/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210819.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 160

                            Headlines

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Initial OK of Settlement in AMF Suit Pending
3 BROTHERS RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Chavez Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Cash Claims
3M COMPANY: Beauchamp Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Blais Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Bradley Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Bullock Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Clark Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Coughlin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Dormaier Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Everett Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Faces Woolum Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Greco Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Grumney Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Kaufman Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Merculief Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Sucarichi Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Vinelli Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Woolum Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
A.H.D. HOUSTON: Faces Nicholson Suit Over Clubs' Racist Policy

ABA SOLUTIONS: Faces Kozich Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
ADT INC: Awaits Final Approval of Villegas Settlement
ADT INC: Continues to Defend Shana Doty Class Action
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings

ADT INC: Faces Randy Doty Class Action in Florida
ADT INC: Intervenes in Class Suit Filed Against Former Technician
AGENTRA LLC: $275K Class Deal in Abramson TCPA Suit Partly Granted
AGWAY ENERGY: Martinez Seeks to Certify Customer Class
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Schwartzman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Fla.

ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Two Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in California
ALLSTATE CORP: Depreciation Practices Related Suit Underway
ALLSTATE CORP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Illinois
ALLY BANK: Fails to Safeguard Website Users' Info, Medicis Claims
ALTERYX INC: Securities Class Suit in California Dismissed

ALTRIA GROUP: Klein, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
AMGEN INC: Bid to Nix Sensipar Antitrust Class Suit Pending
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
AUTOMATIC DATA: Discloses Receipt of $15 Million Insurance Recovery
AUTOMATIC DATA: Two Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach Underway

B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Transfer of Abdelaziz to Lehigh County Affirmed
BANK OF AMERICA: Checchia Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
BARRETT BUSINESS: Kaanaana Suit Remanded to Superior Court
BAUSCH HEALTH: Catucci Class Action Dismissed
BAUSCH HEALTH: Trial in Glumetza Antitrust Suit to Begin in October

BELDEN INC: E.D. Missouri Narrows Claims in MacKey Data Breach Suit
BENEFYTT INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Ruling in TCPA Suit
BERRY CORP: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Torres Suit Pending
BLOOMEFFECTS INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BWW RESOURCES: Faces Devore Employment Suit in Calif. State Court

CAL CENTRAL: Faces de la Riva Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
CAPCON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CATHAY PACIFIC: Jan. 31, 2022 Deadline to File Class Cert. Sought
CC-PALO ALTO: Court Certifies Class of Vi Residents in Cork Suit
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Sultanis Class Suit

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Recording Telephone Calls
CHUY'S OPCO: Ruiz Sues Over Assistant Kitchen Managers' Unpaid OT
CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Smith Suit Alleges Improper Bank Charges
CITY OF SYRACUSE: Hanks Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
COINBASE GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action

COINBASE GLOBAL: SEC Filings Lack Business Info, Catterlin Alleges
COLLIER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sabatoni Employment in California
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Judge Tosses Policyholder's Class Action
CORE-MARK HOLDING: Walker Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
COTY INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Garrett-Evans Complaint Granted

CROCODILE ENTERPRISES: Orner Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool Policy
CROSSCITY INSPECTION: Valladares Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Workers
DFINITY USA: Faces Class Action in California Over ICP Token
DFINITY USA: Roche Freedman Reminds of October 12 Deadline
DOMINION VOTING: Court Grants Bids for Sanctions in O'Rourke Suit

DPV TRANSPORTATION: Briggs Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under NYLL
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Vasquez Seeks to Certify Loan Officer Classes
EAGLE ONE: Taggart Sues Over Improper Vehicle Repossession Notice
EL POLLO LOCO: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Hejazi Class Suit Says
EMPIRE SCAFFOLDING: Richards Seeks Manual Laborers' Unpaid OT

ESSENDANT CO: Cherazo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
FIRST COLONY: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Jones Claims
FLO HEALTH: Clements Sues Over Personal Health Data Exposure
FLORIDA: Class Certification of Medicaid Beneficiaries Sought
FRONTLINE ASSET: Nuamah-Williams Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

FRONTWAVE CREDIT: $95K Class Settlement in Tapia Suit Has Final OK
FULL TRUCK: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of September 10 Deadline
GAMESTOP CORP: Rodriguez Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Seat Belt Pretensioners
GJUSHI CONSTRUCTION: Ventura Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages

GREAT AMERICAN: Motion to Overrule Objections Filed in a Bank Suit
HCA HEALTHCARE: North Carolina Senators Respond to Class Action
HERCULES TREE: Ray Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Action
IEC CORPORATION: Britt Seeks to Certify Two Classes
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bhambhani Suit

INVITING FOODS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
JARINC LTD: Blose Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
JMC HOLDINGS: Sawaqed Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Suit Moved from New Jersey to M.D. Alabama

JOHNSONVILLE LLC: Knuth Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Duarte Suit Alleges
KEDREN COMMUNITY: Faces Jackson Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Snyder Suit Says
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Walker Suit Says

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Aker Class Suit Over CPAP/BiPAP Machines
LA SUPERIOR: Faces Davalos Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
LENCHO OILFIELD: Birdwell Seeks to Send Notice to SCT Worker Class
LESSEREVIL LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LINKEDIN CORP: Claims in Consolidated Topdevz Complaint Narrowed

LOCKHEED ANDREWS: Class Action Suits in Flint Water Case Certified
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Mason Putative Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Savidis Purported Class Suit
MAPA ENTERPRISES: Zaragota Seeks Warehouse Workers' Unpaid OT
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hall Suit Transferred to S.D. California

MOUTH OF THE SOUTH: Underpays Servers, Speirs et al. Suit Claims
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Tennessee Court Trims Claims in Ladd Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kane Russell Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Suit Over Unlawful Payment Collection
NEEL'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosales Suit Alleges

NESTLE PURINA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Salinas Suit Says
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Clark Suit Over Ransomware Attack
NEW BONNEY: Faces Cuevas Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
NEW PRIME: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Nyachira Alleges
NIPPON EXPRESS: Quezada BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Cisneros BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
OUTDOOR SPORTSMAN: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PACTIV LLC: Wilson Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Faces Williams Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
PANERA BREAD: Court Grants Sally's Bid to Remand MMPA Class Suit

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT: Stebbins Suit Moved From D.N.H. to D.N.J.
PFIZER INC: Chantix Contains N-Nitroso-Varenicline, Harris Says
PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS: Commisso Suit Transferred to W.D. New York
PROSPECT INTERNATIONAL: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California
RALPH LAUREN: Ross Sues Over 100% Pima Cotton Label on Shirts

REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bauman Putative Class Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Leeder Putative Class Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Conti Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
REALOGY GROUP: Court Dismisses Rubenstein Suit
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Moehrl Putative Class Suit

RENTGROW INC: Fernandez Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
REP PERIMETER: Underpays Psych Techs, Clemons Suit Claims
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Class Action
Shafeel Hussein: Faces Aguilar in California Superior Court
SHAMROCK FOODS: Arreola Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

SOMACIS INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Chambers Suit Claims
SPECTRUM HEALTH: Abernathy Seeks to Certify Class Action
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Accounting Review Suit Pending
STABLE ROAD: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STERETT HEAVY: Behne Seeks Unpaid Wages and Retaliation Under FPWA

STEVEN COHEN: Faces Weinberg FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
STUCKEY CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Machine Drivers, Perry Suit Claims
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Overland FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to E.D. Mo.
TESLA INC: Settles Battery Problem Class Action Lawsuit for $1.5MM
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Rotstain Suit

TURNING POINT: Faces Garner Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
UNIVAR SOLUTIONS: Santiago Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Wnorowski Suit
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Rivadeneira Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WASTE PRO: Seeks to Decertify Wright Collective Action

WELLS FARGO: Appeal From Summary Judgment Rulings in Stagner Nixed
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Still Stayed
WHICH WICH: Faces Thompson ADA Suit in Central Dist. of California
WILSON LOGISTICS: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
WITH PRIDE: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Technicians

ZOOM VIDEO: Files Motion for Preliminary Settlement in Privacy Suit
ZOOM VIDEO: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ZYMERGEN INC: Klafter Lesser Reminds of August 4 Deadline

                            *********

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Initial OK of Settlement in AMF Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the preliminary approval
of the settlement in the class action suit related to its
collection of Annual Membership Fee, is pending.

In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former
members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the
Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying
the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF, in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

Following trial proceedings and certain appeals and court-ordered
mediation proceedings, in June 2021, the parties filed a joint
notice of settlement and request for a six month stay in light of
reaching a settlement agreement.

The parties later executed a class action settlement agreement and
release effective June 30, 2021 and a preliminary class settlement
approval hearing has been scheduled to take place in August 2021.

The settlement amount of $11,500 is recorded as other current
liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June
30, 2021.

In addition, the Company's insurers committed to pay $5,950 towards
the settlement amount. Because recovery from the insurers is
probable, a receivable is also recorded for $5,950 as prepaid
expenses and other current assets in the condensed consolidated
balance sheets as of June 30, 2021.

The settlement amount, net of expected insurance recovery, of
$5,550 is recorded as general and administrative expenses in the
condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three
months ended June 30, 2021.

1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


3 BROTHERS RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Chavez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3 BROTHERS RESTAURANT; LUCILLE
UGRIET; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV29565
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 11, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, conversion,
and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server, cook, and
cashier from in or about 2003.

3 Brothers Restaurant is a restaurant owner and operator located at
23722 Western Avenue, Harbor City/Los Angeles, Los Angeles County,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Warren D. Kelly, Esq.
         THE KELLY LAW OFFICES
         3182 Sepulveda Boulevard. Suite 250
         Torrance, CA 90505
         Telephone: (310)373-5505
         Facsimile: (310) 347-4412

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Cash Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDE CASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02596-RMG (D.S.C., August 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
the California Unfair Competition Law.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         BANNER LEGAL
         445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (760) 479-5404
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Beauchamp Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC STEPHEN BEAUCHAMP v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02285-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Beauchamp case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Blais Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ARTHUR BLAIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02284-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Blais case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Bradley Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY BRADLEY, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of
the Estate of HARLEY ROSS BRADLEY, deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:21-cv-02286-RMG (D.S.C., July 26, 2021) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Bradley case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Bullock Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LYNN BULLOCK v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02291-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Bullock case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Clark Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE DANE CLARK v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02287-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Clark case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Coughlin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE B. COUGHLIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02288-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Coughlin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Dormaier Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE DEAN DORMAIER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02290-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Dormaier case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Everett Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY PHILLIP EVERETT SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02289-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Everett case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Woolum Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN RAY WOOLUM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02295-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Woolum has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          BANNER LEGAL
          445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (760) 479-5404
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Greco Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CARL GRECO v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02283-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Greco case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Grumney Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Grumney v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02333-RMG (D.S.C., July 28,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Grumney has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 855-6060
          Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Kaufman Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
HARTFORD KAUFMAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Kaufman has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Merculief Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARVA LYNN MERCULIEF, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of GERASIM
MERCULIEF, deceased, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02304-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Merculief has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Sucarichi Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BLAIR SUCARICHI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02292-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Sucarichi has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Vinelli Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN EDWARD VINELLI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02293-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Vinelli has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Woolum Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN RAY WOOLUM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02294-RMG (D.S.C., July 26,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Woolum has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

A.H.D. HOUSTON: Faces Nicholson Suit Over Clubs' Racist Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHANEL E.M. NICHOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.H.D. HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a
CENTERFOLDS HOUSTON, W.L. YORK, INC. d/b/a THE COVER GIRLS,
SPLENDOR GENTLEMENS CLUB, SOLID PLATINUM CABARET, ALI DAVARI, and
HASSAN DAVARI, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02624 (S.D. Tex.,
August 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

The case arises from the Defendants' Racist Policy which deprives
the Plaintiff and similarly situated African-American female
entertainers the same employment treatment as Caucasian female
entertainers at the Defendants' clubs. The Defendants allegedly
discriminated against the Plaintiff and Class members by denying
them employment, reducing their working hours, or terminating their
employment.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' clubs in Texas as an
entertainer.

A.H.D. Houston, Inc., doing business as Centerfolds Houston, is an
operator of an adult entertainment club located at 6166 Richmond
Avenue, Houston, Texas.

W.L. York, Inc., doing business as The Cover Girls, is an operator
of an adult entertainment club located at 10310 W. Little York,
P.O. Box 570413, Houston, Texas.

Splendor Gentlemens Club is an operator of an adult entertainment
club located at 7440 W. Greens Rd., Houston, Texas.

Solid Platinum Cabaret is an operator of an adult entertainment
club located at 2732 W.T.C. Jester Blvd., Houston Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Eric P. Mirabel, Esq.
         3783 Darcus St.
         Houston, TX 77005
         Telephone: (281) 772-3794
         Facsimile: (713) 667 4234
         E-mail: eric@emirabel.com

ABA SOLUTIONS: Faces Kozich Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SARAH KOZICH, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABA SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01876-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., August 5, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) from approximately March 2021
to June 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts claims that the Defendant failed to
compensate her and other similarly situated RBTs and BTs for all
hours worked when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and
failed to pay them proper overtime premiums at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular hourly wage. The Defendants also
failed to make, keep, and preserve records.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover against the Defendants back pay damages, including
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread-of-hours payments, and
unpaid wages, as well as liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,
litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

ABA Solutions, Inc. provides individualized and comprehensive
behavioral therapy to help clients, often children and adults with
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), achieve positive behavioral
outcomes over time. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK,P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: (352) 753-8600
          Fax: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                  jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                  kstroly@vandlaw.com

                - and –

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA
          Tel: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4620
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net
                  apiazaa@bm.net
                  dthornton@bm.net

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against AdaptHealth
Corp. ("AdaptHealth" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AHCO) 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 November
11, 2019 and July 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 27, 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. AdaptHealth misled the market about its
organic growth prospects and trajectory through undisclosed
manipulation of its past growth numbers. The Company overstated its
financial growth prospects. 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
AdaptHealth, 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]


ADT INC: Awaits Final Approval of Villegas Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that hearing for final approval of the
settlement in Villegas v. ADT, has been continued until August
2021.

In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT. In this
complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated certain
provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the Company's favor in October 2014, which the
plaintiff appealed.

In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and
remanded the case back to the trial court.

In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles.

The case settled in January 2020, and the settlement received
preliminary approval from the court in February 2021.

A hearing for final approval has been continued until August 2021.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Continues to Defend Shana Doty Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that ADT LLC continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Doty v. ADT LLC.

In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts causes of action on
behalf of herself and other Company customers similarly situated,
and seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence,
intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.

In December 2020, the federal district court dismissed the causes
of action for intrusion upon seclusion and violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and further ruled that plaintiff may
not seek to hold the Company vicariously liable for any intentional
torts committed by the former technician.

The Company's motion was denied on plaintiff's other claims.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the class action
suit initiated by Teddy Archer against Defender Holdings, Inc.

In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders, which is defending
against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and seven other security
advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (the "FLSA"), breach of contract under state law in all states,
and a violation of state wage-hour laws in California, New Jersey,
New York, and Washington.

The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA
collective action.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid
wages.

The parties are actively engaged in discovery.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Faces Randy Doty Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a class action suit
initiated by Randy Doty, the husband of the plaintiff in Shana Doty
v. ADT LLC.

In April 2021, the Company accepted service of a new class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of Randy Doty, the husband of the
plaintiff in Shana Doty v. ADT LLC.

The claims alleged in the new complaint are substantially similar
to the claims asserted in Alexa Preddy v. ADT LLC, the case which
has been stayed pending arbitration.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Intervenes in Class Suit Filed Against Former Technician
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the Company intervened in a putative
Texas state court class action filed against its former technician
in August 2020, where the plaintiff asserts a cause of action for
intrusion upon seclusion and seeks injunctive relief, and may be
subject to future legal claims.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


AGENTRA LLC: $275K Class Deal in Abramson TCPA Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEWART ABRAMSON and JAMES EVERETT SHELTON,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and MONICA ABBOUD Intervenor
Plaintiff v. AGENTRA, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-615 (W.D.
Pa.), Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Plaintiff Abramson commenced the class action in May 2018, bringing
claims individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated. The Complaint was amended twice. The
operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint which was
brought by Abramson and James Everett Shelton and filed in April
2019.

Defendant Agentra provides health insurance contracts to consumers.
In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Agentra
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using
telemarketing techniques such as an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") and pre-recorded messages to send automated calls
to promote new clients. They claim that Agentra accomplishes its
telemarketing strategy by contracting with third-party providers
such as Defendants Angelic Marketing Group LLC and Matthew Jones.

