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

The United States argues that Grigg's complaint should be dismissed
because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
since the allegedly harmful conduct occurred while Tester was
acting in his capacity as a senator. It also argues the complaint
should be dismissed for failing to state a claim for which relief
can be granted.

Even construing Grigg's complaint liberally and giving him the
benefit of any doubt, the United States prevails on both counts,
Judge Molloy holds. The Judge also holds that even reading Grigg's
complaint generously, it is apparent his claims are barred by
sovereign immunity.

To the extent that Grigg alleges tort claims against Tester, the
Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") does not offer him a successful
avenue to the courts, Judge Molloy notes. The discretionary
function applies when a two-part test is satisfied: (1) the
challenged action involves an element of choice or judgment and (2)
that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function
exception was designed to shield, which protects only governmental
actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.

In the case, both parts of the test are met, Judge Molloy holds.
Insofar as Grigg alleges tort claims against Tester, those claims
appear to find fault with Tester's decisions as a senator. Thus,
the first part of the test is met because Grigg is critical of
Tester's exercise of discretion. Second, the function of a senator
necessarily entails government action and decisions based on
considerations of public policy that very well may contradict the
wishes of some constituents. Thus, to the extent Grigg alleges tort
claims against Tester, the government has not waived its sovereign
immunity and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
them.

Damages

The Court states that it does not have the authority to deliver
Grigg any of his requested relief. First, Grigg asks for assistance
from Tester in his quest for legal employment and residence. The
Court cannot compel Tester to aid Grigg, and Grigg's complaint
makes no causal connection between his failure to obtain legal
employment and residence and Tester's actions or inactions, Judge
Molloy holds, citing Slaughter v. Glebe, 2018 WL 1393842, *1 (W.D.
Wash. Feb. 22, 2018).

Because the Court does not have subject matter over the claims
asserted against Tester, it cannot award compensatory damages on
those claims. Similar reasoning applies to Grigg's request for
punitive damages. In addition, the FTCA bars punitive damages
against the United States.

Failure to state a claim

Mr. Grigg's complaint is the epitome of an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation, Judge Molloy finds.
Judge Molloy concludes that such a bare-bones complaint fails to
satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), and therefore,
fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Grigg's
complaint does not include any factual allegations, and, for the
reasons stated, even if the complaint did include factual
allegations in support of its legal claims, those claims would
nonetheless be barred as a result of sovereign immunity. As a
result, Grigg's complaint is dismissed with prejudice because
amendment would be futile, Judge Molloy rules.

Conclusion

Hence, it is ordered that the United States' motion to dismiss is
granted. The matter is dismissed with prejudice. Grigg's motion for
a hearing is denied as moot.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter
judgment in favor of the United States pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In light of the waiver of the filing fee in state court due to
Grigg's inability to pay, if Grigg were proceeding in forma
pauperis here, the Court would direct the Clerk of Court to have
the docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule
24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any
appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. No
reasonable person could suppose an appeal would have merit. The
record makes plain the instant complaint lacks arguable substance
in law and fact.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/u6rb39bf from Leagle.com.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Loses Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oluro Olukayode,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UnitedHealth Group, Optum, Inc., and The Advisory Company, Case No.
0:19-cv-01101-DSD-HB (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge David S. Doty
entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for decertification of the collective
      action;

   2. partly granting the motion for summary judgment; and  

   3. denying the motion for Rule 23 class certification.

This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) dispute arises out of
Olukayode's and the putative class members' electronic medical
record (EMR) software work on behalf of defendants ABC and Optum.
The EMR implementation work at issue includes hands-on training,
referred to as "at-the-elbow (ATE) support," at hospitals.

UnitedHealth is an American multinational managed healthcare and
insurance company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It offers health
care products and insurance services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104

The Defendant is represented by:

          James G. Schmitt, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS, PA
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 400
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Summary Judgment Against Fuller Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BURRELL FULLER, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 109973 (Ohio App.), the Court of
Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirms the
trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants-Appellees.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants, Burrell Fuller, and Pomerantz and Crosby
Co., L.P.A. ("the law firm"), appeal from the trial court's
decision granting summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants-Appellees, University Hospitals Medical Group, Inc. and
University Hospitals Physician Services, Inc. (collectively
"University Hospitals" or "the hospital").

Factual and Procedural History

Mr. Fuller and the law firm initiated this class action against
University Hospitals, alleging that the hospital overcharged the
law firm, in violation of R.C. 3701.741, for copies of Fuller's
medical billing the law firm requested. The law firm was
representing Fuller in an automobile accident personal-injury case
and sought the billing records for medical treatment he obtained at
the hospital as a result of the accident. The hospital charged the
firm $78.78 for three pages of billing records. The records were
from the three medical departments that treated Fuller at the
hospital on the day of the accident--the emergency department, the
cardiology department, and the radiology department. Fuller was
discharged the same day he was treated and had not been back to a
University Hospitals facility or seen a University Hospitals doctor
since that time.

In addition to their individual claims against the hospital, Fuller
and the law firm sought class-action certification for two
different classes: an "overcharge class" and a Consumer Sales
Practices Act class ("CSPA class"). Both proposed classes consisted
of "all persons" who received treatment from University Hospitals,
requested copies of "medical records" through an authorized
representative, and received and paid a demand amount for payment
prior to obtaining the records.

The hospital filed a motion to dismiss that the trial court denied.
The parties then engaged in discovery, at the conclusion of which
the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment. Fuller and the
law firm filed a motion for certification of both proposed classes.
The trial court held a hearing on the parties' motions, and
thereafter, issued its judgment granting University Hospitals'
motion for summary judgment and finding Fuller and the law firm's
motion for class-action certification "moot."

Fuller and the law firm now appeal, raising these two assignments
of error for the Appellate Court's review:

   I. The trial court erred when it granted Appellees' motion for
      summary judgment; and

  II. The trial court erred when it denied class certification.

Law and Analysis

In its first assignment of error, Fuller and the law firm contend
that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of
the hospital.

University Hospitals' Summary Judgment Motion

The hospital relied on numerous documentary evidence in support of
its summary judgment motion, including (1) Fuller's deposition
testimony; (2) the affidavit and deposition testimony of
Christopher Smith, who was employed by University Hospitals Health
System, Inc. as Manager of Revenue Cycle Customer Service
Department, and was responsible for processing requests for copies
of University Hospitals Medical Group, Inc. ("UHMG") itemized
billing statements and other billing records; and (3) the
deposition testimony of Gloria Chiabai, a representative from the
law firm who requested the subject records.

With the documentation, the hospital established that when it
receives a third-party request for an itemized billing statement,
it invoices the third-party requestor the amount set forth in the
"Finger on the Pulse" newsletters prepared by the hospital's law
department. The total amount reflects two components: a research
fee and a copy fee.

At the relevant time, the research fee was a $25 flat fee for each
medical group that billed for treatment of a patient. Smith averred
that the fee was for the "labor costs associated with the search
and retrieval of the requested billing information in the financial
accounting software and the compilation of that information into
the requested itemized billing statement." Smith explained that an
additional $1.26 copy fee for billing statements was charged. Thus,
the hospital billed the law firm a research fee of $25 for each of
the departments that treated him (i.e., the emergency, cardiology,
and radiology departments), and $1.26 for each page produced by the
departments (each department produced one page).

Fuller and the Law Firm's Opposition

In opposition to the hospital's motion for summary judgment, Fuller
and the law firm relied on the deposition testimony of one of the
firm's attorneys and Smith's deposition testimony. The attorney
testified that Fuller signed a "Authorization for Release of
Medical Information" when requesting his records. According to the
deposition testimony of both the attorney and Smith, the
authorization is the same regardless of which University Hospitals
facility or doctor performs the service or what records are
requested. Fuller and the law firm contended that the use of the
authorization for both billing and medical records demonstrated
that billing records are medical records subject to the price
requirements of R.C. 3701.741.

Judge Larry A. Jones, Sr., opines that billing records are not
medical records and, therefore, are not subject to the pricing
requirements of R.C. 3701.741. Hence, the first assignment of error
is overruled.

Class Certification

For their second assigned error, Fuller and the law firm contend
that the trial court erred in denying them class certification. The
Appellate Court disagrees.

Judge Jones opines that Fuller and the law firm's claims were
dismissed by the trial court vitiating any standing they would have
to bring claims on behalf of others because the court determined
that the Plaintiffs had no case or controversy for which they could
raise claims.

Therefore, Judge Jones holds, based on the dismissal of Fuller and
the law firm's individual claims, the class claims have been mooted
because they cannot proceed with Fuller and the law firm as their
representative. In light of this, the second assignment of error is
overruled.

Conclusion

The statutory definition of "medical record" contains two separate,
but equally necessary, components: a medical record is a document
that "pertains to a patient's medical history, diagnosis,
prognosis, or medical condition" and a document "that is generated
and received for filing maintained by a healthcare provider in the
process of the patient's health care treatment," R.C.
3701.74(A)(8). An itemized billing statement is not a medical
record within the meaning of R.C. 3701.741, and the trial court
properly granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment.
Further, the trial court properly dismissed the class claims as
moot.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that Appellees recover from Appellants costs herein
taxed.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for the appeal. It is
ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this
judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry will constitute the mandate pursuant
to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR.