Both named Plaintiffs allegedly received pre-recorded telemarketing
calls on behalf of Agentra. As explained in the Second Amended
Complaint, they sought to represent the following class: "All
persons within the United States to whom: (a) Agentra and/or a
third party acting on their behalf, made one or more non-emergency
telephone calls; (b) that could have promoted Agentra's products or
services; (c) to their cellular telephone number or a residential
telephone number; (d) using an artificial or pre-recorded voice;
and (e) at any time in the period that begins four years before the
date of the filing of the Complaint to trial.

After the Court issued a Case Management Order that established
various pretrial deadlines. The Plaintiffs directed extensive
discovery related to class certification and other issues both to
Agentra and various third parties. Near the conclusion of
discovery, the parties mediated the case with Bruce Friedman, who
has extensive experience mediating and litigating TCPA matters. In
December 2019, the Plaintiffs and Agentra moved for an extension of
time to complete discovery, noting that while the mediation with
Mr. Friedman was unsuccessful, they continued to make progress
towards resolution and requested a 30-day extension of all
deadlines. This motion was granted.

In April 2020, the Plaintiffs and Agentra jointly informed the
Court that they had reached a settlement. For the next several
months, however, Agentra disputed whether the parties had entered
into a final enforceable agreement. The Plaintiffs moved to enforce
the settlement and in August 2020, after full briefing and an
evidentiary hearing, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion,
finding that the parties had entered into an enforceable
settlement. The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and attached various exhibits,
including the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement, the
Declaration of Plaintiffs' counsel, and a proposed preliminary
approval order.

The class action settlement agreement established a
non-reversionary $275,000 fund to be distributed pro rata to
settlement class members who filed a valid claim after payment of
settlement administration expenses, attorneys' fees and costs, and
a service award to each of the named Plaintiffs. The parties agreed
that multiple subscribers and/or users of any unique telephone
number would be limited to a single recovery per call. Any amount
remaining in the fund would be distributed to a Court-approved cy
pres recipient. The parties proposed National Consumer Law Center
as an appropriate recipient.

Agentra also agreed to take certain remedial steps to ensure
compliance with TCPA. This includes implementing enhanced TCPA
compliance policies & procedures; conducting
commercially-reasonable due diligence of agents before engaging
them and regularly thereafter; contractually requiring agent
vendors to comply with all applicable laws, including the TCPA,
when conducting lead generation activities on its behalf; and
monitoring and tracking consumer complaints to identify and
remediate compliance concerns.  
Under the Settlement Agreement, Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC
("KCC") was retained to disseminate the class notice, respond to
inquiries from class members, and to administer the settlement.
Agentra agreed to prepare a list of class members and provide that
list to the settlement administrator. The settlement administrator
would then perform any further investigation necessary to identify
the current mailing addresses for individuals included on the list.
The settlement administrator's responsibilities included reviewing
all submitted claim forms to ensure compliance with the Settlement
Agreement, making eligibility determinations, maintaining records
of the submissions, and distributing proceeds from the settlement
fund.

The parties agreed that in exchange for settlement benefits, the
class members who did not timely opt out of the settlement would
release Agentra from all telemarketing claims against it for calls
made by certain agents identified in the class definition who had
contacted the settlement class members. In this regard, the
Settlement Agreement specified that "mass" or "class" claims filed
by third parties on behalf of a "mass" or "class" of the settlement
class members, when not signed by each individual class member,
would not be valid.

In an order dated Sept. 4, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
approved the proposed notice to the settlement class, and
provisionally certified the following settlement class: "Plaintiffs
and all persons contacted by Alexander Glynn, Ann Fils, Charles
Donisi, Jacon Mcleod, Jake Gabbard, Jason Espinoza, Kristina Calo,
Scott Shapiro, Steve Guerrero, Witfield Jean-Baptiste, or Theresa
Jones (or on behalf of any individual Agent, whether by a downline
sub-agent, vendor, or other third party) regarding the sale of a
product offered by Agentra at any time between May 8, 2014 to Feb.
1, 2020 that were contacted on a cellular telephone or while they
were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days."

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Agentra
identified the members of the class based on its business records.
After screening for duplicate records and verifying the validity of
mailing addresses, the settlement administrator mailed copies of
the notice and claim forms that were approved by the Court to
19,683 settlement class members, all of whom were given the
opportunity to make a claim, object, or request to opt out of the
settlement.

The claim form included with the notice requested claimants to
identify the phone number at which an individual received a call.
The pro rata distribution proposal, as well as the specific amount
of the Plaintiffs' counsel's proposed fees (up to $91,666.66),
costs (not anticipated to exceed $11,250) and incentive awards (up
to $5,000) to each named Plaintiff were disclosed in the notices
sent to the settlement class members.

After the notice was sent, one of the settlement class members,
Monica Abboud, moved to intervene in the lawsuit. Abboud is
litigating a separate TCPA class action lawsuit against Agentra in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that was
commenced in January 2019. While the Plaintiffs' allegations are
limited to unsolicited calls with pre-recorded messages, Abboud's
claims on behalf of the class include both calls and texts from
Agentra. Abboud and Agentra participated in a mediation with the
same mediator who mediated the dispute between the Plaintiffs and
Agentra. The Court granted Abboud's motion to intervene and allowed
her to review any confidential information that was necessary to
evaluate the fairness of the settlement.

After reviewing relevant information, Abboud objected to the
Settlement Agreement. She maintained that based on the limited
financial documentation produced by Agentra, the Plaintiffs'
counsel could not have reasonably concluded that a $275,000 fund
would be a fair, reasonable, or adequate exchange for the broad
release set forth in the Settlement Agreement given that it
releases certain agents who did not call the named Plaintiffs.
Agentra opposed Abboud's objection and the Plaintiffs also
addressed her objection in their motion for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement.

Other than Abboud's objection, only one other settlement class
member opted out and requested to be excluded from the Settlement
Agreement. In contrast, 2,085 claims covering 2,093 phone numbers
were received, reviewed, and found to be presumptively valid by the
settlement administrator.

The total cost of settlement administration expenses is estimated
to be $60,785.24. The settlement administrator estimates that the
settlement class members who do not opt out will each receive a
cash payment from this fund of a minimum of $48.39 and a maximum of
$145.17, depending on how many of their telephone numbers were
contacted.

Discussion

Judge Dodge first addresses whether final class certification
should be granted, and then turn to the fairness of the settlement.
It is followed by a brief discussion of Abboud's objection, the
reasonableness of the Plaintiffs' counsel fees and costs, and the
request to increase the named Plaintiffs' service awards.

Judge Dodge opines that because the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied, final class certification of the
settlement class is appropriate.  He finds that the settlement
class satisfies the threshold Rule 23(a) requirements of
"numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation," as well as the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements that
"the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The settlement class
also complies with the Third Circuit mandate that that a Rule
23(b)(3) class be "currently and readily ascertainable."

Judge Dodge now determines whether the Settlement Agreement is
"fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Rule 23(e). Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2). She begins with a determination of whether the
presumption of fairness applies, followed by an evaluation of the
settlement given the relevant factors and considerations under
Third Circuit precedent -- In re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement
Consumer Privacy Litig., 934 F.3d 316, 322 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting
In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Prac. Litig. Agent Actions, 148
F.3d 283, 316 (3d Cir. 1998)).

The Judge opines that the settlement negotiations were conducted at
arm's-length with guidance from an experienced mediator who
concluded that both counsel for the Plaintiffs and for Agentra were
professional, thorough and well informed during the mediation. The
parties also engaged in sufficient discovery to inform their
negotiations before a settlement was reached. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs' counsel is highly experienced in similar class action
litigation, and Agentra's counsel is capably defending Agentra's
interests in this case and is also defending Agentra in a similar
class action lawsuit filed by Abboud. Lastly, after notice was
given to over 99% of the settlement class members, there was only
one objection and one request for exclusion. Given these factors,
the proposed settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

Turning to the fairness of a class-wide settlement, Judge Dodge
opines that (i) f that the litigation was to continue, it is likely
to be protracted and costly; (ii) out of the 19,683 class members,
only one has objected and one has opted out; (iii) the Plaintiffs'
counsel had a sufficient appreciation of the relevant facts and the
merits of the claims asserted before the parties engaged in
settlement negotiations; (iv) the Plaintiffs face significant
uncertainties in establishing Agentra's liability which makes the
evaluation of risk versus reward a compelling factor; (v) it is
evident that obtaining and keeping a conventional class
certification poses substantially more hurdles and risks than
providing a remedy to class members through settlement; (vi)
Agentra could not withstand a judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor
that is significantly greater than the settlement; and (vii) the
settlement amount per class member is less than the best possible
recovery if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial.  In light of these
findings, the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" to
protect the interests of all class members and final approval is
warranted.

Examining Abboud's objection, Judge Dodge disagrees with Abboud's
argument that the financial information provided by Agentra is
inadequate. The Judge conducted an in camera review of financial
information supplied by Agentra and concluded that it was
sufficient to establish that Agentra could not withstand a
significantly greater judgment. At any rate, Agentra's ability to
withstand a greater judgment is not the only factor that the Judge
considered in evaluating the settlement.

Simply put, the Judge rejects Abboud's objections to the
settlement. She holds that the parties' settlement is within the
reasonable range of TCPA settlements and is fair, reasonable, and
adequate when considered from the perspective of the settlement
class as a whole.

The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks attorneys' fees of $91,666.66 and
reimbursement of $11,250 for out of pocket costs associated with
pursuing the case. Judge Dodge finds that the attorneys' fees and
costs requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel are appropriately
awarded. First, while there was one objection and one request for
exclusion from the settlement, no one objected to or has challenged
the amount of the requested attorneys' fees and costs. Second, the
Plaintiffs' counsel is a skilled and experienced class action
litigator. Third, all benefits obtained by the Plaintiffs through
the proposed settlement can be attributed to the efforts of
counsel, rather than to government agencies or other groups.
Finally, the expenses are reasonable and the counsel is entitled to
reimbursement of these expenses.

As for the service awards for the Plaintiffs, Judge Doge notes that
in their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement as well
as in the notices that were sent to the settlement class members,
received, the amount requested was $5,000 for each of the two named
Plaintiffs. In the pending motion for final approval of the
settlement, however, the Plaintiffs seek an award of $10,000 for
each Plaintiff. Given that this amount was not disclosed to the
settlement class members, the Judge finds that it would be
inappropriate to increase the service awards at this stage.

Conclusion

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Dodge granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement. The motion is granted with respect to final
class certification, final approval of the settlement and the
requested awards of administrative fees, attorneys' fees and costs.
However, the request for increased service awards for the named
Plaintiffs is denied, and the service awards will be limited to
$5,000. An order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6s7arrc from Leagle.com.


AGWAY ENERGY: Martinez Seeks to Certify Customer Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MARTINEZ v. AGWAY
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00235-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all of Defendant Agway Energy Services, LLC's ("Agway")
      New York and Pennsylvania customers charged a variable
      rate for residential electricity services by Agway from
      December 6, 2011 through the present;

   2. certifying a sub-class of New York customers charged a
      variable rate for residential electricity services by
      Agway from December 6, 2011 through the present
      (collectively, the "Classes");

   3. appointing Plaintiff as the Classes' representative;

   4. appointing Todd S. Garber, Chantal Khalil, and D. Greg
      Blankinship of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
      Garber, LLP as the Classes' counsel; and

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

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug.
6 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g7H1l5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          Chantal Khalil, Esq.
          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & G ARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  ckhalil@fbfglaw.com
                  gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Schwartzman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rachel
Schwartzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-22964-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2021).

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

AllianceOne -- https://www.allianceoneinc.com/ -- is a national and
international debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Two Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend two putative class action suits in California, entitled,
Holland Hewitt v. Allstate Life Insurance Company (E.D. Cal., filed
May 2020) and Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company (E.D. Cal.,
filed Dec. 2020).

The Company is defending two putative class actions in California
federal court, Holland Hewitt v. Allstate Life Insurance Company
(E.D. Cal., filed May 2020) and Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life
Company (E.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2020), where the plaintiffs
generally allege that the defendants failed to comply with certain
California statutes which address contractual grace periods and
lapse notice requirements for certain life insurance policies.

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

The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.

No classes have been certified in these matters.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


ALLSTATE CORP: Depreciation Practices Related Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend putative class action suits related to its depreciation
practices in homeowner property claims.

The Company is defending putative class actions in various courts
that raise challenges to the Company's depreciation practices in
homeowner property claims.

In these lawsuits, plaintiffs generally allege that, when
calculating actual cash value, the costs of "non-materials" such as
labor, general contractor's overhead and profit, and sales tax
should not be subject to depreciation.

The Company is currently defending the following lawsuits on this
issue: Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Company, et al. (N.D. Ohio filed
May 2016); Lado v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
(S.D. Ohio filed March 2020); Maniaci v. Allstate Insurance Company
(N.D. Ohio filed March 2020); Ferguson-Luke et al. v. Allstate
Property and Casualty Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio filed April
2020); Huey v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
(N.D. Miss. filed October 2019); Clark v. Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company (Circuit Court of Independence Co., Ark.
filed February 2016); Thaxton v. Allstate Indemnity Company
(Madison Co., Ill. filed July 2020); Hester v. Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company (St. Clair Co., Ill. filed June 2020);
Mitchell, et al. v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance
Company, et al. (S.D. Ala. filed August 2021).

No classes have been certified in these matters.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.

ALLSTATE CORP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In re The Allstate Corp.
Securities Litigation.

In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class
action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities
laws. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock
during the class period and suffered damages as the result of the
conduct alleged.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney's
fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs
allege that the Company and certain senior officers made allegedly
material misstatements or omissions concerning claim frequency
statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase for
Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August 3,
2015.

Plaintiffs further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock
option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance
claim frequency.

The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer,
and its former president are the named defendants. After the court
denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018, defendants
answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs' allegations that there
was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct.

On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. The court allowed the lead plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to add the City of Providence Employee Retirement System
as a proposed class representative and on September 12, 2018, the
amended complaint was filed.

On March 26, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who
purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August
3, 2015.

On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit a petition for permission to appeal this
ruling and the Seventh Circuit granted that petition on April 25,
2019.

On July 16, 2020, the Seventh Circuit vacated the class
certification order and remanded the matter for further
consideration by the district court. Discovery in this matter
concluded on October 5, 2020. O

In December 21, 2020, the district court again granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of
all persons who purchased Allstate common stock between October 29,
2014 and August 3, 2015.

On January 4, 2021, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for permission to appeal this ruling. The petition was
denied on January 28, 2021. The parties concluded briefing Daubert
motions on April 22, 2021.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


ALLY BANK: Fails to Safeguard Website Users' Info, Medicis Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DE MEDICIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY BANK and ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-06799 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, injunctive and declaratory relief,
and violation of the Virginia Personal Information Breach
Notification Act.

According to the complaint, Ally failed to program, test and
monitor its website to adequately safeguard the security of the
Plaintiff's and Class members' usernames and passwords. As a
result, Ally account usernames, passwords, and other private
information were accessed by unnamed third parties. Moreover, after
Ally finally discovered the data breach, Ally delayed notifying the
Plaintiff and Class members about the breach for almost two months,
alleges the suit.

Ally Bank, a subsidiary of Ally Financial Inc., is a financial
services company, with its headquarters at 200 W. Civic Center
Drive, Suite 201, Sandy, Utah.

Ally Financial Inc. is a bank holding company, with its
headquarters at 500 Woodward Avenue, Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
         Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
         Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
         Telephone: (845) 356-2570
         Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
         E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com

                 - and –

         Patrick Slyne, Esq.
         SLYNE LAW LLC
         800 Westchester Avenue, N641
         Rye Brook, NY
         Telephone: (914) 279-7000
         Facsimile: (914) 653-8122
         E-mail: Patrick.Slyne@SlyneLaw.com

                 - and –

         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (610) 453-6551
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

ALTERYX INC: Securities Class Suit in California Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Alteryx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court entered final
judgment in the company's favor dismissing the consolidated
putative securities class action suit entitled, In re Alteryx, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01540 (C.D. Cal).

Three putative securities class action lawsuits had been filed
against us and certain of our executive officers in U.S. federal
court relating to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder: (1) Smith v. Alteryx,
Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01540 (CD Cal.), filed on August 19, 2020;
(2) Chau v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01886 (CD Cal.), filed
on September 30, 2020; and (3) Lalgudi v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-01910 (CD Cal.), filed on October 2, 2020.

On November 13, 2020, lead plaintiffs were appointed, or the Lead
Plaintiffs, and the three cases were consolidated into one action,
In re Alteryx, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01540
(C.D. Cal). On January 28, 2021, a first amended complaint was
filed asserting claims on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 13,
2020 and August 7, 2020.

Lead Plaintiffs allege that such persons and entities were harmed
as a result of certain alleged false or misleading statements, or
omissions, made by us and certain of our executive officers.

On March 19, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which the Court granted in its entirety on
June 17, 2021.

The Court entered final judgment in the company's favor on August
3, 2021.

Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. Alteryx, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ALTRIA GROUP: Klein, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABBY KLEIN, DONALD
SHERBONDY, SARAH SHERBONDY and CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST
OF GREATER ST. LOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., HOWARD A. WILLARD III,
WILLIAM F. GIFFORD, JR., JUUL LABS, INC., ADAM BOWEN, JAMES
MONSEES, KEVIN BURNS, and K.C. CROSTHWAITE, Case No.
3:20-cv-00075-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Lead Plaintiffs Donald and Sarah
Sherbondy and Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St.
Louis ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Pomerantz LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
      LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(g).

Altria Group is an American corporation and one of the world's
largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and related
products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class dated Aug. 6
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37Ui1Jm
at no extra charge.[CC]

Local Counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs ,are:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Donald Sherbondy and Sarah
Sherbondy, are:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP, Esq.
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mjwernke@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Erin W. Boardman, Esq.
          Philip T. Merenda, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  eboardman@rgrdlaw.com
                  pmerenda@rgrdlaw.com

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Laborers Pension Trust of Greater
St. Louis, are:

          Douglas R. Britton, Esq.
          Kevin A. Lavelle, Esq.
          Matthew J. Balotta, 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: dougb@rgrdlaw.com
          klavelle@rgrdlaw.com
          mbalotta@rgrdlaw.com

Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Donald Sherbondy and Sarah
Sherbondy, are:

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 301-3335
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

AMGEN INC: Bid to Nix Sensipar Antitrust Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
antitrust class action lawsuit related to Sensipar(R), is pending.

On April 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed their oppositions to
defendants' (including Amgen's) motion to dismiss, and defendants'
reply was filed on May 25, 2021.

A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held in the Delaware
District Court on July 13, 2021.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:20-cv-00553-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff MSP Recovery,
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), files motion for class certification.

The Defendant Atlantic Specialty is a liability insurer and primary
payer under the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") law. By virtue of
the MSP law, Atlantic is required to either pay the medical
expenses of Medicare beneficiaries before Medicare Advantage
Organization ("MAO" or "MA Plan") class members pay anything or
reimburse them if the putative class members pay first for any
reason.

The class members are, essentially, private Medicare entities that
"stand in the shoes" of Medicare and are entitled to the same
rights and protections when it comes to their reimbursement rights.
MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Fla., Inc., 918 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th
Cir. 2019). The Eleventh Circuit and other courts have cleared the
path for efficient prosecution of MSP law claims against
recalcitrant primary payers such as Defendant. 1 MSP law liability
here is "remarkably simple;" The Defendant is liable when (1) it is
a primary plan, (2) that failed to reimburse a conditional payment
made by a MAO, 3 causing (3) damages.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 SW 72nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com

AUTOMATIC DATA: Discloses Receipt of $15 Million Insurance Recovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2021, that the Company received a
$15 million insurance recovery related to the settlement made in
the Bometric Data Use related suit.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois asserting
that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in connection
with its collection, use and storage of biometric data of employees
of its clients who are residents of Illinois.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.

In June 2020, the Company reached a settlement of all outstanding
claims against ADP for $25.0 million, In February 2021, the court
granted final approval of the $25.0 million settlement.

The Company does not expect that any of the remaining cases against
ADP's clients will result in any material liabilities to the
Company.

In June 2021, the Company received a $15 million insurance recovery
related to this litigation.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Two Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend two potential class action suits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed
against ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey.

The complaints assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and
investment decision-making.

The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

These claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is
unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss,
with respect to these matters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Transfer of Abdelaziz to Lehigh County Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOURAD ABDELAZIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC, Case
No. 1550 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super.), Judge Jack A. Panella of the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the trial court's July 9,
2020 order granting the preliminary objections of Braun and
transferring the matter to Lehigh County.

In the toxic tort dispute involving a class action, Abdelaziz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated appeals
from the trial court's July 9, 2020 order granting the preliminary
objections of Braun and transferring the matter to Lehigh County
based upon a finding of improper venue. Abdelaziz contends the
trial court erred in determining that Braun did not regularly
conduct business in Philadelphia County as pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
2179, and therefore, that county was not a proper venue for the
matter.

The appeal pertains only to the question of venue. Abdelaziz, a
resident of Lehigh County, brought a class action lawsuit against
Braun, the owner of a manufacturing facility located in Allentown,
Pennsylvania for damages resulting from its purportedly "dangerous
and reckless emission of Ethylene Oxide ('EtO')." Abdelaziz alleges
EtO is a cancer-causing gas, and the Allentown facility uses large
volumes of EtO gas to sterilize medical equipment, which is then
released into the atmosphere. He claims he and the Class live
within the vicinity of the Allentown facility and "have been
exposed to large volumes of toxic, cancer-causing EtO gas."

Mr. Abdelaziz filed a complaint and amended complaint in December
of 2019 and March of 2020, respectively, in Philadelphia County. He
alleged that due to Braun's negligence, he and the Class were
exposed to these dangerous toxic emissions which have placed them
at a significant increased risk of contracting several types of
cancer and seeks relief in the form of a medical monitoring
program.

Braun filed preliminary objections to Abdelaziz's amended
complaint, alleging that venue in Philadelphia County is improper
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1006(e) and 2179
because Braun did not have contacts of sufficient quantity and
quality to constitute the regular conduct of business in that
county. Braun stated that venue lay in Lehigh County and attached
the affidavit of Ron Rogozinski, Braun's vice president of sales
for IT systems, to the pleading.

In his affidavit, Rogozinski averred the following: (1) Braun is a
Pennsylvania corporation with its main offices in Lehigh County;
(2) Braun does not maintain offices or manufacturing facilities in
Philadelphia County; (3) none of Braun's sales representatives
maintain home offices in Philadelphia County; (4) none of its
employees are residents of Philadelphia County; (5) from Jan. 1,
2017 to Dec. 31, 2018, Braun's total sales of its products to end
users in Philadelphia County represented less than 1%
(approximately 0.58%) of its overall sales; and (5) from Jan. 1,
2019 to Dec. 31, 2019, Braun's total sales of its products to end
users in Philadelphia County represented less than 1%
(approximately 0.90%) of its overall sales.

Mr. Abdelaziz filed a brief in opposition to Braun's preliminary
objections, arguing that Braun "engages in business in Philadelphia
County with sufficient quantity, quality and regularity by selling
its products to hospitals and other healthcare providers in
Philadelphia County over the last several years." Moreover,
Abdelaziz asserted that even though Braun's sales percentage total
in Philadelphia County may appear small, Braun "regularly and
persistently" sells its products in the county.

On May 29, 2020, the court entered an order requiring the parties
to submit further briefing on the issue of venue. Specifically, the
court requested additional briefing on Braun's quality and quantity
of acts, stating it was "interested in the amount of sales in
Philadelphia (dollar amount) as compared to the total sales
nationally, also in specific dollar amount." Notably, Braun
redacted the exact dollar amount in its supplemental memorandum
based on confidential and proprietary rights.

On July 9, 2020, the court sustained, in part, Braun's preliminary
objections on venue and transferred the matter to Lehigh County.
Abdelaziz filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on
Aug. 24, 2020. Abdelaziz also filed this timely, interlocutory
appeal.

Although Abdelaziz raises several issues on appeal, they can be
addressed together. The crux of Abdelaziz's argument is that the
trial court erred in finding that the corporation did not regularly
conduct business in Philadelphia County. Abdelaziz contends that
Braun does not dispute the qualitative portion of the analysis,
that its Philadelphia County activity is essential to its
fundamental business objectives. As for the quantitative analysis,
he alleges the court erred by "focusing exclusively on the
numerical result obtained from dividing the supposed total amount
of sales in Philadelphia County by the total amount of sales
nationwide."

Relying on several cases, Abdelaziz states the courts have never
held that the quantity prong "of the regularly conducting business
test should be determined solely by the percentage of revenue
derived from a particular county." Rather, he claims that "only
when a company's business activities in a given county are properly
classified as 'isolated and limited,' consisting of 'from only two
or three sales' per year, has the Court held the quantity prong of
the regularly conducting business test for venue to have been
unsatisfied."

In support of this argument, Abdelaziz asserts that Braun failed to
carry its burden in proving that his venue choice was improper when
it stated that its total sales of its products to end users in
Philadelphia County was less than 1%. He argues Braun did not
address the amount of services, not just products, that it sold in
the county and it failed to define "end user" and clarify if it was
referencing all potential purchasers or just one type of purchaser.
Moreover, he states he was not afforded the opportunity to examine
and refute the only evidence material to the question of venue -- a
complete, unredacted version of Braun's June 2020 supplemental
memorandum that specifies the dollar amount of sales in
Philadelphia as compared to the total sales nationally.

Mr. Abdelaziz also claims the record was "clearly inadequate for
the trial court to transfer venue given the number of factual
disputes, the lack of any venue discovery, and the trial court's
continuing failure to ensure disclosure of the dollar amounts upon
which Braun contended that it does not regularly conduct business
in Philadelphia County." He states "simple venue discovery" would
have allowed the court to make a proper ruling on the issue, and he
requested such action in both his response and supplementary
response to Braun's preliminary objections. Abdelaziz concludes the
court deprived him of the opportunity to create a factual record on
venue by not permitting the parties to conduct discovery when it
issued its July 9, 2020 order.

While the trial court's determination was not based on depositions
or extensive discovery, Judge Panella holds that the record
demonstrates that further discovery would not have altered the
outcome. It is evident the trial court assumed Abdelaziz's
allegations were true but nevertheless found that venue was
improper in Philadelphia County.

Moreover, Judge Panella finds that Abdelaziz generally alludes to
the existence of various issues of material fact but he does not
specifically dispute any of the factual bases of the trial court's
determination, i.e., the residences of the employees and the
location of the facility. Abdelaziz's argument, without more than
bald assertions, does not persuade us to conclude otherwise.

Accordingly, Judge Panella concludes the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in analyzing the venue issue and determining that
Braun lacked sufficient contact with Philadelphia County to
establish venue there. Therefore, Abdelaziz is not entitled to any
relief.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/59mz22xa from Leagle.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Checchia Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN CHECCHIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
210501685, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on August 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03585 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law by improperly assessing multiple non-sufficient
funds fees and/or overdraft on the same check.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association with its
main office located in North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         Tower Two-Sixty
         260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 667-7986
         Facsimile: (412) 667 7970
         E-mail: jshaw@mcguirewoods.com

BARRETT BUSINESS: Kaanaana Suit Remanded to Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services, Inc. (BBSI) said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the class
action suit initiated by David Kaanaana has been remanded to the
Superior Court for any such determination with respect to both the
prevailing wage issue and any additional remedies for the meal
break violations.

On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana, a former staffing employee,
filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the
California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other
employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los
Angeles County.

The trial court ruled in plaintiffs' favor regarding certain
alleged meal breach violations but ruled in favor of BBSI with
respect to the application of the California prevailing wage law to
the District and other claims. These latter rulings were appealed
by the plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeal.

On November 30, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Second
Appellate District returned its decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett
Business Services, Inc., overruling the trial court's decision to
dismiss the prevailing wage claim, ruling that the work in question
at the District constitutes "public works" under the applicable
law, and also ruling that plaintiffs' are entitled to additional
remedies with regard to the meal break violations under California
law.

On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the
California Supreme Court.

On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the
petition to review the Court of Appeal's decision with respect to
the prevailing wage issue.

An amicus brief in support of BBSI's appeal was filed by the
District and certain associations of special districts, cities and
counties in California. Oral argument took place on January 5,
2021.

A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29,
2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the
recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in
question was a "public work" and therefore would be subject to
prevailing wage requirements.

No damages were awarded in the appeals process.

The case has been remanded to Superior Court for any such
determination with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and
any additional remedies for the meal break violations.

Although certain costs from the Kaanaana case are estimable and
accrued, potential liability from the public work determination is
not currently considered estimable and is therefore not accrued.
There is not precedent on how this type of ruling would impact
historical work performed prior to a relevant prevailing wage rate
being established by the California Department of Industrial
Relations. There remain many possible outcomes, including that a
prevailing wage rate could be set considerably higher than actual
wages paid, which totaled approximately $2.2 million, or that
actual wages paid may be determined to be equivalent to prevailing
wages. There may also be other procedural outcomes.

BBSI believes it has the right to recover from the District any
increased costs that may result from the court's past or future
decisions related to prevailing wage requirements, including any
fees and penalties that may be incurred.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., is a provider of business
management solutions, combining human resource outsourcing and
professional management consulting to create a unique operational
platform that differentiates it from competitors.

BAUSCH HEALTH: Catucci Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that Catucci action has
now been dismissed against the Company, its current and former
directors and officers, its underwriters and its insurers.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions
that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been
served on the Company and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined herein.

The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015.

The alleged violations relate to the same matters described in the
U.S. Securities Litigation.

Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action
in the Quebec Superior Court, was discontinued.

In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the
plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec
Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26,
2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating
Class Proceedings.

After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a
settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the
Company's auditors and the action was dismissed as against them.

On August 4, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in Catucci, on behalf of the class, pursuant to
which it agreed to resolve the Catucci action for the amount of CAD
94,000,000 plus payment of an additional amount to cover notice and
settlement administration costs and disbursements.

As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants
admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all
allegations of wrongdoing. Court approval of the settlement was
granted after a hearing on November 16, 2020.

The Catucci action has now been dismissed against the Company, its
current and former directors and officers, its underwriters and its
insurers.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Trial in Glumetza Antitrust Suit to Begin in October
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the court has set a
trial in the In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation which will begin
in October 2021.

Between August 2019 and July 2020, eight putative antitrust class
actions and four (4) non-class complaints naming the Company, Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticalst, Inc., and Santarus,
Inc., among other defendants, were filed or transferred to the
Northern District of California.

Three (3) of the class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to
represent a class of direct purchasers. The purported classes of
direct purchasers filed a consolidated first amended complaint and
a motion for class certification in April 2020. The court certified
a direct purchaser class in August 2020. The putative class action
complaints filed by end payer purchasers have all been voluntarily
dismissed.

Three (3) of the non-class complaints were filed by direct
purchasers. The fourth non-class complaint, asserting claims based
on both direct and indirect purchases, was filed by an insurer
plaintiff in July 2020 and subsequently amended in September 2020.
In December 2020, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
as to the insurer plaintiff's direct claims but dismissed the
insurer plaintiff's indirect claims. On February 2, 2021, the
insurer plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint was
denied.

These actions, five (5) of which remain pending, have been
consolidated and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (the "In re Glumetza
Antitrust Litigation").

The lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation
regarding Glumetza(R) delayed generic entry in exchange for an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza® or
grant any other company a license to do so.

The complaints allege that the settlement agreement resulted in
higher prices for Glumetza(R) and its generic equivalent both prior
to and after generic entry. Both the class and non-class plaintiffs
seek damages under federal antitrust laws for claims based on
direct purchases.

All Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, whereas
defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment as to all
claims.

On May 6, 2021, all summary judgment motions were denied.

On February 8, 2021, the insurer plaintiff filed an action
asserting state law claims in the Superior Court of Alameda County,
California against the Company and others (the "State Court
Action"). Defendants' demurrer to all causes of action in the State
Court Action will be heard on August 25, 2021.

On July 26, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the class plaintiffs' claims for $300 million, subject to a
final settlement agreement and, thereafter, court approval.

The settlement will resolve and discharge all claims against the
Company by members of the class.

On August 1, 2021, the Company also reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the non-class plaintiffs' direct claims,
described above, subject to a final settlement agreement, for
additional consideration.

As part of the settlements in principle, the Company admitted no
liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of
wrongdoing. The opt-out actions of the insurer plaintiff, described
above, remain ongoing.