A full-text copy of the Court's Journal Entry and Opinion dated
July 22, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yk2tcx6y from
Leagle.com.

James S. Wertheim, L.L.C., and James S. Wertheim --
wertheimjim@gmail.com -- for Appellants.

Tucker Ellis L.L.P., Karl A. Bekeny -- karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
-- Michael J. Ruttinger -- michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com -- and
Chelsea M. Croy Smith -- chelsea.smith@tuckerellis.com -- for
Appellees.


UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Gladstone & Patel Dismissed From Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss two Named Plaintiffs, Nilay Kamal
Patel and Rachel A. Gladstone, from the lawsuit captioned as NILAY
KAMAL PATEL, RACHEL A. GLADSTONE, ELIJAH BLOW, and AVERY ARROYO,
Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-61 (D. Vt.).

In this putative class action, students at the University of
Vermont ("UVM") seek to recover contract damages for the difference
in value of live in-person instruction versus online distance
learning, as well as the value of the unused portion of on-campus
housing costs in UVM residence halls and other housing along with
the value of the unused portion of each meal contract and the value
equal to a prorated share of fees. The case arises from the
migration of the bulk of university instruction to an on-line
format during the spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 health
crisis.

On March 15, 2021, the Court dismissed claims relating to the room,
board, and comprehensive fee portion of the lawsuit on the ground
that reduction or reimbursement in the event of a health emergency
was excluded by the language of the contract between the parties.
The March 15 decision permitted the Plaintiffs' claims for refund
of tuition to proceed beyond the initial review afforded by the
motion to dismiss. In the Court's view, the terms of the
"implied-in-fact contract" between the students and the University
would have to await factual development.

Since the ruling on the motion to dismiss, a new issue has arisen.
Neither of the two original Named Plaintiffs, Nilay Kamal Patel and
Rachel A. Gladstone, personally paid any tuition to UVM for the
spring semester 2021. UVM seeks the dismissal of these two
Plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on standing grounds. The
Court heard argument on the standing issue on June 7, 2021. The
Court has also considered the parties' post-hearing supplemental
briefs.

Background

Mr. Patel was an exchange student from the University of Leeds in
Britain. The parties agree that UVM and the University of Leeds
operate a student exchange program under which students from one
school may attend the other without paying tuition directly to the
university they are visiting. In Mr. Patel's case, the tuition
requirement for his semester abroad at UVM was satisfied by
whatever he paid to Leeds. His attorneys were unable to say at oral
argument whether he paid anything at all at Leeds.

Ms. Gladstone's tuition was covered in full by a combination of
scholarship aid provided through UVM and federal Pell grants
provided by the United States government; she will not be required
to repay any of the scholarships, grants, or awards. The
combination of these two sources exceeded her tuition obligation by
approximately $1,000. This amount was applied to her room and board
costs. At the end of the spring 2020 semester, she received a
partial refund from UVM, which offset all except $123 of her
student loan obligation for the semester. Ms. Gladstone has now
successfully graduated from UVM.

Analysis

District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford notes that the proposed
dismissal of Mr. Patel and Ms. Gladstone from this lawsuit would
not end the case. The First Amended Class Action Complaint includes
two new Plaintiffs, who paid tuition to UVM. The narrow issue
presented by the current motion to dismiss concerns the standing of
Mr. Patel and Ms. Gladstone only.

Plaintiffs' Request for Discovery

The Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to discovery if UVM's
motion is "treated as a summary judgment motion." According to
them, proof of some of the facts that UVM has asserted are solely
within its control--such as how it allocates scholarship money and
how its private grants and scholarships are funded, awarded and
managed. The Court rejects that argument.

The Court notes that it is not treating UVM's motion as one for
summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The only relevance of
Rule 56 to a motion under Rule 12(b)(I) is that a body of decisions
has developed under Rule 56 that offer guidelines which assist in
resolving the problem encountered if the affidavits submitted on a
12(b)(1) motion should reveal the existence of factual problems. No
such factual problems are present here, the Judge holds. The
detailed facts that the Plaintiffs say are solely within UVM's
control are not essential for resolution of the motion.

Constitutional Standing

The parties and the Court are primarily concerned here with
constitutional standing. Constitutional standing has three
traditional elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an
injury in fact (an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent); (2) there must
be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of; and (3) it must be likely that the injury is
redressable by a favorable decision, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136
S.Ct. 1540, 1547-48 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).

UVM argues that the Plaintiffs have no injury in fact because they
did not actually pay any tuition to UVM in Spring 2020.

Although the Plaintiffs continue to seek the return of room, board,
and fees, the Court has previously dismissed these claims. The
remaining claims--Counts I and IV--are most obviously and naturally
for tuition reimbursement. Indeed, those counts are brought by
members of the putative "Tuition Class."

By claiming the return of an overpayment, the Plaintiffs seek to
avoid the consequences of this line of authority. But seeking
return of an overpayment becomes difficult if you never made a
payment in the first place, Judge Crawford opines.

Mr. Patel's injury is not redressable because the Court cannot
fashion an order that UVM return or "disgorge" money it never
received, Judge Crawford holds.

The Court recognizes that Ms. Gladstone--entirely
understandably--would like a refund, but she never made a payment
in the first place. In seeking equitable remedies, such as
disgorgement or a refund, Ms. Gladstone avoids the general
prohibition against "educational malpractice" awards. But the
equitable remedy has a limitation. It permits the return of money
to the person, who overpaid, not to a student who did not pay
herself, Judge Crawford opines.

Conclusion

The Court grants the motions to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs
Gladstone and Patel on grounds of constitutional standing. Their
alleged injuries are not redressable by the requested judicial
relief. Since this dismissal as to those Plaintiffs is for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9tadskp from Leagle.com.


UPS STORE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss McLaren Suit Affirmed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BARBARA McLAREN, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v. THE UPS STORE,
INC., TURQUOISE TERRAPIN, LLC, formerly d/b/a UPS STORE #4122, RK &
SP SERVICES, LLC, formerly d/b/a UPS STORE #4122, HAMILTON PACK N
SHIP, LLC, in their own right and as representatives of a class of
similarly situation UPS STORE franchisees, Defendants-Appellants,
Case No. A-1612-20 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed in part and reversed in
part the order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The matter was brought before Judges Carmen Messano, Richard S.
Hoffman and Karen L. Suter.

In the putative class action, the Judges granted Defendant RK & SP
Services LLC leave to appeal from the Law Division's order denying
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint brought by
Plaintiff Barbara McLaren individually and as representative of a
class. The Panel's Feb. 18, 2021 order limited its review to the
Plaintiff's individual claims premised upon the Defendant's alleged
violation of N.J.S.A. 22A:4-14 (the Statute).

Because the appeal comes to the Appellate Division from the denial
of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, the Judges treat the Plaintiff's version of the
facts as uncontradicted and accord it all legitimate inferences.
The Judges pass no judgment on the truth of the facts alleged; the
Judges accept them as fact only for the purpose of reviewing the
motion to dismiss.

The Judges review a decision denying a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim de novo applying the same standard as the
Law Division judge (MasTec Renewables Constr. Co. v. SunLight Gen.
Mercer Solar, LLC, 462 N.J.Super. 297, 309 (App. Div. 2020) (citing
Castello v. Wohler, 446 N.J.Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2016))).
Moreover, when analyzing pure questions of law raised in a
dismissal motion, such as the application of a statute of
limitations, the Judges undertake a de novo review.

Background

On Aug. 26, 2019, the Plaintiff visited UPS Store #4122 in Hamilton
Square, owned at the time by the Defendant. She sought a notary to
take her affidavit on an L-8 Form for the Division of Taxation and
to acknowledge her signature on a bank form. The Defendant charged
her $5 per document, for a total of $10.

The Plaintiff filed the complaint, alleging the following causes of
action against the Defendant: violation of the Statute; violation
of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-226; unjust
enrichment; and civil conspiracy. She sought bilateral
certification of a class of all customers in New Jersey charged
fees in excess of those permitted by the Statute by a defendant
class of The UPS Store, Inc. (TUPPS) franchisees, who charged
excessive fees to notarize documents.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint before filing an
answer, contending it failed to state a cause of action; the
Defendant also sought to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations.
The Law Division judge heard legal argument on the motion.

In a written decision, after reciting the relevant case law and the
parties' contentions and arguments, the judge concluded the actual
interpretation of the Statute and how parties have perceived it
cannot be established without further evidence. There are clearly
triable issues of fact, and the matter must be allowed to proceed.
The judge denied the Defendant's motion.

Discussion

The Defendant repeats the same arguments made in the Law Division.
It contends the plain meaning of the Statute is clear--by using the
phrase "shall receive," the Legislature signified a "minimum fee"
for a notary's service in administering an oath or taking an
affidavit, not "a maximum limit" as to what a business may charge
for such services. The Defendant contends the Statute's plain
meaning is confirmed by statutory context and canons of
construction, and subsequent legislative history and secondary
sources do not alter the Statute's plain meaning. Lastly, the
Defendant contends the Statute does not "infer" any private right
of action for alleged violations.