The court has set a trial in the In re Glumetza Antitrust
Litigation to begin in October 2021.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend
these matters.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BELDEN INC: E.D. Missouri Narrows Claims in MacKey Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIA MacKEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BELDEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-CV-00149-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, granted in part and denied in part Belden's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Belden is a large manufacturer in the electronics industry.
Plaintiff Mackey was a Belden employee from 2019 to 2020. On Dec.
11, 2020, Mackey received a notice from Belden stating that her
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") may have been exposed
in a data breach. The letter indicated that on Nov. 12, 2020,
Belden information technology professionals detected unusual
activity and determined that Belden had been the target of a
sophisticated attack by an outside party ("Data Breach"). A few
days later, Belden learned that the outside party accessed servers
containing certain current and former employees' PII, including but
not limited to social security numbers and bank account
information. Belden offered 24 months of identity theft monitoring
and protection services to the effected individuals.

Weeks after the Data Breach, TurboTax notified Mackey that
individuals had attempted to file a tax return on her behalf using
her social security number. Mackey, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, seeks damages against Belden on
various grounds including negligence, breach of implied contract,
and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims. Belden has moved
to dismiss each of these counts and broadly contends that Mackey
lacks standing.

Legal Standards

I. Choice of Law

Ms. Mackey suggests that Missouri law governs the dispute because
Belden is headquartered in Missouri and the "decisions or actions
that gave rise to the underlying facts at issue .were presumably
made or taken in Missouri." Belden responds that each claim in the
class action requires an individualized choice-of-law analysis, and
Mackey's claims should be governed by the law of her home state of
Indiana.

Judge Ross explains that district courts sitting in diversity apply
the choice-of-law rules of the forum state. Missouri has adopted
the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws and the Court must
accordingly apply the "most significant relationship" test in a
tort action. The test requires consideration of four factors: The
place where the injury occurred; the place where the conduct
causing the injury occurred; the domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; and
the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered.

The Judge holds that the case offers a quintessential example of
when the location of the Plaintiff's injury is fortuitous and the
law of the place where the Defendant's conduct occurred should be
given more weight. Belden is headquartered in Missouri; the Data
Breach occurred in Missouri; the allegedly negligent actions by
Belden resulting in the Data Breach occurred in Missouri. Mackey's
living in Indiana cannot overcome these clear, significant contacts
to Missouri. Applying Missouri law is particularly appropriate
given the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Law's recommendation
that courts broadly consider the "certainty, predictability and
uniformity of result, and ease in the determination and application
of the law to be applied." Because Missouri has the most
significant contacts to the Data Breach despite Mackey residing in
Indiana, the Jude applies Missouri law to Mackey's claims. Belden
should not be surprised by the application of the law of the state
where it is located.

The Judge also finds that Missouri law applies to Mackey's claims
sounding in contract for similar reasons. While the Court has very
limited information regarding the circumstances surrounding the
implied contract alleged by Mackey, the Judge holds that Mackey's
PII was in Belden's control and subject to decisions by Belden in
Missouri, justifying application of Missouri law. See In re Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Sec.

II. Jurisdiction

A. Class Action Fairness Act

Mackey pleads that federal jurisdiction exists pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) ("CAFA").
Under CAFA, federal jurisdiction requires an aggregate amount in
controversy over $5 million and minimal diversity (i.e., one
plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states). CAFA
also recognizes narrow exceptions to this jurisdiction, including
when there are less than 100 proposed plaintiffs.

Judge Ross finds that Mackey has alleged that "there are more than
100 Class members, at least one Class member is a citizen of a
state different from that of Defendant, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs."
Belden has not challenged the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA. At this juncture, the Judge assumes that
these allegations are true and that a reasonable factfinder could
conclude that damages are greater than $5 million. The Court will
continue to assess the presence of jurisdiction in the case as the
factual record develops.

B. Standing

Belden contends that Mackey lacks standing to pursue the action. A
putative class action can proceed as long as one named plaintiff
has standing. A court deciding if subject matter jurisdiction
exists must first distinguish between a facial and factual attack
on jurisdiction. Belden argues that the allegations in Mackey's
First Amended Complaint, taken as true, are insufficient to
establish standing. This is a facial attack on standing, meaning
the Court "restricts itself to the face of the pleadings and the
non-moving party receives the same protections as it would
defending against a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6).

First, Judge Ross finds that injury is clearly imminent where PII
including social security numbers has been stolen by hackers and
unauthorized persons have already attempted to use such information
to falsely file a tax return on a plaintiff's behalf. He also finds
that Mackey suffered actual injury when she spent hours speaking
with TurboTax regarding the false tax return. Mackey suffered
injury in fact by expending time and resources in responding to an
actual attempted identity theft.

Second, the Judge holds that because Mackey has suffered a
concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to Belden's
conduct, standing exists. He finds that Mackey has adequately
proposed actions Belden could have taken to prevent the Data
Breach. Also, Mackey cannot be expected to have access to detailed
information regarding Belden's cybersecurity practices. Instead,
the Court must "presume that general allegations embrace those
specific facts that are necessary to support the claim." If after
discovery Mackey is unable to identify specific actions Belden
should have taken to prevent the Data Breach, Belden may renew this
argument on a motion for summary judgment.

Analysis

As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, Mackey and the potential
Class members were employees of Belden whose PII was stolen from
Belden's servers by sophisticated criminals. Unauthorized
individuals have already used Mackey's hacked social security
number to attempt to file a tax return on her behalf. Judge Ross
finds that Mackey has standing to proceed because she has already
suffered actual injury in fact, is at imminent risk of further
injury, and such injuries are fairly traceable to Belden's
conduct.

The First Amended Complaint seeks to hold Belden responsible for
these injuries under various legal theories. Judge Ross finds that
certain of these claims, such as breach of fiduciary duty, breach
of confidence, and intrusion on seclusion, simply do not apply to
the circumstances at hand under Missouri law.

Ms. Mackey is also not entitled to protection under the IDCSA
because she did not participate in a qualifying consumer
transaction and failed to meet the statute's pleading requirements
for an incurable deceptive act. The Judge finds, however, that
Mackey may potentially recover for Belden's alleged negligence in
failing to protect its systems and for breaching an implied-in-fact
agreement to adequately secure employees' PII. Injunctive relief
may also be appropriate if Mackey can demonstrate that she remains
at risk of further injury.

Therefore, Mackey will be permitted to proceed on her claims of
negligence and breach of implied contract (Counts One and Two)
while seeking the remedy of injunctive relief (Count Seven), among
others.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Ross granted in part and denied in part Belden's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The motion
is granted as to Counts Three, Four, Five, Seven (as to the request
for declaratory relief only), and Eight. The motion is denied in
all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2bjffrf8 from Leagle.com.


BENEFYTT INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Ruling in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Brown Doolittle, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that on Aug. 10, in
line with holdings from the Fifth and DC Circuits, the Ninth
Circuit held in Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 23661
(9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021), that the time to challenge a court's
personal jurisdiction over the claims of absent class members is
when a plaintiff moves to certify a class. Specifically, a divided
panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant did not waive
its personal jurisdiction defense as to the claims of absent class
members by not raising it in its motion to dismiss and instead
waiting to do so until its opposition to the motion for class
certification.

Moser is a TCPA class action. The named plaintiff is a resident of
California, and there is no dispute that the California court has
personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to the named
plaintiff's claims. However, the defendant disputes whether under
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.
Ct. 1773 (2017), the California court can exercise personal
jurisdiction over the claims of non-California putative class
members. It did not, however, raise this objection in its motion to
dismiss; rather, in response to plaintiff's motion for class
certification, the defendant argued that the district court could
not certify nationwide classes because it lacked personal
jurisdiction over the claims of non-California putative class
members. The district court did not address the merits of the
personal jurisdiction objection because it found that the defendant
had waived this defense under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1) by not
raising it in its motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit granted
defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition.

As an initial matter, the majority addressed the Court's
jurisdiction to hear the challenge under Rule 23(f). Rule 23(f)
provides that "[a] court of appeals may permit an appeal from an
order granting or denying class-action certification under this
rule." The dissent argues that Rule 23(f) does not confer appellate
jurisdiction over an exercise of personal jurisdiction; Rule 23(f)
"appeals are limited to those issues that bear on the soundness of
the class certification decision." The majority found, however,
that the district court's decision on the personal jurisdiction
defense did go to the question of whether the Rule 23 requirements
could be met for the nationwide classes. Specifically, the
"defendant maintained that nationwide classes could not be
certified because the district court lacked personal jurisdiction
over the claims of non-California class members. The personal
jurisdiction and waiver questions thus go directly to the scope of
the classes that the district court certified." The majority thus
concluded that the district court's finding that the defendant
waived the personal jurisdiction defense as to the claims of absent
class members did fall within the scope of Rule 23(f) and proceeded
to address the merits of the appeal.

Relying on the Fifth Circuit's decision in Cruson v. Jackson Nat'l
Life Ins. Co., 954 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2020), and the D.C. Circuit's
decision in Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, 952 F.3d 293 (D.C.
Cir. 2020), the majority quickly dispatched with the waiver issue,
finding that the personal jurisdiction defense for absent class
members was not "available" at the Rule 12 stage because "a class
action, when filed, includes only the claims of the named
plaintiff." Thus, the majority found that the defense only became
available when plaintiff moved to certify the classes. "To conclude
otherwise would be to enforce ‘ the novel and surely erroneous
argument that a non-named class member is a party to the
class-action litigation before the class is certified."

The good news is that the defendant won a battle here - the Ninth
Circuit vacated the class certification order (which is always a
good thing) and remanded the case back to the district court to
address the merits of the defendant's personal jurisdiction
objection. But now, the fight to win the war begins, which is
convincing the district court that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) applies to
class actions. Stay tuned. [GN]


BERRY CORP: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Torres Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to apppoint
lead plaintiff filed in the putative class action suit initiated by
Luis Torres, is pending.

On November 20, 2020, Luis Torres, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
against Berry Corp. and certain of its current and former directors
and officers.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements during the Class Period and in the offering materials
for the initial public offering (IPO), concerning the Company's
business, operational efficiency and stability, and compliance
policies, that artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value
of Berry Corp.'s common stock declined following release of its
financial results for the third quarter of 2020. The complaint does
not quantify the alleged losses but seeks to recover all damages
sustained by the putative class as a result of these alleged
securities violations, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 21, 2021, motions were filed in the Torres Lawsuit as
plaintiffs sought to be appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.


Berry said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may result from this action."

Berry Corporation operates as an upstream energy company. The
Company engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and
production of oil and natural gas reserves. Berry serves customers
throughout the United States. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.


BLOOMEFFECTS INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomeffects, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Bloomeffects, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04595 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2021).

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

Bloomeffects -- https://bloomeffects.com/ -- offers natural
botanical skincare products that are paraben-free, sulfate-free,
cruelty-free & fragrance-free.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BWW RESOURCES: Faces Devore Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BWW Resources, LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as Ryan Devore vs. BWW Resources, LLC,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00304976-CU-OE-GDS (Calif.
Super., Sacramento Cty., July 27, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

The Defendants include Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation; BWW Resources, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; Does 1-20;
and Inspire Brands, Inc., a Georgia Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Brian Del Castillo, Esq.
          Castle Law: CA Employment Counsel, PC
          2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
          Roseville, CA 95661-4219
          Telephone: (916) 245-0122
          E-mail: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com

CAL CENTRAL: Faces de la Riva Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cal Central
Harvesting, Inc. The case is captioned as LUIS DE LA RIVA,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC
SIMILARLY SITUATED vs. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC., Case No.
BCV-21-101736 (Calif. Super., Kern Cty., July 28, 2021),

The suit is brought over employment-related issues.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.

A case management conference will be held on Jan. 26, 2022.

Cal Central operates in the crop harvesting business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave Ste 203, Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

CAPCON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO TORRES, OSCAR MARTINEZ, SERGIO MORALES, and JESUS SALVADOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CAPCON CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES CORP. and AGRA MASONRY
INC. and DARREN K. CAPUTO, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-06771
(S.D.N.Y., August 11, 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 overtime wages, failure
to comply with recordkeeping requirements, and failure to furnish
accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at any time between
2015 and 2020. Their primary duties were performing masonry work
and other related miscellaneous duties at various project sites
located in New York.

Capcon Construction Industries Corp. is a construction firm
headquartered in New York.

Agra Masonry Inc. is a construction firm headquartered in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

CATHAY PACIFIC: Jan. 31, 2022 Deadline to File Class Cert. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINIFREDO HERRERA and
MACARIA HERRERA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD., a Foreign Corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03019-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and
ask the Court to enter an order setting the following dates and
deadlines:

   -- Class Certification Discovery Cutoff:    Nov. 9, 2021

   -- Class Certification Expert Disclosure:   Nov. 23, 2021

   -- Class Certification Expert Rebuttal:     Dec. 14, 2021

   -- Class Certification Expert               Jan. 4, 2022
      Discovery Cutoff:

   -- Deadline to File Class                   Jan. 31, 2022
      Certification Motion:

   -- Deadline to File Opposition to           Mar. 1, 2022
      Class Certification Motion:

   -- Deadline to File Reply to Class          Mar. 15, 2022
      Certification Motion:

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited operates scheduled airline
services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2W1pbsS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated,
are:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Ave.
          Detroit, MH 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ ldclassaction.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin R. Sutherland, Esq.
          Benedict E. Idemundia, Esq.
          Brandon K. Franklin, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO US LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 365-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 365-9801
          E-mail: kevin.sutherland@clydeco.us
                  benedict.idemundia@clydeco.us
                  brandon.franklin@clydeco.us

               - and -

          Christopher Carlsen, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO US LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 710-3900
          Facsimile: (212) 710-3950
          E-mail: christopher.carlsen@clydeco.us

CC-PALO ALTO: Court Certifies Class of Vi Residents in Cork Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA COLLINS CORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v CC-PALO
ALTO, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Linda Collins Cork, Georgia L. May, Thomas Merigan, and
Janice R. Anderson bring the suit individually, and on behalf of a
proposed class, against CC-Palo Alto, Inc. ("CC-PA"),
CC-Development Group, Inc. ("CC-DG"), and Classic Residence
Management Limited Partnership ("CRMLP").

The Plaintiffs are residents of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community ("CCRC") known as the Vi at Palo Alto. To live at the Vi,
residents enter into a nonnegotiable continuing care contract with
CC-PA referred to as a "Refundable Residency Contract." Pursuant to
the Residency Contract, residents agree to "loan" CC-PA money in
the form of an "Entrance Fee," the terms of which are stated in a
nonnegotiable "Entrance Fee Note." The Entrance Fees made to CC-PA
can range from several hundred thousand to several million
dollars.

CC-PA requires a percentage of the loan to be "forfeited" to CC-PA
over the first 10 months of the resident's occupancy. The remainder
of the loan is repayable or refundable to residents. The Vi
regularly used the term "refundable" and "refund" when explaining
to prospective residents and residents that they would be repaid
most of their Entrance Fees, and portrayed the Entrance Fees as
secure. In addition to the one-time Entrance Fee, each resident is
required to pay monthly fees.

A Residency Contract terminates upon the resident's decision to
leave the Vi Community or at death. CC-PA unconditionally agreed
that upon termination of the Residency Contract, it will repay the
Entrance Fee at the earlier of (a) 14 days after resale of the
resident's unit or (b) 10 years after termination.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Residency Contract and Entrance Fee
Note together constitute a "refundable contract" within the meaning
of California law governing CCRCs ("CCRC Law"), specifically Health
and Safety Code Section 1771(r)(2), and therefore CC-PA, a
statutorily defined "provider," was required to maintain a refund
reserve pursuant to Sections 1792.6(a) and 1793(a).

The Defendants acknowledged a reserve requirement in their
marketing materials. Nevertheless, CC-PA failed to maintain
reserves and instead, transferred funds to CC-DG without ever
informing Plaintiffs of its intention to do so. CC-PA never
disclosed to Plaintiffs that it did not maintain reserves in trust,
and this failure to disclose allegedly constitutes a violation of
Health & Safety Code Section 1793(f). As a result of the
upstreaming, CC-PA is financially incapable of honoring all debts
to the Plaintiffs. CC-DG denies any responsibility to repay
Entrance Fees or return upstreamed money to CC-PA.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of four claims for relief: (1)
financial abuse of elders under Welfare & Institutions Code Section
15610.30; (2) unlawful and unfair business practices in violation
of Business and Professions Code Section 17200; (3) declaratory
relief with respect to compliance with Health and Safety Code
Sections 1771(r)(2), 1792.6 and 1793(f); and (4) fraudulent
transfer of assets in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act as codified by Delaware Code, Title 6, Section 1304(a) and
Civil Code Section 3439.04.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class of
similarly situated individuals: "All current and former residents
of the Vi at Palo Alto who entered into a residency contract which
states that some portion of the entrance fee is repayable at the
earlier of resale of the unit or ten (10) years after termination
of the contract; and where the repayable portion of the entrance
fee has not yet been repaid."