The Plaintiff agrees the Statute is not ambiguous--simply put, it
sets the price that can be charged for notary services. The
Plaintiff contends this construction is supported by canons of
statutory interpretation, legislative history, and secondary
sources. The Plaintiff also argues the Statute implicitly creates a
cause of action for its violation, and any violation is also
actionable under the CFA.

The Judges note that during oral argument before them, the
Defendant acknowledged that its interpretation of the Statute's
plain language would permit a notary to charge $100 or more for
these services, an absurd result that cannot be countenanced based
on a literal reading of the statutory language.

In their view, the Judges opines that the Statute provides a
decidedly public benefit by limiting the amount of money the public
may be charged by a public officer, and that benefit is only
secured by "according the word 'shall'--a notary public shall
receive a fee--its imperative meaning."

The Defendant posits other arguments that do not rely on the
Statute's plain language. While noting the paucity of caselaw, the
Defendant cites Gittleman v. City of Newark, 132 N.J.L. 328 (E. &
A. 1945), Castellano v. City of Newark, 21 N.J. Misc. 63 (Cir. Ct.
1943), and Samson v. City of Newark, 125 N.J.L. 221 (Sup. Ct.
1940), as supporting its position that the Statute merely states
minimum compensation to which notaries are entitled, not a
limitation on fees they may charge.

None of the cases cited by the Defendant are apposite, the Judges
hold. They point out that in their view, these cases stand for
nothing more than the unremarkable proposition that the Statute
provides compensation for a notary and other public officials who
perform certain services; and these cases do not advance the
Defendant's claim that the Statute does not cap the fee charged to
the public. In short, the Judges add, these cases support the
Plaintiff's principal argument that the fee charged for services
listed in the Statute has been fixed by the Legislature.

The Judges conclude that the fees for notarial services set by the
Statute are the maximum fees that may be charged. They point out
that such interpretation is consistent with the plain language of
the Statute, the context of the entire legislative scheme of which
it is part, the limited caselaw applying the Statute, and its
recent legislative history.

The Defendant also contends that the Statute confers no private
right of action upon the Plaintiff to bring a suit alleging she was
charged notary fees in excess of the statutory amounts. The
Defendant also asserts, in passing, that since it is a business
entity, not a corporeal person serving as a notary, even if the
Plaintiff was correct in her construction of the Statute, she had
no cause of action against the Defendant.

As to this latter point, the motion judge aptly noted that issues
of the Defendant's vicarious responsibility for the actions of the
notary, who provided the services to the Plaintiff, as well as
TUPPS' potential liability for the conduct of its franchisees, were
incapable of resolution without further development of the record.

The Appellate Division decides only whether the facts alleged in
the Plaintiff's complaint "suggested" a cause of action against the
Defendant. The complaint certainly meets this test, the Judges
hold.

The Judges conclude that the Statute confers no private cause of
action on the Plaintiff. They, therefore, reverse the order under
review and order the trial court to dismiss the first count of her
complaint.

The Judges find, among other things, that the Plaintiff's
assumption that a violation of the Statute is per se a violation of
the CFA fails to recognize the difference between services provided
by a public officer--an individual notary public--and a purveyor of
consumer goods and services. The Judges are unfamiliar with any
case that holds the CFA applies to a public official who obtains
his or her powers directly from the State and is subject to
significant State control and discipline, and the Plaintiff has
failed to bring one to their attention.

At the same time, the Defendant and the other franchisees are
providing a service to the public. On the record that exists, the
Judges reach no conclusion as to whether the complaint states a
cause of action under the CFA or the common law, or was it the
Panel's intention to address those issues by grant of interlocutory
review.

The Appellate Division reverses the order under review only with
respect to count one of the Plaintiff's complaint. Although the
Judges conclude the Statute sets the maximum fee a notary public
may charge for services listed in the Statute, the Statute provides
no express or implied cause of action to recover for an excessive
fee. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for entry of an
order dismissing count one of the Plaintiff's complaint and for
further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ejabs6y4 from Leagle.com.

Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- (Morrison & Foerster,
LLP) of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued
the cause for the Appellants (Morrison & Foerster, LLP, attorneys;
David J. Fioccola -- dfioccola@mofo.com -- Adam J. Hunt --
adamhunt@mofo.com -- and Mark R. McDonald -- mmcdonald@mofo.com --
(Morrison & Foerster, LLP) of the California bar, admitted pro hac
vice, on the briefs).

Jared M. Placitella -- jmplacitella@cprlaw.com -- argued the cause
for Respondent (Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC, attorneys; Caroline
Ramsey Taylor -- caroline@whitfieldbryson.com -- (Whitfield Bryson,
LLP) of the Tennessee bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Daniel K.
Bryson -- dan@whitfieldbryson.com -- and Jeremy R. Williams --
jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com -- (Whitfield Bryson, LLP) of the North
Carolina bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel and on the
briefs).


US STEEL: Discovery in Shareholder Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the shareholder class action suit related to the company's
August 2016 secondary public offering.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions.

Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The underlying consolidated class
action lawsuit alleges that U. S. Steel, certain current and former
officers, an upper level manager of the Company and the financial
underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public
offering of the Company's common stock violated federal securities
laws in making false statements and/or failing to discover and
disclose material information regarding the financial condition of
the Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained.

The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On
September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting them
in part and denying them in part.

On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the
Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering.

As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case.

The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims.

On December 31, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the proceeding as a class action.

The Company's appeal of that decision has been denied by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and the class has been notified.

Discovery is proceeding.

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

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled, U.S.
Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products. United States Steel was
founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


UXIN LIMITED: Settles IPO Related Putative Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Uxin Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2021, that the company settled the cases
entitled In re Uxin Limited Securities Litigation, Index No.
650427/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.) and Machniewicz v. Uxin Limited et
al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00822 (E.D.N.Y.), for a total sum of US$9.5
million approved by the court.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in two putative securities class
actions. Both cases were purportedly brought on behalf of a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged
misstatements and omissions in certain disclosure documents in
connection with our initial public offering in June 2018.

The first case, In re Uxin Limited Securities Litigation, Index No.
650427/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.), consolidated six complaints filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in January 2019. A
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on August 5, 2019, and on
March 9, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part our
motion to dismiss.

The second case, Machniewicz v. Uxin Limited et al, Case No.
1:19-cv-00822 (E.D.N.Y.), was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 11, 2019.

On April 23, 2021, the company settled the two cases for a total
sum of US$9.5 million approved by the court, out of which US$6.5
million were covered by our insurance policy and we made a
contribution for US$3.0 million.

Uxin Limited, an investment holding company, operates a used car
e-commerce platform in China. Uxin Limited was founded in 2011 and
is headquartered in Beijing, China.


VALLEY PROTEINS: Parties Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS, HERMAN
PURVIS, and VERAKA STURDIVANT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly v. VALLEY PROTEINS, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00112-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting extension of deadlines, including the
deadline to amend pleadings and Defendant's deadline to respond to
Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs filed their Collective and Class Action Complaint on
March 19, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally
Certify this Matter as a Collective Action and for a
Court-Authorized Notice to Be Issued Under Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (Motion for Conditional Certification) on
April 20, 2021.

The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Motion for Conditional
Certification on April 23, 2021. The Defendant filed its Answer to
Plaintiffs' Collective and Class Action Complaint and Affirmative
Defenses on April 29, 2021.

The Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Conditional Certification on May 25, 2021. This
Court entered its Case Management Order on May 28, 2021. The
Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Conditional Certification on June 1, 2021.

A copy the Parties motion dated Aug. 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XcqoxS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 649-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew J. Henson, Esq.
          Ashley Z. Hager, Esq.
          Emily E. Schifter, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON
          SANDERS LLP
          1001 Haxall Point, Suite 1500
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-1390
          Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
          E-mail: andrew.henson@troutman.com
                  ashley.hager@troutman.com
                  emily.schifter@troutman.com

VERTAFORE INC: Mulvey Suit Transferred From N.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan transferred the
lawsuit titled AARON MULVEY, Plaintiff v. VERTAFORE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-213-E-BN (N.D. Tex.), from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

This case has been referred to Judge Horan for pretrial management
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and an order of reference from
United States District Judge Ada Brown.

Defendant Vertafore, Inc., has filed a motion to transfer the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas under the first-to-file doctrine. Plaintiff Aaron Mulvey has
filed an opposition in response to the motion, and Vertafore has
filed a reply.

Background

Vertafore is an insurance software provider that, as part of its
services, accesses and stores personal information of Texas
drivers. Plaintiff Mulvey is a licensed and registered driver in
the State of Texas, whose motor vehicle records were obtained by
Vertafore.

In addition to this case, Vertafore's motion involves two other
class action lawsuits filed against it in other courts. The first
was filed on Dec. 4, 2020, by Derek Allen, Leandre Bishop, and John
Burns in the Southern District of Texas. That case, Allen v.
Vertafore, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-4139 (S.D. Tex.), is ongoing.

The Allen plaintiffs raise a single cause of action under the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), claiming that Vertafore
disclosed the personal information of over 27.7 million Texas
driver's license holders during a November 2020 data breach. The
Allen class is defined as:

     All persons whose Texas driver's license information was
     stored by Vertafore on an unsecured external storage service
     online and accessed without authorization.

On Jan. 29, 2021, Vertafore moved to dismiss the Allen complaint
for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. On June 14,
2021, Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison recommended that the Allen
plaintiffs have standing, but that their complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. A ruling on that
recommendation is still pending.

The second suit was filed by Conner Masciotra on Dec. 8, 2020, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In that class
action, Masciotra v. Vertafore Inc., No. 1:20-cv-3603 (D.
Colorado), Masciotra brought a single claim for violation of the
DPPA based on the same November data breach alleged in Allen. The
Masciotra class was defined as:

     All individuals in the United States whose personal
     information was compromised in the Data Breach made public
     by Vertafore on November 10, 2020.

Vertafore moved to transfer the Masciotra action under the
first-to-file rule, arguing that there was substantial overlap
between Masciotra and Allen. On April 30, 2020, the Colorado
District Court granted Vertafore's motion, transferred the case to
the Southern District of Texas, and closed the Masciotra file.

On Jan. 31, 2021, Aaron Mulvey filed this class action. In his
original complaint, Mulvey brought a single claim under the DPPA
based primarily on the same November data breach alleged in the
Allen and Masciotra cases. Then, on March 16, 2021, Mulvey filed
his First Amended Complaint.

In the FAC, Mulvey brings a single claim under the DPPA, but he
removed all references to the November data breach. The DPPA claim
is now based on allegations that Vertafore illegally obtained and
disclosed the personal information of Texas driver's license
holders that it has received from the Texas Department of Motor
Vehicles since 2015. The Mulvey Class is defined as:

     All natural persons nationwide who, on or after, four (4)
     years prior to the date of this filed complaint, through the
     final disposition of this or any related actions (the
     Nationwide Class Period), had Defendant Vertafore obtain,
     use, and re-disclose, without authorization, their motor
     vehicle records from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles,
     and seek liquidated damages in the amount of $2500 each,
     pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2724(b)(1) et seq.

On March 26, 2021, Vertafore filed the motion to transfer now
before the Court. A month later, Vertafore filed a motion to stay
these proceedings pending the resolution of the motion to transfer.
Mulvey then filed a motion for class certification the next day. On
May 7, 2021, the Court granted Vertafore's motion to stay pending
resolution of the motion.

On July 13, 2021, Mulvey filed an expedited motion for relief from
the stay, asking the Court to allow him to file a second amended
complaint.

Analysis

After reviewing the Allen and Mulvey complaints, the parties'
arguments, and the law, the Court finds that there is substantive
overlap between the two suits. Because Allen was filed first, the
Court will transfer the action to the Southern District of Texas.

Judge Horan finds that there is substantial overlap over the
parties and substantive issues in Mulvey and Allen. The proposed
classes are overlapping--both include Texas drivers whose
information Vertafore obtained and disclosed. And plaintiffs in
both actions name the same defendant--Vertafore. Further, only one
statute--the DPPA--is involved in both cases. And, although the
events that allegedly caused the DPPA violations are not identical,
the personal information obtained and disclosed is also the
same--both actions involve Texas driver's license holders'
information from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

These overlapping parties, claims, and facts means that whatever
court hears these two cases will grapple with the same "core
issues," Judge Horan holds, citing Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Sweet
Little Mexico Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 678 (5th Cir. 2011).

The fundamental question will be whether Vertafore knowingly
obtained, disclosed, or used the personal information it received
from the Texas DMV for a purpose not permitted, Judge Horan notes.
He explains that deciding this will require a court to answer other
threshold questions in both actions, such as whether the plaintiffs
have standing to bring their claims under the DPPA, and whether
Vertafore falls under an exception under the DPPA for insurance
support organizations.

Although the overlap between two suits is less than complete, the
Court finds that the other relevant factors, such "as the extent of
overlap, the likelihood of conflict, and the comparative advantage
and the interest of each forum in resolving the dispute," all favor
transfer, Judge Horan opines, citing Sweet Little Mexico Corp., 665
F.3d at 678.

Judge Horan also opines, among other things, that Mulvey's argument
that Allen should not be considered the first-filed action lacks
any merit. Mulvey asserts that, because this Court obtained
jurisdiction over a nation-wide class, while the Allen court
obtained jurisdiction over only a nation-wide sub-class, this
action should be considered the first filed. But, when determining
which case is filed first, courts do not consider the substance of
the claims or the descriptions of putative classes; the only
question to answer is what action was filed before the other. Allen
was filed on Dec. 4, 2020, while the instant case was filed on Jan.
31, 2021.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court grants Vertafore's motion to transfer
venue under the first-to-file rule. The Court ordered that this
action be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, on Aug. 6, 2021, allowing any
party to file an objection to Judge Brown within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the order. If an objection is filed,
the order of transfer is stayed pending further order of the Court.
Because the action should be transferred, the Court need not
consider Mulvey's motion for class certification or his request for
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
July 22, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/42zauj5v from
Leagle.com.


VMSB LLC: Judge Endorses Denial of Rosell Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL ROSELL and ROBERTO
GONZALEZ for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated,
v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a GIANNI'S and d/b/a CASA CASUARINA, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-20857-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Edwin G. Torres recommends that the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification should be denied.

Judge Torres says that while the Court would ordinarily consider
the motion for class certification on the merits, there is no need
to do so because he issued a Report and Recommendation (the R&R)
granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to counts one
and two on June 22, 2021. If the District Judge adopts the R&R in
all respects, the only count left standing will be Plaintiffs'
claim for overtime compensation in count three. Yet, given that
Plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class as to count three, there
is the possibility that the motion here is, for all practical
purposes, moot.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class action based upon the
allegations in count two (i.e. the Florida Constitution and Florida
Minimum Wage Act claim) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 with the following
proposed class definition:

   All "Bartenders and Servers" who worked for Defendant at
   Gianni's (The Villa Casa Casuarina at the Former Versace
   Mansion location), 1116 Ocean Dr., Miami Beach, FL 33139, at
   any time from February 26 2015, to the present, who (1) were
   not provided notice of the employer's intention to take a tip
   credit to satisfy minimum wage obligations; and/or (2) were
   required to participate in a mandatory tip pool in which tips
   were shared with "Captains" and with the restaurant itself.

A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Aug. 3, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fY12KT at no
extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Oettle Seeks Certification of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTA OETTLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WALMART, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this action
as a class action, and appointing herself as class representative,
and Maag Law Firm, LLC, as class counsel:

   -- Class A - Implied Warranty of Merchantability - Illinois
      Class - Walmart, Inc.

      All citizens and residents of Illinois that purchased the
      product from Defendant within four years of the filing of
      this action, until final judgment.

   -- Class B - Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act - Illinois Class -
      Walmart, Inc.

      All citizens and residents of Illinois that purchased the
      product from Defendant within four years of the filing of
      this action, until final judgment.

   -- Class C - Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business
      Practices Act - Worthington Cylinder Corporation

      All persons that purchased the product within 3 years of
      the filing of this action, until final judgment, at an
      Illinois Walmart or Target store or online to an Illinois
      mailing address.

   -- Class D - Revocation of Acceptance - Walmart, Inc.

      All citizens and residents of Illinois that purchased the
      product from Defendant WM within 4 years of the filing of
      this action, until final judgment.

      Excluded from the Class are members of the judiciary,
      Defendant, and any entity in which it has a controlling
      interest, including officers and directors and the members
      of its immediate corporate family and Plaintiff’s counsel.

This case is about the Defendant selling a "Balloon Time 9.5
Helium Tank" that breached the implied warranty of merchantability
(810 ILCS 5/2-314) and, in turn, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In
pertinent part, the product is not of merchantable quality or fit
for its intended purpose of keeping helium balloons inflated for a
sufficiently long period of time, and, thus, has a propensity to
deteriorate and fail its essential purpose, namely that the product
contains only 80% helium and balloons tend to either not float or
sink to the ground after a handful of hours.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Maag, Esq.
          MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
          22 West Lorena Avenue
          Wood River, IL 62095
          Telephone: (618) 216-5291
          Facsimile: (618) 551-0421

WESTERN UNION: Radulesco Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IBOLYA RADULESCU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Colorado; WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., A Delaware
Corporation headquartered in Colorado, Case No.
1:19-cv-03009-DDD-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order for:

   A) an extension of time to file her Reply to Defendants'
      Response to Motion to Certify Class, and

   B) leave to file a reply brief in excess of 2,700 words
      pursuant to Judge DDD Civ. P.S. III.A.5.to Defendants'
      Response to Motion to Certify Class.

The Western Union Company is an American multinational financial
services company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Radulescu
          ROMANCORE LAW, P.C.
          401 West A Street, Suite 1100
          San Diego, California 92101
          Telephone: 619-766-2626
          E-mail: robert@romancorelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hille R. Sheppard, Esq.
          Joseph R. Dosch, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: hsheppard@sidley.com;
                  jdosch@sidley.com

               - and -

          Holly Stein Sollod, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Willis, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 3200
          Denver, Colorado 80202-3979
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          Facsimile: (303) 295-8261
          E-mail: hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com
                  kjwillis@hollandhart.com

WESTPAC BANKING: Court Approves $30MM Insurance Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that the Federal Court has given the greenlight to
a $30 million settlement in Shine Lawyers' insurance class action
against Westpac. [GN]


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholder Rights Agreement Unenforceable
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery issued a decision which declared the stockholder rights
agreement (Rights Agreement) unenforceable and permanently enjoined
the continued operation of the Rights Agreement.