Discussion

A. Rule 23(a) Requirements

The Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, typicality, and adequacy
are readily satisfied in the case, and the Defendants do not
contend otherwise. The Plaintiffs estimate that there are
approximately 270 individual class members, which is more than
enough to establish numerosity.

As to typicality, Judge Davila holds that the claims arise from the
same course of events. The crux of the suit is CC-PA's alleged
failure to maintain reserves in violation of Health & Safety Code
Section 1792.6. The Plaintiffs and the class members allegedly were
uniformly harmed by the failure to maintain reserves because they
were put "in the distressing position of choosing between vacating
the Vi and potentially risking non-repayment, or continuing to live
at the Vi in a state of perceived financial insecurity." Thus, the
typicality requirement is satisfied.

With respect to adequacy of representation, adequate representation
is usually presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. The
Defendants have not presented any evidence to rebut the
presumption. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the adequacy of
representation requirement is satisfied.

The only Rule 23 requirement at issue is commonality. According to
the Defendants, the claims do not present common questions of law
or fact. More specifically, they argue that commonality is not
satisfied because: (1) Health & Safety Code Section 1771(r)(3)
requires individualized proof; (2) Plaintiffs lack evidence that
the Defendants referred to the Entrance Fee repayment obligation as
a "refund"; and (3) the class members had prior notice of the
transfers between CC-PA and CC-DG.

Judge Davila holds that the Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive
because they are based on an erroneous premise -- that the
Plaintiffs' suit relies exclusively on Health & Safety Code Section
1771(r)(3). It does not. The Plaintiffs' claims are premised
primarily on allegations that the Residency Contracts are
"refundable" under Sections 1771(r)(2). To the extent the
Defendants may be suggesting it does not, they are mistaken. The
Plaintiffs have consistently relied on Section 1771(r)(2) as a
basis for their claims, including the UCL claims. The applicability
of Sections 1771(r)(2) and 1792.6 is capable of classwide
resolution, and the Defendants do not contend Section 1771(r)(3)
raises common questions under Rule 23(a)(2).

B. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirement

Rule 23(b)(2) applies when a single, indivisible remedy would
provide relief to each class member. In the case, the Plaintiffs
seek injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the proposed
class as a whole. Among other things, they seek a declaration that
the Residency Contracts are refundable within the meaning of the
Health and Safety Code. They also seek a constructive trust decree.
Further, the Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring CC-PA
to create and maintain a reserve in trust for the benefit of the
class and requiring CC-DG to return funds so that they may be
maintained in reserve. These types of remedies are uniformly
available to all proposed class members if the Plaintiffs prevail
on their claims.

The Defendants' sole argument against certification under Rule
23(b)(2) is that "whether the Residency Contracts under Section
1771(r)(3) are repayable or refundable is not something that can be
determined on a class wide basis."

As discussed previously, however, Judge Davila holds that the
Plaintiffs rely primarily upon Section 1771(r)(2). He finds that
Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied.

C. Rule 23(b)(3)

The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement is satisfied when common
questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be
resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication. The
case presents a common, core question: Whether CC-PA has a
statutory duty to maintain a refund reserve -- by applying Section
1771. And as discussed previously, the individualized issues, to
the extent they exist, do not preclude class certification.

The Defendants contend, however, that a class cannot be certified
under 23(b)(3) because there are no damages. In response, the
Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to damages, but they make
no attempt to show that damages are capable of measurement on a
classwide basis. Absent such a showing, the predominance
requirement cannot be satisfied. For this reason, the Plaintiffs
have not made any attempt to show that damages are capable of
measurement on a class-wide basis. Therefore, the predominance
requirement for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) has not been
satisfied.

Conclusion

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Davila granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2).  He
denied the motion in all other respects. The parties are directed
to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the case, and if
possible, submit a stipulation and order. In the event the parties
are unable to reach an agreement, the parties will file a joint
statement explaining their respective positions no later than Aug.
20, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/shhdc52r from Leagle.com.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Sultanis Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, PATRICIA SULTANIS, Plaintiff v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA
INC., et al., Defendants; and PATRICIA SULTANIS, Plaintiff v.
CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
21-cv-00162-EMC, 21-cv-00167-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an order granting in part and denying in part:

   (i) Defendants Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion
       Petfoods LP's motions to dismiss Plaintiff Sultanis' class
       action complaints in Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods USA,
       Inc. et al, No. 3:21-cv-00162-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 8,
       2021) ("Poultry Action") and Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods
       USA, Inc. et al, No. 3:21-cv-00167-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed
       Jan. 8, 2021) ("Fish Action") pursuant to Federal Rules of
       Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6); and

  (ii) Champion's motion to strike the nationwide and multi-state
       class allegations from both complaints.

Ms. Sultanis is a resident of Walnut Creek, California. She
purchased Champion's Acana brand petfood marketed and labeled as
being made with "free-run" poultry and "wild-caught" fish
("Products") for the four years preceding the filing of her
complaint, and most recently on July 24, 2017.

Ms. Sultanis alleges that the poultry Products were marketed with
statements that included "made with fresh free-run chicken, turkey,
& cage free eggs." The poultry Products also used chicken icons
with the descriptor "free-run chicken," and depicted chickens
outdoors on grass. Similarly, the Champion website states that
"raised under the highest standards for animal care and food safety
by people we know and trust, on family-run American farms, our
free-run poultry and cage-free eggs are nourishing, natural, and
antibiotic free." The website also describes Champion's chicken
supplier as "Todd of Clark Farms in Lexington, Kentucky," even
though the person depicted alongside that statement is in fact Greg
Hefton of Tyson Foods.

Based on these statements, Ms. Sultanis alleges she -- and other
"reasonable consumers" -- expected the poultry Products were made
with chickens "raised in better, more humane conditions than
typical chickens grown for meat," and that "have access to the
outdoors." She also alleges that "to reasonable consumers
'free-run' is synonymous with 'free range.'"

Ms. Sultanis also alleges that the fish Products are marketed with
statements on the package that included "ACANA Grasslands is
brimming with wild-caught rainbow trout" or "brimming with
wild-caught fish." The packaging also depicts a fisherman next to
what looks like a fresh body of water with the caption "trusted
supplier of fresh wild-caught fish." Similarly, the Champion
website states that "ACANA Freshwater Fish is packed with whole,
wild-caught rainbow trout" and that "Champion's saltwater fish are
sustainable and wild-caught from New England's cold and fertile
waters, and their freshwater fish from American waters--all whisked
to their DogStar Kitchen fresh or raw." Champion also allegedly
describes its products on the Petco and Amazon websites as having
"wild-caught rainbow trout."

Based on these statements, Ms. Sultanis alleges she purchased the
products believing they were made with wild-caught fish. According
to Ms. Sultanis, however, the fish Products are actually made with
"rainbow trout from industrial fish farms" in Idaho and "do not use
wild-caught fish." In fact, she points out that Champion was sued
by Animal Equality, which commissioned laboratory tests that
revealed the fish Products tested positive for ethoxyquin, a
chemical that is only found in farmed fish, not wild-caught fish.
Therefore, Ms. Sultanis contends that she and the putative class
members she seeks to represent were "harmed by purchasing the fish
Products under false pretenses and paying more for them than they
otherwise would have, if they would have purchased them at all."

Ms. Sultanis brings these actions on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals nationwide ("Nationwide
Class"), in 13 states ("Multi-State Class"), and in California
("California Sub-Class"). She brings claims for violations of the
individual states' consumer fraud acts on behalf of the Multi-State
Class (Count 1); breach of express warranty on behalf of the
California Sub-Class, Poultry Compl. paragraphs 83-89 (Count 2);
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1761, on behalf of the California Sub-Class
(Count 3); violations of the California False Advertising Law
(FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, on behalf of the
California Sub-Class (Count 4); and California Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, on behalf of the
California Sub-Class (Count 5). Ms. Sultanis also brings an unjust
enrichment claim on behalf of the Nationwide Class and the
California Sub-Class in the Poultry Action (Count 6).

Ms. Sultanis filed both complaints on Jan. 8, 2021. On March 19,
2021, Champion filed the pending motions to dismiss the
complaints.

Discussion

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Over Ms.
Sultanis' Claims on Behalf of the Multi-State and Nationwide
Classes (Counts 1 and 6)

The only non-California claims in Ms. Sultanis' complaints are for
violations of the state consumer fraud acts of the 13 states in the
Multi-State Class (Count 1 in both actions) and for unjust
enrichment on behalf of the Nationwide Class (Count 6 in the
Poultry Action). Champion argues that Ms. Sultanis lacks standing
to pursue these non-California claims because she only purchased
cat food in California.

Judge Chen concludes that, in the instant case, the substantial
variations in the consumer protection laws in the 13 states at
issue "underscore the problematic nature of the request that Ms.
Sultanis singularly be appointed to be the named representative of"
the Nationwide and Multi-State Classes. Therefore, the Judge
exercises his discretion to hold that Ms. Sultanis, on this record,
cannot represent unnamed class members in states outside of
California." To be clear, the Judge reaches this conclusion under
Rule 23, not Article III. Accordingly, he grants Champion's motion
to dismiss Ms. Sultanis' claims on behalf of the Multi-State Class
under Count 1 in both actions and on behalf of the Nationwide Class
under Count 6 in the Poultry Action.

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL Fraud Prong

The FAL and CLRA prohibit false or misleading advertising. A
violation of the FAL or the CLRA is also a violation of the fraud
prong of the UCL. Ms. Sultanis does not dispute that her causes of
action under the FAL, the CLRA, and the fraud prong of the UCL rise
or fall together.

1. False or Misleading

Under the FAL, CLRA, and the fraud prong of the UCL, conduct is
considered deceptive or misleading if the conduct is "likely to
deceive" a "reasonable consumer."

a. Poultry Action

In the Poultry Action, Judge Chen finds that Ms. Sultanis plausibly
alleges claims under the FAL, CLRA, and the fraud prong of the UCL
because the statement "made with free-run chicken" is not false or
misleading. The term "free-run," on its own, could reasonably be
read to imply that the chickens used to make the Products can
freely run outside, especially because the Products' label also
depicts chicken running freely on a spacious, grassy, and outdoor
field without any disclaimer that those are not the chickens used
to make the Products. Ms. Sultanis has therefore plausibly alleged
with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) that the statement
"made with free-run chicken" is false or misleading.

b. Fish Action

Champion argues that the statement "brimming with wild-caught fish"
is not false or misleading because the fish Products contain
wild-caught catfish and white perch, even though they also contain
farmed rainbow trout. In fact, it points out that the photos of
fishermen in fresh-water lakes, one of whom is holding a
wild-caught catfish, are photos of the Kentucky fishermen who
supply Champion with wild-caught catfish and white perch used.
Considering these disclaimers, Champion urges the Court to dispense
of Ms. Sultanis's CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims to the extent they are
based on the statement "brimming with wild-caught fish," because
that statement is not false or misleading.

Judge Chen finds several problems with the argument. First, the
Ninth Circuit has instructed lower courts that "reasonable
consumers should not be expected to look beyond misleading
representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from
the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box." Second,
even assuming a reasonable consumer read the disclaimers identified
by Champion, "it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that the
substance of the disclaimer would be sufficient to disabuse the
consumer of any misconceptions engendered by the brimming with
wild-caught fish representation. Third, the fact that the Products
contain some wild-caught fish does not mean that the statement
"brimming with wild-caught fish" is not misleading. The statements
do not need to use qualifiers like "all" or "100%" in its
representations in order. Finally, Champion acknowledges in its
motion that at least one of the statements identified by Ms.
Sultanis in the fish complaint, "admittedly (and inadvertently)
misstated that it contained wild-caught rainbow trout."

Ms. Sultanis has, therefore, plausibly alleged with sufficient
particularity under Rule 9(b) that the statements "brimming with
wild-caught fish" and "brimming with wild-caught rainbow trout" are
either false or misleading. Judge Chen therefore concludes that Ms.
Sultanis has plausibly pled reasonable reliance with sufficient
particularity under Rule 9(b).

Like the poultry complaint, the fish complaint also alleges that
Ms. Sultanis purchased the ACANA Meadowland Regional Formula Grain
Free Dry Cat & Kitten Food on July 24, 2017 on Chewy.com, after
reviewing the "wild-caught fish" and "wild-caught rainbow trout"
statements "as stated on the packaging and in Champion's marketing
and advertising materials described." It also states that she
purchased the Products believing these statements to be true, and
that she would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid
less for the Products, had she known that they were made with
farmed fish.

Unlike the poultry complaint, however, these allegations are
insufficient to plead reliance with sufficient particularity under
Rule 9(b), Judge Chen holds. The problem with these allegations is
that Ms. Sultanis now admits that she did not in fact review, let
alone rely upon, the statements on Champion's, Amazon's, or PetCo's
websites stating that the products were "brimming with wild-caught
rainbow trout." Unlike in the Poultry Action, where the package had
no competing language contextualizing the "made with free-run
chicken" statement, the misleading "brimming with wild-caught fish"
statement in the Fish Action was potentially cured by the
disclaimers. Ms. Sultanis does not allege, for instance, whether
she read the disclaimers and did not understand them to mean that
only the trout was wild caught, or that she did not read them at
all because they were too small or inconspicuous.

The Judge, therefore, grants Champion's motion to dismiss Ms.
Sultanis' Counts 3 (CLRA), 4 (FAL), and 5 (UCL) in the Fish Action
with leave for her to add, with sufficient particularity to satisfy
Rule 9(b), what statements on the Products' packaging she actually
saw, relied upon, and understood.

C. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Breach of Express Warranty
Claims

Judge Chen denies Champion's motions to dismiss Ms. Sultanis'
express warranty claims in both actions because they are predicated
on the same unavailing arguments that the "free-run chicken" and
"wild-caught fish/rainbow trout" statements are neither false nor
misleading.

D. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claim in
Poultry Action

The Judge denies Champion's motion to dismiss Ms. Sultanis' unjust
enrichment claim (Count 6) in the Poultry Action because it is
predicated on the same unavailing arguments that the "free-run
chicken" statement is neither false nor misleading under the CLRA,
FAL, or UCL.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen grants in part and denies in
part Champion's motions to dismiss as follows:

     a. Ms. Sultanis' claims on behalf of the Nationwide Class
under Count 6 of the Poultry Action are dismissed without leave to
amend.

     b. Ms. Sultanis's claims on behalf of the Multi-State Class
under Count 1 of both Actions are dismissed with leave to amend. If
Ms. Sultanis amends her complaint to add similarly situated named
plaintiffs in some or all of the states currently comprising the
Multi-State Class and survives a further motion to dismiss, class
certification would not be decided until a formal motion is filed
under Rule 23, the Court would then examine, inter alia, issues of
manageability.

     c. Ms. Sultanis' claims on behalf of herself and the
California Sub-Class under Counts 3 (CLRA), 4 (FAL), and 5 (UCL) in
the Fish Action are dismissed for failure to state a claim with
leave to amend.

     d. The motions are denied as to all other counts.

Ms. Sultanis is instructed to file any amended complaint no later
than 30 days after the date of the Order. The Order disposes of
Docket No. 24 in the Poultry Action (C-21-0162 EMC) and Docket No.
21 in the Fish Action (C-21-0167 EMC).

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hajwd9tr from Leagle.com.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Recording Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Charter Communications Inc. was hit with a
proposed class action accusing the company of recording California
residents' inbound and outbound telephone calls without their
consent, violating the state's all-party consent law. [GN]

CHUY'S OPCO: Ruiz Sues Over Assistant Kitchen Managers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMIGDIO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHUY'S OPCO, INC. and CHUY'S HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00696 (W.D. Tex., August 11, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated assistant kitchen managers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an assistant kitchen
manager at the Chuy's restaurants in Fort Worth, Texas and Dallas,
Texas from July 2019 to May 2021.

Chuy's Opco, Inc. is an operator of a chain of Tex-Mex restaurants
known as Chuy's, located in Austin, Texas.