On March 19, 2020, the company's board of directors approved the
adoption of a limited duration stockholder rights agreements and
declared a distribution of one preferred stock purchase right for
each outstanding share of common stock.

The Rights Agreement is intended to protect the interests of the
company and its stockholders by reducing the likelihood of another
party gaining control of or significant influence over the company
without paying an appropriate premium considering recent volatile
markets.

Each preferred stock purchase right represents the right to
purchase, upon certain terms and conditions, one one-thousandths of
a share of Series C Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock, $1.00
par value per share. Each one-thousandth of a share of Series C
Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock, if issued, would have
rights similar to one share of the company's common stock.

The distribution of preferred stock purchase rights occurred on
March 30, 2020, to holders of record as of the close of business on
that date. The Rights Agreement expires on March 20, 2021.

A purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the company's
stockholder rights agreement.

On February 26, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a
decision which declared the Rights Agreement unenforceable and
permanently enjoined the continued operation of the Rights
Agreement, which otherwise would have expired on March 20, 2021.

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suits Deferred
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Wisconsin
federal district court struck the setting on two putative class
actions and has not reset it.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, its former
affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.

Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court
for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company
had agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this
matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc., the
court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of the
company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims.

On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to the company,
entering final judgment in its favor. Farmland appealed.

On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district
court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the
defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court,
which was denied on May 9, 2018.

The case was remanded to the Nevada federal district court and
subsequently remanded to its originally filed court, the Kansas
federal district court where we re-urged our motion for summary
judgment.

The district court denied the motion but granted the company's
request to seek permission for an immediate appeal to the appellate
court. Oral argument occurred before the appellate court on January
19, 2021.

On June 22, 2021, the appellate court ruled that the company is not
entitled to summary judgment and remanded the case to the Kansas
federal district court. The court has scheduled trial to begin May
9, 2022.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.

On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying
class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal
district court.

The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and
on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily
approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and
Missouri class members. The final fairness hearing on the
settlement occurred on August 5, 2019, and a final judgment of
dismissal with prejudice was entered the same day.

Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been
remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal
district court. Trial was scheduled to begin June 14, 2021, but the
court struck the setting and has not reset it.

Williams Companies said, "Because of the uncertainty around the
remaining unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably
possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our
related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss
that may be material to our results of operations. In connection
with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance
associated with this matter and have exposure to future
developments."

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WINGSTOP BUSHWICK: Faces Negron Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIS NEGRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN DOE CORP. I (D/B/A WINGSTOP BUSHWICK),
JOHN DOE CORP. II (D/B/A WINGSTOP HARLEM), JOHN DOE CORP. III
(D/B/A WINGSTOP FULTON ST.), JOHN DOE CORP. IV (D/B/A WINGSTOP
WILLIAMSBURG), JOHN DOE CORP. V (D/B/A WINGSTOP FLATBUSH), JOHN DOE
CORP. VI (D/B/A FUEL JUICE BUSHWICK), JOHN DOE CORP. VII (D/B/A
FUEL JUICE WILLIAMSBURG), DJ "DOE", MARIAM "DOE", and "DANIELLA"
"DOE", Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04435 (E.D.N.Y., August 6,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage
notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure
to pay timely wages.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, cleaner, manual laborer and
general worker at the Defendants' "Wingstop" restaurants located in
New York from on or around January 2012 through and including
October 2019, and from May 2021 through and including July 24,
2021.

The Defendants operate "Wingstop" restaurants in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
         Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
         LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 792-0046
         E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

ZENDESK INC: Reidinger Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Zendesk, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, Charles Reidinger
v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., is pending.

On October 24, 2019 and November 7, 2019, purported stockholders of
the Company filed two putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al.,
3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., No.
3:19-cv-07361-WHA, respectively, against the Company and certain of
the Company's executive officers.

The complaints are nearly identical and allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and
October 1, 2019, inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
our prior public filings. To this point, no discovery has occurred
in these cases.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the
various lawsuits into a single action (Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB),
and the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on April 14,
2020 asserting the same alleged violations of securities laws as
the initial complaints.

On June 29, 2020, Zendesk and the executive officer defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 9, 2020, the
court granted Zendesk's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff
leave to amend its complaint.

On January 8, 2021, plaintiff filed its second amended complaint
and on January 22, 2021, Zendesk and the executive officer
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March
2, 2021, the court granted Zendesk's motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On March 23, 2021, judgment was entered in favor
of Zendesk and the executive officer defendants.

On April 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 29, 2021, plaintiff
filed its opening brief in the appeal.

Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer
support platform. The Company offers applications that allow
clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from
any Internet-connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


ZYMERGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Zymergen, Inc. ('Zymergen" or
the 'Company') (NASDAQ:ZY) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the 'Registration Statement') issued in
connection with the Company's April 2021 initial public offering
('IPO' or the 'Offering'). Such investors are encouraged to join
this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/zy.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state material
adverse facts, and that Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) during the qualification process for Hyaline, key
customers had encountered technical issues, including product
shrinkage and incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) though
the qualification process was critical to achieving market
acceptance for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked
visibility into the qualification process; (3) as a result, the
Company overestimated demand for its products; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's product delivery timeline was
reasonably likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue
generation; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/zy or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inZymergen
you have until October 4, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

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

ZYMERGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Aug. 9
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ: ZY) ("Zymergen") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Zymergen common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering ("IPO").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Zymergen
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO may, no later
than October 4, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; toll free at
(844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/zymergen-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=zymergen

Zymergen uses a process it calls "biofacturing" to create products
that purportedly combine the design and manufacturing efficiency of
biological processes with technology's ability to rapidly iterate
and control diverse functions. Its first product is called Hyaline,
an optical film designed for electronic companies to use for
display touch sensors, which will purportedly enable customers to
make foldable touchscreens and high density flexible printed
circuits. Hyaline was launched in December 2020 but has not
generated revenue because it is still in its qualification process
with customers.

On April 23, 2021, Zymergen filed its prospectus on a Form 424B4,
which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO,
Zymergen sold approximately 18,549,500 shares of common stock at a
price of $31.00 per share. The proceeds from the IPO were
purportedly to be used for working capital and other general
corporate purposes, including the continued investment in
commercializing its existing products, launching products in its
pipeline, and furthering the development of its biofacturing
platform and technology. The Registration Statement touted Hyaline,
and predicted that Hyaline will begin generating revenue in the
second half of 2021 and presented a purported $1.2 trillion total
market opportunity.

The truth emerged on August 3, 2021. After the market closed,
Zymergen issued a business update stating that it "recently became
aware of issues with its commercial product pipeline that will
impact the [c]ompany's delivery timeline and revenue projections."
Specifically, "several key target customers encountered technical
issues in implementing Hyaline into their manufacturing processes,"
and Zymergen also found that its total addressable market appears
to be smaller than previously expected. As a result, Zymergen "no
longer expects product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue
to be immaterial in 2022." Zymergen also announced that its Chief
Executive Officer, Josh Hoffman, was stepping down, effective
immediately.

Following this news, Zymergen's stock price fell $26.58 per share,
or 76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021. At the time
the complaint was filed, Zymergen's stock was trading as low as
$8.25 per share, a nearly 73% decline from the $31 per share IPO
price.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state that: (1)
during the qualification process for Hyaline, key customers had
encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and
incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) though the
qualification process was critical to achieving market acceptance
for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into
the qualification process; (3) as a result, Zymergen overestimated
demand for its products; (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Zymergen's product delivery timeline was reasonably likely to be
delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about
Zymergen's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Zymergen investors may, no later than October 4, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

Contacts:

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

ZYMERGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Zymergen Inc. ("Zymergen") (NASDAQ: ZY) This lawsuit
is on behalf of investors who purchased ZY common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the documents issued in connection with the
Company's April 2021 initial public offering. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zymergen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18371&wire=5

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

Zymergen Inc. NEWS - ZY NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) during the
qualification process for the Company's optical film product,
Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical issues, including
product shrinkage and incompatibility with customers' processes;
(2) though the qualification process was critical to achieving
market acceptance for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen
lacked visibility into the qualification process; (3) as a result,
the Company overestimated demand for its products; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's product delivery timeline was
reasonably likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue
generation; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Zymergen, you have until October 4, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Zymergen securities This lawsuit
is on behalf of investors who purchased ZY common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the documents issued in connection with the
Company's April 2021 initial public offering., you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or
fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zymergen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18371&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

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

[*] Barun Law Attorneys Discuss Class Action Development in Korea
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rieu Kim and Hyuk Jun Jung of Barun Law LLC firm, in an article for
Lexology, report that in a class action lawsuit, a plaintiff or
group of plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of similarly situated
individuals. The legislatures in some civil law countries including
Korea, have recently proposed or implemented measures allowing or
expanding the use of class actions in their court systems.

Considering that Korea currently does not have in place the
framework or rules for class arbitrations, introducing class
actions in the Korean courts could encourage and provide a legal
basis for permitting class action arbitrations in Korea.

Recent Development of Class Actions in Korea

Currently, class actions are available in Korea only for securities
related cases. However, in September 2020, the Korean government
proposed a bill (the "Bill") that would allow a plaintiff to
initiate a class action in any area of law. Further, class action
lawsuits in Korea currently have stringent requirements, such as
the requirement that the class representative shall be the person
with the greatest economic interest in the outcome, which render it
arguably difficult to file a class action lawsuit.

The Bill, if passed as a legislative act ("Act"), is expected to
loosen up several requirements for filing of class action lawsuits,
which includes key proposed provisions such as: (1) easing of
requirements on class and class representatives; (2) expansion of
venues which permits class action claims to be brought before a
district court under a high court with jurisdiction over one of the
defendants, and not only before the district court with
jurisdiction over one of the defendants; (3) introduction of
pre-litigation discovery; and (4) permission of jury trials.

Significantly, the Act would apply retroactively, thus allowing
potential plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits for claims that
are filed before the Act to take effect, if they are within the
prescriptive period under the statute of limitations. The intent
behind this proposal is to expand the availability of class action
lawsuits to a wider scope of similarly situated individuals.

While the Act will exclusively apply to court litigation, it begs
the question of what impact it would potentially bring to
arbitration in Korea, considering that class action arbitrations
could likewise provide relief to a larger number of aggrieved
parties and fulfill the intent behind the Bill.

The passage of the Bill would perceivably favor the argument for
permitting class action arbitrations in Korea.

Possible Framework for Class Action Arbitrations in Korea

While the Bill is still in its early stages of implementation, it
is now an appropriate juncture to consider its implications for
arbitrations given that it will take considerable time to set up
the framework for class action arbitrations.

As a first step, the Korean arbitration community may propose
arbitration rules tailored to class action arbitrations in Korea.
To establish the legal foundation and specific arbitration rules
for class action arbitrations, key issues and challenges to be
aware of must be identified which may begin by referring to
existing rules on class arbitrations.

One example of such framework is the American Arbitration
Association (the "AAA") which administers class arbitrations
according to its Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations (the
"Supplementary Rules"). According to Article 1 of the Supplementary
Rules, they apply where a party submits a dispute to arbitration on
behalf of a purported class by supplementing any other applicable
AAA rules. It also contains rules on key topics such as "Class
Certification" (Article 4), "Class Determination Award" (Article
5), and "Form and Publication of Awards" (Article 10), all of which
will be valuable resources to the Korean arbitration community when
it seeks to develop and implement its own class action arbitration
rules.

Once the draft class action arbitration rules are put together, the
Korean arbitration community may be consulted for comments and
suggestions on changes to the proposed class action arbitration
rules, especially on arguably the most challenging aspects in any
class action arbitration which is class certification where it is
often a point of contention as to whether a class should be
certified and whether the claimant is an appropriate class
representative. Accordingly, the draft class action arbitration
rules should provide a list of clear and detailed conditions that
the tribunal and parties may consider when determining whether a
class should be granted certification.

Training and Nurturing

Next, the Korean arbitration community may develop a long-term plan
to nurture and train local arbitrators and practitioners to handle
class action arbitrations in order to ensure the fair and efficient
conduct of class action arbitration proceedings. One consideration
may be that arbitrators are required to possess the requisite
knowledge and experience to resolve the issues at disputes.

For example, a prerequisite for class action arbitrations is the
determination of whether a class can be certified. This would
require the arbitral tribunal to consider (1) numerosity of the
class; (2) whether questions of law or fact are common to the
class; (3) whether the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4)
whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class; (5) whether counsel selected to
represent the class will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class; and (6) whether each class member has
entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause that is
substantially similar to that signed by the class representative(s)
and each of the other class members.

However, given the inherent complexity of certifying class actions
as demonstrated by the abovementioned multifaceted consideration
required, it is unlikely that the Korean arbitration community will
be equipped with such experienced arbitrators or practitioners at
the initial stage.

It is thus inevitable that in the early stages of class action
arbitration in Korea, arbitrators and practitioners from other
countries who already have relevant experience will probably play
key roles in the community. It will likely take several years for
Korea to see its first group of local class action arbitrators. A
long-term plan to nurture and train class action arbitration
arbitrators and practitioners is needed.

Conclusion

There is no doubt Korea will rise to the challenge. Korea has
swiftly become a dynamic, global economic powerhouse and has arisen
as a recognized arbitration hub for parties conducting business in
Asia. Once the Act becomes effective and supports the growth of
class action arbitrations in Korea, a heightened need and demand
for dispute resolution in Korea through class arbitrations would be
foreseeable. [GN]

[*] IBC Calls for Introduction of Class Action-Like Provision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vandana Ramnani, writing for moneycontrol, reports that the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Parliamentary Standing
Committee has recommended that even if only one buyer decides to
file a case against a builder before the NCLT, the government make
it mandatory for developers to provide details of every customer in
a real estate project to that buyer.

Calling for the introduction of a provision in the IBC to this
effect, the panel, chaired by Jayant Sinha, said in its recent
report: " . . . even if a single homebuyer decides to initiate
insolvency proceedings in the NCLT, the real estate owner should be
obligated in the rules/guidelines to provide details of other
homebuyers of the project to the concerned homebuyer so that the
required 10% or 100 homebuyers can be mobilised, which will thus
ensure that the interests of the distressed homebuyers is duly
safeguarded while enabling effective operationalization of the
amended provision."

In February last year, The Forum for People's Collective Efforts
(FPCE), which had campaigned for the enactment of the real estate
law (RERA) had made a submission to the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Finance that the 2018 amendment to the IBC, which
requires a minimum of 100 homebuyers or 10 percent of total
purchasers, whichever is less, for the initiation of the insolvency
process, is impractical.

The panel found that homebuyers were facing practical difficulties
in collating data to achieve the 10 percent requirement to initiate
an insolvency case against builders.

Abhay Upadhyay, President of FPCE and member of the Central
Advisory Council, RERA, told Moneycontrol that this is a welcome
move to the extent that at least the buyer who has initiated
insolvency proceedings would be given the names of other buyers
invested in a project. But much more needs to be done, he said.

The FPCE had highlighted this problem in its letter last year to
the Committee. The forum had pointed out the difficulties a buyer
would face in getting the contact details of others invested in a
project, assuming that 100 buyers would be needed to meet the
threshold to initiate proceedings under the IBC.

How will a home buyer know how many units have been sold to
determine the 10 percent of total number of units sold in a real
estate project, "especially in a situation when 10 percent is less
than 100," the forum had asked.

"A homebuyer will take at least six months to collate details of
10% or 100 homebuyers before he files a case before NCLT. Besides,
by the time he files the case, the coordinates of those buyers may
change and the court may decide to dismiss the case. The government
should, therefore, consider reducing the 100 buyers' threshold to
10 buyers and the 10% limit to 1%, which is still doable. The
coordinates should also be considered valid for a period of six
months," it said.

An uphill task

In a letter to the committee last year, homebuyers had pointed out
that "by the time he (the buyer) gets in touch with the rest of the
buyers, which will surely be time-consuming, the units sold will
increase . . . It will simply be impossible for home buyers to keep
track of everyday sale. Thus, it is practically impossible to
initiate proceedings under the code till the figure needed to meet
the threshold in order to initiate proceedings becomes fixed at
100."

"Also, assuming that home buyers have established contact with
either 10% of the total buyers or 100 buyers in a project whichever
is less and they have approached the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT), since there will always be a gap between case filed before
NCLT and its admission, the builder will surely make an attempt to
break away some of the homebuyers to ensure that before the
application is admitted by NCLT the threshold is not met and the
case is dismissed," they had said.

"Once a filed case is dismissed due to lack of meeting the absurd
requirements proposed, home buyers will lose the huge fees already
paid to the lawyer and will be literally pre-empted from
re-approaching the NCLT. Thus, real estate developers have cleverly
suggested this clause of minimum threshold as they know that the
key to frustrate any attempt to drag them before NCLT by home
buyers would be in their hands," the letter had said.

Legal eagles welcome proposal

Legal experts say that the recommendation by the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Standing Parliamentary Committee would ensure
that there is some semblance of a class action.

"It's a very good recommendation as it is incredibly difficult to
get all consumers together due to lack of publicly available
information regarding allotments. This would ensure that there's
some semblance of a class action at least. Often, even the
publication procedure cannot ensure all the consumers become aware
of pending litigation," said Vaibhav Gaggar, partner, Gaggar &
Associates.

"The panel's recommendation is indeed a positive step towards
safeguarding the interests of consumers, especially when the
majority of cases filed by consumers are because of incorrect /
incomplete information being provided by real estate developers,"
said Nitish Sharma, counsel, AnantLaw. [GN]

[*] Israel's Proposed Class Action Law Amendment Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jerusalem Post reports that the Class Actions Committee in the Bar
Association appealed to Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar not to amend
the Class Actions Law, which would allow government, local
authorities, health funds and water corporations to be able to
steal public money unhindered.

Adv. Roy Bitton and Adv. Nofar Tal, members of the committee, said
amending the Arrangements Law will seriously harm the public and
will allow public bodies to get rich at the expense of consumers.

"The nice title should not mislead anyone," said Bitton and Tal.
"The proposed amendment to the Class Actions Law will seriously
harm the public and has nothing to do with public interest.