Chuy's Holdings, Inc. is an operator of a chain of Tex-Mex
restaurants known as Chuy's, located in Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
         4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 523-0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
         E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Smith Suit Alleges Improper Bank Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORPORATION
and CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-01397-MWB (M.D. Pa., August 11, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law and the common law.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful banking
practices of charging improper fees as a result of counting
inconvenient transfers from their customers' savings accounts
toward the transaction limit. Once the Defendants' customers exceed
the transaction limit on their savings accounts, the Defendants
charge them a $2.00 fee for each additional transaction, including
charging customers for inconvenient transactions, which pursuant to
federal regulations should be unlimited. As such, the Defendants
unlawfully profit at the expense of their customers, says the
suit.

Citizens & Northern Corporation is a bank holding company,
headquartered in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.

Citizens & Northern Bank is a bank holding company, headquartered
in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
         Beth A. Frederick, Esq.
         FREDERICK LAW GROUP, PLLC
         836 Philadelphia Street
         Indiana, PA 15701
         Telephone: (724) 471-2056
         Facsimile: (724) 801-8358
         E-mail: TMF@FrederickLG.com
                 BAF@FrederickLG.com

                 - and –

         Keith T. Vernon, Esq.
         Andrew W. Knox, Esq.
         Kathleen M. Vermilion, Esq.
         TIMONEY KNOX, LLP
         400 Maryland Drive
         Fort Washington, PA 19034
         Telephone: (215) 646-6000
         Facsimile: (215) 591-8246
         E-mail: kvernon@timoneyknox.com
                 aknox@timoneyknox.com
                 kvermilion@timoneyknox.com

                 - and –

         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (610) 453-6551
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

CITY OF SYRACUSE: Hanks Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Syracuse, et
al. The case is styled as Brandon Hanks, and other similarly
situated individuals v. City of Syracuse; Kenton Buckner, Deputy
Chief Richard Trudell, Deputy Chief Joseph Cecile, Captain Timothy
Gay, Colin Hillman, Derek Mcgork, William Kittell, Anothony
Fiorini, David Metz, Shawn Hauck, Susan Izzo, Ann Clark, Brandon
Fougnier, in their individual capacities; Does 1-100; Case No.
5:21-cv-00921-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Syracuse -- http://www.syrgov.net/-- is a city in New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
          Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
          475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 211
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Phone: (415) 331-3070
          Fax: (415) 331-2738
          Email: cabral@bonnerlaw.com
                 cbonner799@aol.com

               - and -

          Jesse P. Ryder, Esq.
          RYDER LAW FIRM
          6739 Myers Road
          East Syracuse, NY 13257
          Phone: (315) 382-3617
          Fax: (315) 295-2502
          Email: ryderlawfirm@gmail.com


COINBASE GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, a boutique class action law firm known
nationwide to recover investor losses filed a securities class
action against Coinbase Global, Inc., and certain officers and
directors to recover losses for shareholders who bought stock in
the IPO or soon thereafter. The lawsuit is focused on alleged
misrepresentations about the Company's trading platform and the
reliability of the platform.

Investors and persons who have information or want to learn about
the lawsuit can contact Federman & Sherwood by emailing
lbm@federmanlaw.com or by visiting our firm's website at
www.federmanlaw.com. [GN]



COINBASE GLOBAL: SEC Filings Lack Business Info, Catterlin Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CATTERLIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., BRIAN ARMSTRONG,
SUROJIT CHATTERJEE, PAUL GREWAL, ALESIA HAAS, MARC ANDREESSEN,
FREDERICK ERNEST EHRSAM III, KATHRYN HAUN, KELLY KRAMER, GOKUL
RAJARAM, FRED WILSON, AH CAPITAL, LLC, PARADIGM FUND LP, RIBBIT
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, TIGER GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, UNION SQUARE
VENTURES, LLC, and VISERION INVESTMENT PTE LTD, Case No.
3:21-cv-06149 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Coinbase Class A common stock pursuant to Coinbase's
registration statements and prospectus filed with the SEC for the
sale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common stock
pursuant to Coinbase's initial public offering ("IPO") of stock on
April 14, 2021.

The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

In its filed registration statements, Coinbase claims that it is
building a "fair, accessible, efficient, and transparent financial
system for the internet age that leverages crypto assets," and that
its "trusted platform" has enabled "anyone with an internet
connection to easily and securely invest in and use crypto
assets."

Coinbase represents that its platform serves "43 million retail
users, 7,000 institutions, and 115,000 ecosystem partners in over
100 countries" and that its platform are "safe, trusted, and
easy-to-use," "built on top of a robust security infrastructure,"
and boasts "a state of the art marketplace with a deep pool of
liquidity for transacting in crypto assets."

Coinbase launched its IPO on April 14, 2020 and filed its
prospectus on SEC Form 424B4. 5 The filings indicated that Coinbase
registered for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its Class
A common stock by its registered stockholders. Unlike a traditional
IPO, the sale of Coinbase's stock by its registered stockholders
was not underwritten by an investment bank, and its registered
stockholders had the latitude to determine the amount of stock they
wished to sell at prevailing market prices made through brokerage
transactions on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("NASDAQ").

From May 17, 2021, when Coinbase disclosed that it was raising cash
through the sale of convertible bonds, to May 19, 2021, when
Coinbase acknowledged technical difficulties in their platform, its
stock price fell by $23.44 to close at $224.80, a loss of about
10%, in just two trading days. For context of the significant
nature of the decline, Coinbase's stock opened at $381 on the day
of its IPO on April 14, 2021, says the suit.

Coinbase's filings with the SEC were allegedly false and
misleading, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Coinbase's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors Coinbase's platform had
fundamental weaknesses that caused it to be susceptible to network
disruptions, added the suit.

The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Because of Defendants' alleged wrongful material acts,
representations, and omissions, and the rapid loss of Coinbase's
stock value, the Plaintiff and other Class members similarly
situated suffered significant losses and damages.

Mr. Catterlin purchased Coinbase Common Class A stock during the
class period pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
statements issued in connection with Coinbase's IPO, and suffered
damages as a result of violations of federal securities laws due to
alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions.

Coinbase is a cryptocurrency exchange that offers a platform for
the trading of digital currencies and assets. The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

COLLIER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sabatoni Employment in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collier International
Real Estate Management Services (CA), Inc., et al. The case is
captioned as Alexander Sabatoni v. Collier International Real
Estate Management Services (CA), Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 34-2021-00305011-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
July 27, 2021),

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

Colliers is a commercial real estate brokerage professional
services and investment management company for landlords, tenants,
and investors.

The Defendants include CI REMS CA, Inc., an unknown business
entity; Collier International Real Estate Management Services (CA),
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc.,
an unknown business entity; and Does 1-100.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave Ste 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Judge Tosses Policyholder's Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Illinois federal judge on Aug. 11 tossed
Park Place Hospitality LLC's proposed class action seeking
pandemic-related loss coverage from Continental Insurance co.,
saying the policyholder failed to show how the coronavirus or
government orders physically changed its property as required by
the policy. Park Place is a Hilton Garden Inn owner. [GN]

CORE-MARK HOLDING: Walker Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC., STUART W.
BOOTH, ROCKY DEWBRE, LAURA FLANAGAN, ROBERT G. GROSS, SCOTT E.
MCPHERSON, DIANE RANDOLPH, HARVEY L. TEPNER, and ROSEMARY TURNER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06469 (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to recommend that Core-Mark stockholders
vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of Core-Mark by
Performance Food Group Company (PFG). The proxy statement allegedly
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things, the financial projections for Core-Mark and PFG, and the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by Core-Mark's financial
advisor, Barclays Capital Inc. Core-Mark's public stockholders will
be irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed
transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured, says the suit.

Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. is a marketer of fresh, food and
broad-line supply solutions to the convenience retail industry in
North America, with its principal executive office located at 1500
Solana Boulevard, Suite 3400 Westlake, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 208-2800
         Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
         E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and –

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

COTY INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Garrett-Evans Complaint Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL GARRETT-EVANS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COTY INC., LAMBERTUS
"BART" BECHT, CAMILLO PANE, PIERRE LAUBIES, PATRICE DE TALHOUËT,
AND PIERRE-ANDRE TERISSE, Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 7277 (LLS)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Lead Plaintiff Susan Nock's Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's Amended
Class Action Complaint ("AC") is brought under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

Defendant Coty, a beauty product company, acquired Procter & Gamble
("P&G")'s beauty business in October 2016. Coty struggled to
integrate P&G's consumer beauty brands, and its business suffered
over the next three years. In February 2019 the company recorded a
nearly $1 billion impairment of the value of its goodwill and
intangible assets primarily attributable to its consumer beauty
division. In July 2019 Coty recorded another consumer
beauty-related impairment of nearly $3 billion.

Garrett-Evans filed the case in September 2020. In January 2021,
after being appointed Lead Plaintiff, Nock filed the AC, which
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t-1, and Rule 10b-5, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, by making statements about the
acquisition and integration of the P&G businesses in Coty's
earnings calls and SEC filings that omitted material facts
necessary to make those statements not misleading.

The alleged omissions fall into three categories:

      (1) Coty's integration of the P&G brands suffered from
"pervasive and continuing" issues because Coty was not equipped to
successfully integrate the P&G business and deliver anticipated
synergies;

      (2) Coty was not prepared to capitalize on the acquisition
because its marketing and sales strategies and platforms were
inadequate, outdated, and underfunded; and

      (3) the Defendants knew, before July 1, 2019, that the
company would need to take the full nearly $4 billion impairment,
and Coty's failure to timely take that impairment violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and caused Coty
to understate operating and net loss and overstate goodwill and
intangible assets on its balance sheet.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the AC, arguing that the
Plaintiffs fail to allege actionable omissions and scienter.

Discussion

Judge Stanton explains that a complaint alleging a violation of
Section 10(b) must "state with particularity facts giving rise to a
strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state
of mind." The plaintiff may satisfy this requirement by alleging
facts (1) showing that the defendants had both motive and
opportunity to commit the fraud or (2) constituting strong
circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.
Moreover, in determining whether the pleaded facts give rise to a
'strong' inference of scienter, the court must take into account
plausible opposing inferences. For an inference of scienter to be
strong, a reasonable person must deem it cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts
alleged.

A. The Integration Omissions

Nock alleges that, when making statements about Coty's integration
of the P&G businesses in its earnings calls and SEC filings between
November 2016 and May 2019, the Defendants:

      (a) Failed to disclose that Coty did not have adequate
infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty
business that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply
chain, and that Coty would not be able to successfully integrate
and deliver synergies from the acquisition;

     (b) Having discussed positively the integration of P&G,
including we are making good progress, Defendants were duty bound
to disclose that integration issues existed, including supply chain
issues, that they were pervasive and continuing, and not
short-term; and

     (c) Having discussed generally the risk that there may be
challenges as we integrate and rebuild the businesses, Defendants
were duty bound to disclose that integration issues had already
arisen before Nov. 9, 2016, as the Defendants admitted in Feb. of
2017.

The Defendants, however, began disclosing extant
integration-related issues on Nov. 9, 2016, Juduge Stanton finds.
For instance, in Coty's Nov. 9, 2016 10-Q, Coty increased its
expectation of the transaction's costs by $800 million. The Judge
holds that Nock alleges no specific omission that makes the
Defendants' statements about Coty's integration of the P&G
businesses false or misleading. The Plaintiffs consistently updated
investors with integration-related problems and the negative
financial effects those problems were having on the overall
business. Accordingly, Nock has failed to plausibly allege the
integration omissions.

B. The Marketing and Sales Statements

Nock also alleges that, when making statements about Coty improving
its digital and e-commerce marketing and sales capabilities in its
earnings calls and SEC filings throughout the class period between
November 2016 and May 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose that
Coty was not in position to capitalize on the new brands it
acquired in the P&G acquisition because its digital marketing and
sales efforts were inadequate, it was largely relying on outdated
marketing and selling strategies like promotions, and it was not
spending the money required to get its marketing and sales efforts
in-line with industry practices. Nock's allegation boils down to an
argument that Coty's marketing strategy was outdated and
underfunded.

The Defendants, however, repeatedly disclosed how much the company
spent on marketing and that they thought it was adequate because
digital marketing had a greater return on investment, Judge Stanton
finds. For instance, on Coty's Aug. 21, 2018 Earnings Call, Pane
again answered questions about the company's digital marketing
spending. Hence, Nock does not plausibly allege that the Defendants
withheld from investors information about Coty's marketing
program.

C. The Second Impairment

Nock then alleges that "Coty's financial statements for the second
and third quarter of fiscal year 2019, filed on Feb. 8, 2019, and
May 8, 2019, were materially false because in each quarter Coty
failed to take the $3 billion impairment it would eventually
announce on July 1, 2019."

Judge Stanton, however, finds that Nock does not state facts
justifying the inference that the Defendants delayed the second
impairment with conscious recklessness or fraudulent intent. He
says, the AC and the relevant SEC filings show rather that Coty's
continued underperformance after the February 2019 impairment led
the company to develop a formal Turnaround Plan that included
recording the second impairment. Accordingly, Nock has failed to
allege plausibly a 10b-5 claim for Coty's failure take the full
nearly $4 billion impairment earlier than July 2019.

Conclusion

As the AC fails to allege plausibly any actionable omissions, Judge
Stanton granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the AC. The Clerk
will enter judgment dismissing the Amended Class Action Complaint
with costs and disbursements to the Defendant according to law.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4snzttxb from Leagle.com.


CROCODILE ENTERPRISES: Orner Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
PENNY P. ORNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CROCODILE ENTERPRISES, INC. and KURT E.
LINNEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03603 (E.D. Pa., August 12,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for conversion,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law by implementing a mandatory tip
pool arrangement to the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers.

Ms. Orner has been employed as a driver by the Defendant since on
or about May 23, 2018.

Crocodile Enterprises, Inc. is a company that owns and operates a
cafe and catering business under the name Crocodile Cafe &
Catering, located at 940 West Valley Road, Wayne, Chester County,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
         Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
         Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
         Michael J. Bradley, Jr., Esq.
         WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
         2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
         Harrisburg, PA 17110
         Telephone: (717) 238-5707
         Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
         E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
                 lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                 smahan@weisbergcummings.com
                 mbradley@weisbergcummings.com

CROSSCITY INSPECTION: Valladares Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRUZ SANCHEZ VALLADARES, ALEX ALFARO SEBEDA, CESAR DANILO MARTINEZ,
DELMER JOEL GUIFARRO, ISMAEL MATUTE, and JOSE RAMIREZ SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CROSSCITY INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., HUGE
CONSTRUCTION LLC, MEIQIAO LLC, and WEIHONG HU, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04511 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 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 overtime wages,
failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements, and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in New York at any
time between 2019 and 2021. Their primary duties were cement
masons, concrete workers, and performing other miscellaneous
duties.

Crosscity Inspection Services, Inc. is a provider of inspection
services based in New York.

Huge Construction LLC is a construction firm based in New York.

Meiqiao LLC is a domestic limited liability company based in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

DFINITY USA: Faces Class Action in California Over ICP Token
------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is conducting a class action investigation to
determine whether unregistered securities were sold to investors of
DFINITY's ICP token cryptocurrency.   

On August 9, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against
DFINITY USA Research LLC, DFINITY Foundation, and Dominic Williams
(collectively, "Dfinity" or "Defendants") in United States District
Court, Northern District of California.

From May 10, 2021 to the present ("Class Period"), according to the
class action complaint ". . . Defendants have promoted, offered,
and sold throughout the United States unregistered securities
called 'ICP tokens,' and have engaged in insider trading of such
securities, in violation of federal law."

Allegedly, the "Defendants did not register ICP as a security with
the Securities [and] Exchange Commission . . . [and] did not
qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements;
materially defrauded investors in connection with the promotion,
offering, and sale of ICP; and have transacted in ICP in the Class
Period while in possession of material, non-public information."

The complaint alleges that "[b]y selling and promoting these
unregistered security tokens to investors, and by transacting in
them while in possession of material, non-public information,
Defendants have reaped billions of dollars in profits."

The Defendants, according to the class action complaint, ". . .
kept for themselves and sold into the market billions of dollars'
worth of ICP tokens. After insiders began to sell massive
quantities of these ICP tokens, and while Plaintiff and the other
Class members were transacting in ICP tokens, the price of ICP
tokens fell from a high of over $730 after issuance to around $60
today. Even by the volatile standards of the cryptocurrency market,
this constituted an astonishing collapse in value." [Emphasis
added.]