"In fact, the government seeks to allow in law, a prohibited
collection of funds from the public, while giving a reward to
health funds, authorities and water corporations, which will
continue to collect prohibited funds, even after a class action
lawsuit has been filed against them and has been approved.

"This is money that belongs to the public, but above all, to each
and every one of them who paid it."

The lawyers said if the amendment enters into force, there is no
point in filing class actions against an authority or a health fund
for the simple reason: The filer will not receive any
compensation.

Until today the situation was that the legislature allowed the
authority to stop collecting fees within 90 days of its actions and
thus did not have to return the dues legally, (for reasons and
concerns that the public coffers will be emptied), to the extent
that as long as it did not do so and continued with the proceeding
and the class action was approved, the authority should return the
public money it illegally collected.

The new proposed amendment means that the authority will earn more
if they wait for a court ruling that states they have acted in
violation of the law, according to Bitton and Tal. [GN]

[*] Klein Moynihan Attorney Provides Guide to TCPA Consent
----------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that because of the growing ability -- and need
-- to reach consumers through telemarketing technology, businesses
(and their call centers) face the growing risk of contacting
consumers without proper TCPA consent.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) protects consumers
against the receipt of certain unsolicited telemarketing calls,
faxes, pre-recorded calls, auto-dialed calls, and text messaging.
Businesses that violate TCPA regulations may face lawsuits from
consumers. These can get extremely expensive in the case of class
actions, which often involve multiple violations against thousands
of consumers.

To help businesses understand how to advertise to consumers while
complying with the TCPA, we have provided this telemarketer's guide
to TCPA consent.

Introduction to TCPA Consent
As we have previously detailed, under the TCPA, consumer consent
must be obtained by businesses that wish to make robocalls and send
text messages to consumers. The consumer's consent to receive such
solicitations must be unambiguous, meaning that the consumer must
receive a "clear and conspicuous disclosure" that he/she will
receive future calls/text messages that deliver autodialed and/or
pre-recorded telemarketing messages; that his/her consent is not a
condition of purchase; and he/she must designate a phone number at
which to be reached.

What the TCPA Requires Telemarketers to Disclose
Beyond focusing on promoting a product or service, under the TCPA,
advertisers must approach and communicate with consumers
respectfully and within the law.

The Telemarketing Sales Rule requires that advertisers provide
specific information, using certain procedures, before a consumer
pays for the goods or services involved in a sales offer, for calls
both to and from consumers.

At a minimum, each telemarketer must provide his or her name, as
well as the corporate or registered name of the organization that
they are contacting consumers on behalf of. Telemarketing calls can
only be made between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. (based on the local time of
the recipient), with additional day and time restrictions in
various states.

In several states, it is necessary to end contact if a consumer
states that he/she is not interested in a product or service that
the telemarketer is promoting. This is called the "no rebuttal
rule." Once told to stop, the telemarketer cannot continue to try
to convince the consumer to purchase the given product or service
at issue. Other states permit one rebuttal before the telemarketer
needs to end contact.

If a business records its telemarketing calls, which is
recommended, there must be clear notice given to the consumer at
the beginning of each call that it will be recorded for quality
assurance purposes and that the recording will be maintained as a
record of the transaction.

For pre-recorded messages, the advertiser must provide the
telephone number for the business, which should be a toll-free
number. In addition, pre-recorded calls must also include an
automated, interactive opt-out mechanism for the consumer to make a
do-not-call request.

The importance of express consent under the TCPA
Before even contacting consumers, you will need their express
consent to do so.

Prior express written consent from each consumer is required under
the TCPA for telemarketers to solicit consumers via autodialed
and/or pre-recorded calls and text messages to cell phones (and for
pre-recorded and artificial voice calls to residential land lines)
for marketing purposes.

Getting express consent involves providing consumers with a clear,
unambiguous disclosure that states that:

-- They will receive future calls that deliver autodialed and/or
pre-recorded telemarketing messages on behalf of a specific
advertiser.
-- Their consent is not a condition of purchase.
-- They must designate a phone number at which to be reached, which
should not be pre-populated by the advertiser in an online form,
for example.

Compliance with the E-SIGN Act satisfies the signature requirement,
meaning that electronic or digital forms of signature are
acceptable (i.e., agreements obtained via email, website form, text
message, telephone key press or voice recording).

Evidence of Internet-provided written consent includes, but is not
limited to, website pages that contain consumer consent language
and fields, associated screenshots of the consent webpage as seen
by the consumer where the phone number was inputted, complete data
records submitted by the consumer (with time and date stamp),
together with the applicable consumer IP address.

Communications exempt from consent requirements
Purely informational calls and contact for non-commercial purposes
are exempt from some of the TCPA's regulations. This includes
contact from a consumer's cellular carrier, school, healthcare
provider, and for emergency purposes.

There are specific exemptions for each medium of telephone
communication as defined by the TCPA, including:

Calls
-- That are manually dialed by a live person and do not include
pre-recorded messages.
-- Made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.
Texts
-- That are manually composed and sent.
-- For appointment reminders or prescription status.
-- Sent by package delivery services.

What is the DNC List and how does it relate to the TCPA?
The National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry takes consumer rights a
step further. Through the DNC registry, telemarketers can access a
list of phone numbers belonging to consumers who wish to actively
limit the telemarketing calls that they receive.

Violations of DNC regulations
-- Placing a telemarketing call to a person whose number is on the
DNC registry, unless the caller qualifies for one or more of the
exemptions explained below.
-- Interfering with a person's right to be placed on the registry.
-- Using the registry for any purpose other than complying with
applicable regulations.

DNC exemptions
The DNC regulations do not apply to advertisers in the following
situations:

-- If they have express written consent to call the consumer.
-- If they have an established business relationship with the
customer (as long as the consumer has not asked to be placed on the
seller's internal DNC list), if the customer has done one of the
following:
Purchased, rented or leased the seller's goods or services, within
the 18 months prior to the telemarketing contact.
Inquired about or applied for the seller's goods or services within
the 3 months prior to the telemarketing contact.
-- The advertiser is covered under the DNC "safe harbor." The safe
harbor covers situations where a consumer was mistakenly called and
this violation is excused where the advertiser has implemented all
of the following as part of its routine business practices:
Establishing, implementing, and enforcing written internal DNC
procedures.
Maintaining an internal DNC list.
Training its personnel and affiliates in these procedures.
Synchronizing its call lists with an updated version of the
National DNC Registry every 31 days.

TCPA Penalties
The TCPA provides for either actual damages or statutory damages
ranging from $500.00 to $1,500.00 per unsolicited call/text
message. In determining the final amount of statutory damages to
award, courts analyze whether the defendant "willfully" or
"knowingly" violated the TCPA.

Considering that telemarketing and text message campaigns often
involve thousands and, in some cases, millions, of calls/text
messages, potential penalties sought under the TCPA may escalate
very quickly. Moreover, companies that fail to comply with the TCPA
may find themselves facing consumer class action litigation.

How to Protect Your Business
If a dispute concerning consent arises, the marketer bears the
burden of proof to demonstrate that a clear and conspicuous
disclosure was provided and that the consumer unambiguously
consented to receive robocalls or text messages to the number
he/she specifically provided.

It is a best practice for marketers to get in the practice of
collecting written consent from consumers as soon as possible. Not
only will businesses be required to do so beginning in October, but
having written consent provides a tangible and strong defense that
adequate consumer consent was obtained. Furthermore, it is
recommended that records of each consumer's consent be maintained
for at least four (4) years, which is the default federal statute
of limitations to bring an action under the TCPA. [GN]

[*] Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Shotgun Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
James M. Beck, Esq., of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that to find bloggable cases, we (well, Bexis) read a lot
of cases that don't turn out to be sufficiently significant to be
bloggable. Even those cases of lesser interest can alert us to
trends, if the same issue or argument crops up repeatedly. One of
those is the TwIqbal concept of a "shotgun complaint" -- meaning
indiscriminate pleading that is violative of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
We've seen that phrase used enough in various decisions that we had
a sense that this concept is most often used in cases litigated
down South. But we've only written one post about that, some five
years ago.

The recent decision, Phillips v. Cook Inc., 2021 WL 3209860 (M.D.
Fla. July 29, 2021), caused us to take a closer look, since we had
also seen the term used quite a bit in the Zantac MDL litigation.
We searched for the phrase in federal district courts on Westlaw
and came up with just over 1,500 hits. Separating these cases by
judicial district confirmed our suspicions -- and honed them. The
"shotgun" complaint is very much an Eleventh Circuit "thing", with
1337 of 1503 cases employing the phrase from the three states of
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Well over half (970) come just from
the Northern District of Georgia and the Middle District of
Florida. So in order to "talk southern," lawyers litigating
prescription medical product litigation definitely need to know
about the "shotgun complaint."

Phillips cites Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 792
F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015), which does appear to be the leading
case in this arcane field. "Complaints that violate either Rule
8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly referred to
as 'shotgun pleadings.'" Id. at 1320. According to Weiland, the
first case to call them such was a dissent in T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby
Mutual Insurance Co., 760 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1985):

"Shotgun" pleadings, calculated to confuse the "enemy," and the
court, so that theories for relief not provided by law and which
can prejudice an opponent's case, especially before the jury, can
be masked, are flatly forbidden by the [spirit], if not the
[letter], of these rules.