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, DFINITY'S ICP
TOKENS FROM MAY 10, 2021 TO THE PRESENT AND SUFFERED FINANCIAL
LOSSES ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. MICHAEL
YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR
POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

DFINITY USA: Roche Freedman Reminds of October 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Roche Freedman LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Aug. 10 on
behalf of investors in the crypto-asset "ICP" against DFINITY USA
Research LLC and its affiliate the DFINITY Foundation
(collectively, "DFINITY"), as well as DFINITY CEO Dominic Williams,
alleging that DFINITY engaged in insider trading, securities fraud,
and the promotion and sale of unregistered securities when it
created and launched its "Internet Computer Protocol" and issued
ICP tokens to itself and other insiders on May 10, 2021.

The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges that shortly after issuing ICP
tokens to itself and its insiders, DFINITY and its insiders began
to sell massive quantities of these ICP tokens to the public,
causing the price of ICP tokens to fall from a high of over $730 on
May 10 to approximately $60 on August 9. According to the lawsuit,
DFINITY and its insiders thus dumped massive amounts of ICP tokens
on the open market, securing billions of dollars of profits for
themselves and driving the price of ICP down.

The lawsuit is thus brought on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased ICP tokens from May 10, 2021, to the present. The
action is captioned Daniel Valenti v. DFINITY USA Research LLC,
DFINITY Foundation, and Dominic Williams, Case No. 5:21-cv-06118
(N.D. Cal.).

In asserting violations of Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the 1933
Securities Act and Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the 1934
Securities Exchange Act, the lawsuit alleges that company
executives, including CEO Dominic Williams, failed to disclose that
DFINITY and its insiders held ICP tokens that were not locked up
pursuant to vesting schedules like the tokens held by DFINITY's
other early investors. This failure to implement and disclose any
transparent vesting plan was not only contrary to industry norms
for crypto-asset issuances, but also resulted in the fraudulent
concealment of material information from the investors who
purchased ICP tokens from DFINITY insiders beginning on May 10.

DFINITY USA Research LLC is a Delaware company headquartered in
Palo Alto, California. The DFINITY Foundation is a
Switzerland-based not-for-profit organization with operations and
employees in Palo Alto and San Francisco, in Zurich, Switzerland,
and in Tokyo, Japan.

For investors who purchased or sold ICP securities during the Class
Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may be able to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed
representative for the Class, by complying with the relevant
provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 12, 2021. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery. You may retain counsel of
your choice to represent you in this action.

For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Kyle
Roche (kyle@rcfllp.com) at 646-970-7509.

                     About Roche Freedman LLP

Founded in 2019, Roche Freedman LLP is a national law firm
comprised of innovative and tech-savvy attorneys with stellar
credentials. With experience from some of the most prestigious
litigation firms in the country, RF's legal team has a successful
and decades-long track record of consistently achieving outstanding
results in high-stakes and notable disputes on behalf of
sophisticated clients. RF's legal team has extensive experience
litigating complex commercial, securities, antitrust, class action
and derivative matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants
in a broad range of industries. RF couples a unique brand of
creative thinking and technical expertise with well-balanced
aggressive advocacy to achieve impressive results in complex,
high-value, and class action matters. As the firm continues to
grow, it has focused on building a diverse attorney pool with
cross-functional expertise.

Founding Partner Kyle W. Roche is a recognized thought leader in
the cryptocurrency arena and has published multiple articles on the
intersection of cryptocurrency and law. He is a frequent speaker
and lecturer on the topic, having guest-lectured a course at the
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and having served on the
Keynote panel at Harvard Law School's Blockchain, Fintech, & the
Law conference. Founding partner Ted Normand is RF's most
experienced litigator and has both prosecuted and defended numerous
complex cases under the federal securities and antitrust laws and
in national class actions.

The firm's attorneys are currently litigating numerous
cryptocurrency cases against multi-national defendants. RF has been
appointed as lead counsel in the seminal cryptocurrency class
actions, Leibowitz et al. v. iFinex Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-09236 (S.D.N.Y.), Clifford et al. v. Tron Foundation et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y.), Messieh & Lee v. HDR Global
Trading Limited & Arthur Hayes et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03232
(S.D.N.Y.), Lee et al. v. Binance et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02803
(S.D.N.Y.), and Williams v. KuCoin et al., Case No. 20-cv-2806
(S.D.N.Y.). [GN]

DOMINION VOTING: Court Grants Bids for Sanctions in O'Rourke Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado grants the Defendants' motions for
sanctions in the case, KEVIN O'ROURKE, NATHANIEL L. CARTER, LORI
CUTUNILLI, LARRY D. COOK, ALVIN CRISWELL, KESHA CRENSHAW, NEIL
YARBROUGH, and AMIE TRAPP, Plaintiffs v. DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS
INC., a Delaware corporation, FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
corporation, CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE, an Illinois non-profit
organization, MARK E. ZUCKERBERG, individually, PRISCILLA CHAN,
individually, BRIAN KEMP, individually, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER,
individually, GRETCHEN WHITMER, individually, JOCELYN BENSON,
individually, TOM WOLF, individually, KATHY BOOCKVAR, individually,
TONY EVERS, individually, ANN S. JACOBS, individually, MARK L.
THOMSEN, individually, MARGE BOSTELMAN, individually, JULIE M.
GLANCEY, DEAN KNUDSON, individually, ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR,
individually, and DOES 1-10,000, Defendants, Civil Action No.
20-cv-03747-NRN (D. Colo.).

The case was filed on Dec. 22, 2020, more than a month-and-a-half
after the Nov. 3, 2020 Presidential election. As filed, the suit
was a class action brought on behalf of all American registered
voters, alleging that their constitutional right to vote for
President somehow was unconstitutionally infringed on or burdened
by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs purported to represent 160
million American registered voters and came seeking a determination
from a federal court in Colorado that the actions of multiple state
legislatures, municipalities, and state courts in the conduct of
the 2020 election should be declared legal nullities.

The original Complaint alleges a vast conspiracy between four
governors, secretaries of state, and various election officials of
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia; along with Dominion,
a private supplier of election and voting technology; the social
media company Facebook; CTCL, a non-profit organization dedicated
to making elections more secure and inclusive; as well as Facebook
founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

Claims included alleged violations of the Electors, Due Process,
and Equal Protections Clauses of the Constitution, and alleged
violations of the First Amendment, including burdens on political
speech and freedom of the press. On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs
sought to amend the Complaint to add more than 150 additional
plaintiffs and several new claims, including claims brought
pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").

The Court dismissed the entire case for lack of standing on April
28, 2021, granting motions to dismiss filed by three private entity
defendants, Facebook, Inc., Dominion, and the Center for Tech and
Civic Life ("CTCL"). In the order dismissing the case, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend, finding that any
amendment would be futile. Various state officials (including
governors) from the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin ("State Official Defendants"), who also were named as
defendants in the case, had also filed motions to dismiss and had
opposed the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. But the
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed these State Official Defendants
prior to issuance of my order of dismissal. Therefore, the State
Official Defendants' motions to dismiss were denied as moot.

Defendants Dominion, Facebook, and CTCL have moved for sanctions
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11; 28 U.S.C. Section 1927; and the
Court's inherent authority. The Defendants from the state of
Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn
Benson ("Michigan Defendants"), also have moved for sanctions
pursuant to Rule 11, the Court's inherent authority, and under 28
U.S.C. Section 1927. Also moving for sanctions are Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Wolf and Pennsylvania's former Secretary of the
Commonwealth, Kathy Boockvar ("Pennsylvania Defendants"). The
Pennsylvania Defendants' sanctions motion differs only in that they
do not seek sanctions under Rule 11 because the Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Pennsylvania Defendants from the case
within the time provided under the safe-harbor provisions of that
Rule.

The Plaintiffs have responded to the Defendants' various motions
for sanctions and the moving Defendants have filed replies. Judge
Neureiter held a hearing on the Motions on July 16, 2021.

Analysis

Judge Neureiter finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel should be
sanctioned for filing the lawsuit and should be ordered to pay the
Defendants' attorneys' fees incurred for filing the motions to
dismiss and having to oppose the attempted amendment. These fees,
he says, should include the defense counsel's fees for arguing the
respective motions to dismiss and to amend. The Judge understands
that sanctions are to be rarely imposed, and that the improper or
excessive use of sanctions could deter creative lawyers from filing
cases reasonably arguing for extensions or modifications of
existing law. But it is not such a suit.

The lawsuit, according to Judge Neureiter, was filed with a woeful
lack of investigation into the law and (under the circumstances)
the facts. The lawsuit put into or repeated into the public record
highly inflammatory and damaging allegations that could have put
individuals' safety in danger. Doing so without a valid legal basis
or serious independent personal investigation into the facts was
the height of recklessness.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel violated Rule 11 with
respect to the legal basis for the lawsuit because there was no
good faith basis for believing or asserting that the Plaintiffs had
standing to bring the claims they did. He comes to this conclusion
with respect to all the Defendants who are seeking sanctions. He
finds that sanctions should be awarded under Rule 11, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1927, and the Court's inherent authority. The Judge does
find bad faith with respect to the filing. No reasonable attorney
would have believed the Plaintiffs, as registered voters and
nothing more, had standing to bring the suit.

An award of sanctions is also justified based on the frivolous and
bad faith effort to assert personal jurisdiction over the state
officials from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin,
Judge Neureiter holds. As the Plaintiffs' counsel admitted at oral
argument, he could cite no case in United States legal history
where a state governor or secretary of state has had to answer in
some other state for official actions taken in their own state. The
Plaintiffs' counsel do not even try to make an argument justifying
personal jurisdiction over the Michigan or Pennsylvania
Defendants.

Judge Neureiter says it is difficult to look into the mind of a
person and determine his motives -- what precisely he was thinking.
Nevertheless, in the case, Judge Neureiter can conclude that the
Plaintiffs' counsel acted with objective bad faith in filing the
lawsuit and dumping into a public federal court pleading
allegations of a RICO conspiracy that were utterly unmerited by any
evidence.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Neureiter finds the following:

     (1) That the lawsuit was filed in bad faith;

     (2) That the Plaintiffs' counsel's legal contention that the
Plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring the suit was not
warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or establishing new
law. To the contrary, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs'
counsel's arguments on the issue of standing frivolous;

     (3) That the Plaintiffs' counsel's act of filing a lawsuit in
Colorado against state officials from Georgia, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin was not warranted by existing law or a
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or establishing new law. To the contrary, it was
obvious that there was no personal jurisdiction in Colorado over
these defendants and suit against these state officials should
never have been filed in Colorado;

     (4) That, in light of the unusual and highly volatile
circumstances of the case and the surrounding political
environment, Plaintiffs' counsel did not conduct a reasonable
inquiry into whether the factual contentions had evidentiary
support. Without doing any independent confirmation via, for
example, the hiring of experts, or speaking to lawyers who had
filed other failed lawsuits, they improperly accepted allegations
from those suits and from media reports at face value and cut and
pasted them into their Complaint and Amended Complaint;

     (5) That because of its inherent legal flaws and the
inadequate inquiry into the factual allegations by the laintiffs'
counsel, the lawsuit should never have been filed in the first
place or, using the Tenth Circuit's test, no reasonable attorney
admitted to practice before the district court would file such a
document, citing Predator Int'l, Inc., 793 F.3d at 1182 (quoting
Adamson, 855 F.2d at 673);

     (6) That the Plaintiffs' counsel's filing of a motion for
leave to amend, without addressing the obvious fatal problems with
standing and lack of personal jurisdiction, while attempting to add
RICO claims based on a TIME magazine article that provided no
support for such claims, was a violation of 28 U.S.C. Section 1927
in that the attempt to amend unreasonably and vexatiously
multiplied the proceedings;

     (7) That the Plaintiffs' counsel improperly included in a
federal complaint highly disputed and inflammatory statements by
the former President stating categorically that Dominion deleted
2.7 million Trump votes nationwide without doing anything to
independently verify the truth of that statement;

     (8) That sanctions are merited under Rule 11 (except with
respect to Pennsylvania) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.

     (9) That sanctions are further merited under this Court's
inherent authority because of the bad faith nature of the filing of
the suit that Plaintiffs' counsel knew or should have known was
doomed to failure from the very beginning; and

     (10) That sanctions are required to deter the filing of
frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits such as this in the
future and to compensate the Defendants for the unnecessary
expenditure of private and public money in defense of a frivolous
lawsuit filed without reasonable legal basis and without a
reasonable inquiry into the facts.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Neureiter orders the Plaintiffs'
counsel to jointly and severally pay the moving Defendants'
reasonable attorneys for (1) having to prepare and argue the
motions to dismiss, and (2) having to prepare and argue the
oppositions to the Motion for Leave to Amend.

To justify an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, the party
seeking such an award normally must provide the Court with time and
expense records, specifying for each attorney who performed work on
the matter, the date, hours expended and the nature of the work
performed. Fees and expenses must be both necessary and
reasonable.

Accordingly, within 14 days from the date of the Order, the moving
Defendants are directed to submit to Plaintiffs' counsel detailed
billing records of each lawyer, reflecting the time spent on which
tasks, with accompanying hourly rates, so that the Parties may
attempt to confer and stipulate to a reasonable figure that would
establish an appropriate sanction award for each moving Defendant.
If a stipulation can be reached within ten days or receipt of the
billing records, the Parties will inform the Court of the
stipulation (or stipulations). If no stipulation can be reached
within 10 days after delivery of the billing records to Plaintiffs'
counsel, the Parties will inform the Court and, no later than seven
days thereafter, each moving Defendant will submit to the Court the
records and an accompanying brief supporting their fee request (not
to exceed seven pages in length). The Plaintiffs then will have 14
days to respond.

The Court will note that the "reasonable" fees for commercial
litigators vary wildly across the country. While hourly rates in
excess of $1,000 per hour for an experienced litigator may be the
going rate in some locations on the coasts, it is not the case in
Colorado. The Court will be looking to the Colorado Bar Association
Economics of Law Practice Survey for guidance on the reasonableness
of the rates requested. The sanction award will not be excessive.
It will similarly be looking at the number of hours spent to ensure
that appropriate tasks were reasonably allocated to lawyers or
paralegals at a lower hourly rate, and time was not unnecessarily
spent. While the Plaintiffs' counsel may well choose to appeal this
sanction decision (as is their absolute right), it would be in all
Parties' interest to reach an agreement as to the reasonable figure
for each moving Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/htbsjyxv from Leagle.com.


DPV TRANSPORTATION: Briggs Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIONEL BRIGGS, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. DPV TRANSPORTATION, INC.; DPV TRANSPORTATION
WORLDWIDE LLC; DANIEL PEREZ; and JOSE PEREZ, jointly and severally,
Case No. 7:21-cv-06738 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that the
Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and Party Plaintiffs for
unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, and such other relief
available by law.

The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law that the
Defendants also violated the Minimum Wage Act of the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. Briggs resides in Queens County, New York.

DPV is a minority-owned business that transforms ground
transportation to move companies and communities forward.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com

DRAPER AND KRAMER: Vasquez Seeks to Certify Loan Officer Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. DRAPER AND KRAMER
MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of the following collectives:

   -- Pre-Covid pandemic Class

      "All Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp. Loan Officers
      throughout the United States employed at any time between
      September 22, 2017 and March 14, 2020;" and

   -- Covid pandemic Class:

      "All Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp. Loan Officers
      throughout the United States employed at any time between
      March 15, 2020 and May 1, 2021."

To facilitate notice, the Plaintiff requests that the within ten
days of the Court's order, Defendant be required to provide
Plaintiff's counsel with a list of all Loan Officers employed by
Defendant at any time from September 22, 2017 to the present (in
Excel or similar format). This list should include for each
individual: (1) the name of each and every proposed Collective
members, along with, (2) job title, (3) last known business and
residence addresses, (4) all known telephone numbers, (5) all known
email addresses, (6) date of birth, (7) last for digits of the
social security number, (8) dates of employment, (9) location(s) of
employment with D&K, and (10) date of execution of any purported
“confidential settlement agreement and release” with D&K.

The Plaintiff proposes a 90-day Notice period with a reminder
postcard, with the Notice to be distributed by Plaintiff's counsel
via U.S. Mail, email and text message.

This is a hybrid class and collective action, asserting claims
under both federal and state laws arising from the same facts and
circumstances. As federal and state law claims are subject to
distinct procedural and legal requirements, plaintiffs in a hybrid
action must independently satisfy the requirements under both
frameworks to successfully assert their claims on a representative
basis.