792 F.3d at 1320 (quoting T.D.S., 760 F.2d at 1544, n.14 (Tjoflat,
J., dissenting)).

Weiland grouped shotgun complaints into four calibers:

"The most common type -- by a long shot -- is a complaint
containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations
of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all
that came before and the last count to be a combination of the
entire complaint.

"The next most common type . . . is a complaint that does not
commit the mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is
guilty of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague,
and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
cause of action.

"The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of
not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim
for relief.

"Fourth, and finally, there is the relatively rare [note, in our
experience, this is no longer rare at all] sin of asserting
multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying
which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or
omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought
against.

792 F.3d at 1321-32. Weiland provided (which we have omitted)
lengthy footnotes of cases dealing with each of these four types of
improper pleading. Looking through these footnotes, it doesn't
appear that any of the collected cases involved prescription
medical product liability.

But that doesn't mean -- not at all -- that shotgun complaints
aren't something that our clients face. Quite the contrary. See (in
addition to Phillips) Bey v. Teva Pharmacueticals, USA, Inc., 2021
WL 2633822, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2021); Minton v. Ethicon,
Inc., 2021 WL 1398965, at *1 (N.D. Fla. April 1, 2021)
Rosado-Cabrera v. Pfizer, Inc., 2021 WL 662220, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla.
Feb. 19, 2021); In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability
Litigation, 2020 WL 7866674, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2020);
Gergenti v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 7695646, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec.
28, 2020); Smith v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 9071685, at *2-3 (N.D.
Fla. Dec. 28, 2020); Epstein v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2020 WL
4333011, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2020); Thornton v. Nationall
Compounding Co., 2019 WL 2744623, at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. July 1,
2019) (False Claims Act case); Aguilar v. B Braun Medical, Inc.,
2019 WL 2173777, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2019); Munson v. Insys
Therapeutics, Inc., 2018 WL 8244594, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6,
2018); Erickson v. Merck & Co., 2018 WL 2357273, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla.
May 17, 2018); McGee v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
2018 WL 1399237, at *5 (N.D. Ala. March 20, 2018); Erickson v.
Merck & Co., 2018 WL 3626469, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018);
Barnes v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 253 F. Supp.3d 1168,
1171-72 (N.D. Ga. 2017); Erickson v. Merck & Co., 2017 WL 9938491,
at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2017); Thornton v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, 2017 WL 2255776, at *3-4 (N.D. Ga. May 15,
2017); Brazil v. Janssen Research & Development LLC, 249 F. Supp.3d
1321, 1336-37 (N.D. Ga. 2016); Gerold v. Astellas Pharma US, Inc.,
2016 WL 1627049, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. April 25, 2016); Tsavaris v.
Pfizer, Inc., 2016 WL 375008, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2016) (the
case we blogged about before); Gerold v. Astellas Pharma US, Inc.,
2015 WL 7759395, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2015); Lonon v. Globus
Medical, Inc., 2015 WL 1032861, at *3 (S.D. Ga. March 9, 2015);
Dimieri v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 2014 WL 6673156, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2014); Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
2013 WL 4047016, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2013); Batchelor v.
Pfizer, Inc., 2013 WL 3873242, at *3 (M.D. Ala. July 25, 2013);
Marsar v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2013 WL 3199984, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
May 30, 2013); Jovine v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 795 F. Supp.2d
1331, 1336-37 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Kaufman v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 2010 WL 9438673, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2010); Beale v.
Biomet, Inc., 2006 WL 8433264, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2006).
There is plenty of law here to choose from in putting together a
drug/device motion to dismiss a "shotgun complaint," at least in
the Eleventh Circuit. Chances are that, whatever pleading sin a
particular plaintiff has committed, there is a case in the relevant
jurisdiction that has already required dismissal.

Significantly, the concept of a "shotgun complaint" is not limited
to the Eleventh Circuit. In Rosenberg v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 387 F.
Supp.3d 572, 582 (E.D. Pa. 2019), the court cited Hynson v. City of
Chester Legal Dept., 864 F.2d 1026, 1031 n.13 (3d Cir. 1988), for
the Third Circuit also "criticiz[ing]" "shotgun" pleadings, and
dismissed the complaint:

Plaintiff has failed to connect the facts alleged in the beginning
of her complaint with the specific negligence claim she asserts.
Indeed, the Court (and Defendant) are left to guess not only which
facts support Plaintiff's negligence claim but also which aspect of
Defendant's conduct Plaintiff asserts was negligent. Therefore,
Plaintiff's negligence claim will be dismissed without prejudice
with leave to amend.

Id. Here are other non-Eleventh Circuit prescription medical
product liability cases we've found that have dismissed "shotgun
complaints." Payton v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 1923799, at *3-4
(S.D. Ind. May 13, 2021); McCormick v. Caldera Medical, Inc., No.
3:20-CV-132, 2021 WL 488340, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2021);
Dreifort v. DJO Global, Inc., 2019 WL 5578240, at *7 (S.D. Cal.
Oct. 28, 2019); Lynch v. Olympus America, Inc., 2018 WL 5619327, at
*14 (D. Colo. Oct. 30, 2018). So there is room to work with
exporting the "shotgun complaint" basis for dismissal to courts
outside the Eleventh Circuit.

Finally, another thing about Phillips and the "shotgun complaint"
concept that caught our eye is this -- it's something a court not
only may, but is required (at least in the Eleventh Circuit), to do
sua sponte [for readers not familiar with legal Latin, that means
"of its own accord without being requested]:

If, in the face of a shotgun complaint, the defendant] does not
move the district court to require a more definite statement, the
court, in the exercise of its inherent power, must intervene sua
sponte and order a repleader.

Phillips, 2021 WL 3209860, at *2 (quoting McWhorter v. Miller,
Einhouse, Rymer & Boyd, Inc., 2009 WL 92846, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
14, 2009)) (emphasis added). They're serious about TwIqbal in the
Eleventh Circuit.

So by all means -- particularly in the Eleventh Circuit --
defendants should declare open season on "shotgun complaints." [GN]

[*] Shareholder Class Actions v. SPACs Up in First Half of 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNBC reports that SPACs are getting hit by a rising number of
class-action lawsuits as more hyped-up deals turn out to be flops.

Shareholder lawsuits against post-merger special purpose
acquisition companies rose to 15 through the first half of 2021,
tripling from just five in all of 2020, according to data from
Woodruff Sawyer. The jump came even as overall securities cases
fell 13% this year, according to the data.

"That's a lot of litigations for one section of the capital markets
in a short period of time," said Priya Huskins, partner at Woodruff
Sawyer. "SPACs have been marketed as a way to go public faster and
easier compared to a traditional IPO, but that might tend to
attract companies that are perhaps not ready for public company
scrutiny. It is certainly the case the plaintiffs are trying to
prove."

These cases are so-called stock-drop litigations when negative
announcements lead to a significant decline in share prices.
Plaintiffs would argue that the stock price was inflated as the
company had made material misstatements or omissions in their
earlier public statements.

The SPACs that found themselves in legal battles this year include
electric vehicle start-ups Lordstown Motors and Canoo as well as
Chamath Palihapitiya-backed Clover Health, all of which are
undergoing inquiries by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Churchill Capital Corp IV, Purecycle Technologies, XL Fleet and
Quantumscape also got hit by class-action suits.

While many of these suits could be dismissed in court, some have
resulted in punishing settlements. In April, music streaming
company Akazoo S.A. settled two security lawsuits for an aggregate
amount of $35 million and the stock was delisted from the Nasdaq.

Investors are trying to hold SPAC leaders accountable at a time
when regulators are stepping up their oversight. The SEC has
repeatedly warned investors of underlying risks in investing in
corporate shells, while demanding better disclosures and tighter
accounting rules from blank-check deals.

"The day of being cavalier is over," Huskins said. "One of the
things we may see as a result of this pressure on diligence and
disclosure is a cooling off of valuation. In a world where
diligence is increasingly precise, it's harder to tolerate
puffiness in the numbers."

Following a record first quarter, the SPAC market came to a
screeching halt with issuance dropping nearly 90% in the second
quarter as regulatory pressure mounted. SPACs raise capital in an
initial public offering and use the cash to merge with a private
company and take it public, usually within two years.

Share prices have come back down to earth as more signs of a bubble
emerged. The proprietary CNBC SPAC Post Deal Index, which is
comprised of the largest SPACs that have come to market and
announced a target, wiped out its 2021 rally and tumbled nearly 25%
on the year.

Last month, the SEC charged Stable Road Acquisition, space company
Momentus and two executives for alleged misleading claims over
their planned merger.

"I think people are going to wait to see how many more SPACs that
they go after," said Kennedy Chinyamutangira, financial services
senior analyst at RSM US LLP. "The market will likely to continue
to be depressed through the rest of the year."

The SEC recently filed civil securities fraud charges against
Nikola founder Trevor Milton, while a federal grand jury charged
him with three counts of criminal fraud for allegedly lying about
"nearly all aspects of the business." Nikola's shares have come all
the way back to just $10.28 apiece, a few cents above its IPO
price.

"Sometimes a target is trying to drive up the price to an
unsustainable level, somehow not realizing that the market will
correct and you don't want that correction to happen shortly after
you went public," Huskins said. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***