Defendant D&K is the residential mortgage division of Draper and
Kramer, doing business since 1893 as one of America's premier
full-service real estate and financial firms, employing hundreds of
Loan Officers in 54 offices in 22 states, all similarly tasked with
sourcing, originating and closing residential mortgage loans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug. 6
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37YYabX
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff And the putative Plaintiff Classes,
are:

          Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
          1339 Bay Street
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 841-5500
          Facsimile: (510) 521-9700
          E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          ALEN ATTORNEY GROUP
          2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
          Walnut Creek, CA 94549
          Telephone: (925) 695-4913
          Facsimile: (925) 334-7477
          E-mail: Kevin@allenattorneygroup.com

EAGLE ONE: Taggart Sues Over Improper Vehicle Repossession Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA TAGGART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 210800965 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., August 11,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers with the proper notice
of automobile repossession and disposition of collateral required
by Pennsylvania Law, including Pennsylvania's UCC. Eagle One failed
to provide proper and reasonable notification of repossession and
disposition of collateral to the Plaintiff and the class of
borrowers by inflating and misrepresenting the amount needed to
redeem, and by tacking on unreasonable or unnecessary insurance
premiums and charges. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered uniform statutory minimum damages, says the suit.

Eagle One Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union with two
branches in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
         Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
         Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
         FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
         450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
         Narberth, PA 19072
         Telephone: (610) 822-0782

EL POLLO LOCO: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Hejazi Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARSALAN HEJAZI v. EL POLLO LOCO, INC., and DOES 1 through 15,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV27436 (Cal Super., Los Angeles Cty., July
26, 2021), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to provide
meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, and failed to pay
wages and overtime in violation of the Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August, 2018,
until November 25, 2020, at Defendant's West Los Angeles,
California location. Throughout the PAGA period, the Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants in a non-exempt, hourly position.

The Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees consist of identifiable,
current, and/or formerly similarly situated persons who worked for
the Defendants as hourly-paid non-exempt restaurant employees in
Defendant's corporate-owned locations during the PAGA Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Kate Blanco, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  kblanco@mahoney-law.net

EMPIRE SCAFFOLDING: Richards Seeks Manual Laborers' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WAYNE RICHARDS, on behalf of himself, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE
SCAFFOLDING SYSTEMS, INC., and DEMARI INSTALLATIONS CORP., and
ANTONIO MAMOUNAS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06638
(S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants seeking for damages and equitable relief based upon the
Defendants' alleged violations of his rights to overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a manual laborer at
various job sites throughout New York City and surrounding areas
from 2005 to March 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that although he and other similarly situated
manual laborers were required by the Defendants to work in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendants did not pay them overtime
compensation at the statutorily-required rate of one and one-half
times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants paid them on
a biweekly basis by a combination of payroll check and cash.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them with a wage
statement that accurately listed, inter alia, his total hours
worked that week, his overtime rate of pay for every hour that he
worked over 40, or his total compensation, the Plaintiff contends.

Corporate Defendants Empire Scaffolding and Demari Installations
operate a single enterprise that provides scaffolding services
throughout New York City and surrounding areas. Both entities are
commonly owned, managed, and controlled financially by Antonio
Mamounas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline Shulim, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Ave., Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Tel: (516) 248-5550
          Fax: (516) 248-6027

ESSENDANT CO: Cherazo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERTO F. CHERAZO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ESSENDANT CO. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV25368, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on August 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06533-JAK-DFM 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 regular rate wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Essendant Co. is a national wholesale distributor of office
supplies, headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jason E. Barsanti, Esq.
         Brett Greving, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 234-1700
         Facsimile: (619) 234-7831
         E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com
                 bgreving@cozen.com

FIRST COLONY: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Jones Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW JONES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. FIRST COLONY PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA,
and SCOTT BOYLE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00510-MHL (E.D. Ga., August 6, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Minimum Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have a flawed
reimbursement policy which reimburses their delivery drivers on a
per-delivery basis that equates to below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation
of its drivers' automobile expenses. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged failure to reasonably approximate the amount of their
drivers, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery
drivers' net wages diminished beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements.

First Colony Pizza, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores in Virginia. Scott Boyle is an owner, officer, and director
of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LCC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Tel: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

                - and –

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

FLO HEALTH: Clements Sues Over Personal Health Data Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
ELISE MICHELLE CLEMENTS v. FLO HEALTH, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-06147-SK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Defendant in direct contravention to its privacy policy and public
assurances, disclosed Plaintiff's and the class' personal health
data without their knowledge or consent to one or more third
parties.

The Defendant Flo Health owns and developed the Flo Period &
Ovulation Tracker ("Flo App"), one of the most popular health and
fitness mobile applications in the world.

The Flo App purports to use artificial intelligence to provide
advice and assistance specifically related to women's health, such
as by serving as an ovulation calendar, period tracker, and
pregnancy guide, and also as a wellness and lifestyle tracker.

Flo Health touts that its app is the "#1 mobile product for women's
health." According to Flo Health, the Flo App has been installed
more than 180 million times and has more than 38 million monthly
active users. Based on its active audience, the App is the #1
period tracker in the United States, and is the #1 most downloaded
health app in the Apple App Store.

Flo Health presents itself as a leader in women's health care with
at least "60 doctors and experts from Europe and North America" on
its Medical Board.

In order to use the Flo App effectively, millions of users --
including Plaintiff -- provided Flo Health with personally
identifying information (e.g., their names, email addresses, dates
of birth, and places of residence), along with personal details
about their sexual health, menstruation cycles, gynecological
health, and physical well-being through a series of extremely
personal "survey questions."

The Plaintiff and the class had a reasonable expectation of privacy
of their personal data, based upon social norms as to the
confidentiality of such data. These norms are reflected in laws,
regulations, and principles promulgated in the United States and
Australia to prevent and punish the surreptitious sharing and
collection of personal consumer data. Personal consumer data is an
extremely valuable commodity that is coveted by some of the largest
and most powerful companies on earth, who seek to use the data to
target consumers with online ads that can be acutely invasive and
offensive, in addition to the humiliation, embarrassment, and fear
inherent in any unauthorized release of one's personal
information.

Throughout the operative time period, Flo Health's privacy policies
and public statements assured the public and its users that Flo
Health would not share users' personal health data with anyone.
These assurances and promises by Flo Health continue to the present
day.

Plaintiff Clements is a resident of New South Wales, Australia. In
May of 2018, while residing in Australia, she downloaded,
installed, input data into, used, and continues to use the Flo App.
Clements brings this action on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.

Flo Health developed and owns the Flo App, which encourages users
to upload personal health.

Allegedly, third parties such as Google and Facebook offer SDKs to
developers that allow them to track, compile, and access valuable
information about Flo Health users' activity in the Flo App, and to
selectively target these users for ads on the third party's
platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Gralewski, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 2110
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 784-1442
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

FLORIDA: Class Certification of Medicaid Beneficiaries Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.B., by and through his
father and legal guardian, David B., and A.W., by and through her
mother and legal guardian, Brittany C., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. SIMONE MARSTILLER, in her
official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH
CARE ADMINISTRATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00771-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
certifying a class as follows:

   "All Florida Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 who have
   been or will be required to establish their need for Medicaid
   services under Defendant's standard for medical necessity set
   forth in Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-1.010."

The Defendant, the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration
(AHCA), in evaluating requests for Medicaid services, applies its
standard of medical necessity established in Fla. Admin. Code R.
59G-1.010 to all beneficiaries, regardless of age. However, as
repeatedly found by Florida state courts, Defendant's standard
conflicts with the standard accorded by the Early, Periodic
Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) provisions of federal
Medicaid law. Those provisions mandate that states cover all
Medicaid services necessary to "correct or ameliorate” health
conditions of children under age 21. Defendant requires child
Medicaid beneficiaries to meet its medical necessity standard,
which is significantly narrower than the broad EPSDT standard. This
has resulted in the Defendant's denying necessary health services
to the named plaintiffs and thousands of Florida's children like
them, even though the children are legally entitled to such
services under federal Medicaid law.

AHCA, as the single state Medicaid agency must provide certain
mandatory services, including EPSDT services for children under the
age of 21. The EPSDT provisions require states to cover any service
listed in 42 U.S.C. section 1396d(a) if those services are
"necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment and other
measures to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental
illnesses and conditions regardless of whether or not such services
are covered" for adults.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class dated Aug. 6
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sz3RXS
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Counsel, are:

          Katherine DeBriere, Esq.
          FLORIDA HEALTH JUSTICE PROJECT
          126 W. Adams Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-8371, ext. 333
          Facsimile: (904) 356-8780
          E-mail: debriere@floridahealthjustice.org

               - and -

          Joshua H. Norris, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA H. NORRIS, LLC
          One West Court Square, Suite 750
          Decatur, Georgia 30030
          Telephone: (404)867-6188
          Facsimile:(404) 393-9680
          E-mail: josh.norris@childrenshealthlaw.org

               - and -

          Sarah Somers, Esq.
          Miriam D. Heard, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          North Carolina Office
          1512 E. Franklin St., Ste. 110
          Chapel Hill, NC 27514
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: somers@healthlaw.org
                  heard@healthlaw.org

FRONTLINE ASSET: Nuamah-Williams Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Hilda
Nuamah-Williams, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, John Does 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:21-cv-15440 (D.N.J., Aug. 16, 2021).

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

Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a
collection agency based out of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 273-7117
          Fax: (201) 273-7117
          Email: ykim@kimlf.com


FRONTWAVE CREDIT: $95K Class Settlement in Tapia Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIANA SUAREZ TAPIA, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTWAVE CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 20cv1950-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M.
Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California affirms the Court's tentative ruling and grants the
Plaintiff's motions for final approval of the class settlement,
attorneys' fees and costs, and a class representative incentive
payment.

The Plaintiff brings the putative wage and hour class action
against the Defendant. The action arises out of allegations that
the Defendant's background check disclosure forms are not compliant
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law. The parties attended an Early
Neutral Evaluation conference with Magistrate Judge Burkhardt. At
the conclusion of the ENE, Judge Burkhardt made a mediator's
proposal which the parties subsequently accepted.

On Feb. 24, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement. On April 9, 2021, the Court granted
the motion for preliminary approval and scheduled a Final Approval
Hearing on the proposed Settlement and related matters. Thereafter,
the Plaintiff filed the instant motions for final approval of the
class settlement, attorneys' fees and costs, and a class
representative incentive payment. The Defendant does not oppose
Plaintiff's motions, nor have any objections been filed to the
proposed Settlement. The Court tentatively approved the Settlement
and held a Final Approval Hearing on July 28, 2021.

The Settlement Class is defined as "All Class Members who did not
timely opt-out of the settlement by submitting a proper Request for
Exclusion," where "Class Member" means "all persons residing in the
United States who were the subject of a consumer report that was
procured by Defendant (or that Defendant caused to be procured) on
or after October 2, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval
of this Agreement (April 9, 2021)." The "Class Period" means
"October 2, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval of the
Settlement (April 9, 2021)." There are 465 Class Members; given the
one request for exclusion, there are 464 Settlement Class Members.

The Defendant will pay a total sum of $95,000 in full settlement of
all claims. The parties have agreed that no portion of the Gross
Settlement Amount revert to Defendant. See id. After deductions
for: (a) the Court-approved Attorneys' fees and Costs to Class
Counsel; (b) the Court-approved fees and costs of the Settlement
Administrator; and (c) the Court-approved incentive payment to
Plaintiff, the resulting "Net Settlement Fund" will be distributed
to the Settlement Class Members by way of their "Individual
Settlement Payment."

The Individual Settlement Payments will be calculated by dividing
the Net Settlement Fund by the number of Settlement Class Members.
Each Settlement Class member is expected to receive about $110. The
Settlement Administrator will issue Individual Settlement Payments
no later than 15 business days after the Settlement Effective Date.
Id. The Settlement Administrator's costs total $9,500, to be paid
from the Gross Settlement Amount. The Class Counsel requests
$31,666.67 in attorneys' fees and $1,088.74 in costs, and the
Plaintiff requests a $5,000 incentive payment for her work as the
Class Representative.

Analysis

A. Final Approval of Settlement

Judge Anello proceeds by addressing Rule 23(e)(2)'s "fair,
reasonable, and adequate" factors and the related factors noted by
the Ninth Circuit. Based on their sworn declarations and the
pertinent other portions of the record, he finds that both the
Class Representative and the Class Counsel have adequately
represented the Settlement Class Members. He also finds that the
arm's length negotiations favor approval of the Settlement
Agreement. The parties reached the Settlement after engaging in
significant informal discovery, attending an Early Neutral
Evaluation conference, and stipulating to settlement on terms
proposed by the assigned magistrate judge. The Class Counsel do not
seek to recover an unreasonable portion of the Gross Settlement
Fund and no portion of the Fund will revert to the Defendant.

The Judge further finds that the following factors favor approval
of the Settlement Agreement (i) the strength of the case; the
costs, risks, complexity, and delay of trial and appeal; the stage
of the proceedings; and the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout the trial; (ii) the effectiveness of the proposed method
of distributing relief to the Class; (iii) the terms of any
proposed award of attorneys' fees; and (iv) the underlying
Settlement Agreement, Settlement amount, and reaction of class
members to the Settlement. Hence, the relief provided for the class
is adequate and favors approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Finally, the Judge finds that the equal payments to the Settlement
Class Members are fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the
underlying harm and the lack of facts indicating certain Class
Members suffered a disproportionate injury compared to others.
Although disproportionate, as discussed below, he finds that the
Plaintiff's Class Representative enhancement award is reasonable.
Accordingly, the general equitable treatment of class members
favors approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Upon due consideration of the factors set forth, Judge Anello finds
that the Settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Rule
23(e)(2) and grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
the Class Settlement.

B. Attorneys' Fees and Costs

The Plaintiff seeks and award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to multiple statutes. She requests fees in the aggregate amount of
$31,667.67, which is 33.33% of the $95,000 Gross Settlement Fund.

Judge Anello holds that the Class Counsel's hourly rates and hours
expended on the litigation are reasonable, and the reasonableness
factors weigh in favor of the requested fees. He says, litigating
the action required significant time, investigation, and research
by Class Counsel. Additionally, the Class Counsel helped secure a
favorable outcome because the Settlement awards the Settlement
Class Members equally and provides a significant monetary award.
The Class Counsel litigated the case on a contingency basis.
Additionally, there was a risk that a class would not be certified,
the Plaintiff would not prevail on the merits, or a potential jury
award would be limited based on the difficulties associated with
proving willful statutory violations. Taken together, these factors
lend additional support for approving the requested attorneys'
fees. Accordingly, the Judge approves the fee request in the full
amount of $31,667.67.

The Plaintiff requests reimbursement for $1,088.74 in costs
expended by Class Counsel in the litigation. Accordingly, because
the Class Counsel's out-of-pocket costs were reasonably incurred in
litigating the action and were advanced by Counsel for the benefit
of the Class, the Judge approves reimbursement of litigation costs
in the full amount requested.

C. Class Representative Incentive Payment

The Plaintiff requests an incentive payment of $5,000 for her
service as the Class Representative in the action. Judge Anello
finds that the finds that the Plaintiff provided services to the
Class worthy of the requested incentive payment. She provided
relevant documents and information and reviewed the class action
complaint prior to filing. After initiating the action, the
Plaintiff reviewed discovery, prepared for, and attended an Early
Neutral Evaluation conference, after which she "approved the terms
of the settlement, and was happy with the amount of the settlement
for the class members." Accordingly, the Judge approves the
Plaintiff's request for a $5,000 incentive payment.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Anello affirms the Court's its
tentative ruling and grants the Plaintiff's motions for final
approval of the class settlement, attorneys' fees and costs, and a
class representative incentive payment.

Judge Anello certifies the Settlement Class for the purposes of the
Settlement. He approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The
Judge orders the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in
the Settlement Agreement that arise out of the Order.

Judge Anello awards (i) attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel in the
amount of $31,667.67 and costs in the amount of $1,088.74; and (ii)
to the Plaintiff an incentive payment for work performed as the
class representative in the amount of $5,000.

The Judge directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment
of dismissal in accordance therewith and to close the case.
Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court maintains
jurisdiction over the matter for purpose of enforcing the
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vnus7fs3 from Leagle.com.


FULL TRUCK: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of September 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE: YMM)
IPO: June 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) FTA's apps
Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the CAC; (2) the CAC would require FTA to suspend new
user registration; (3) FTA needed to conduct a "comprehensive
self-examination of any cybersecurity risks"; (4) FTA needed to
"continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology
capabilities"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ)
Class Period: June 11, 2021 - July 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that:(1) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the
Cyberspace Administration of China (the CAC); (2) the CAC would
require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on its BOSS Zhipin
app; (3) Kanzhun needed 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' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN)
Class Period: April 30, 2020 - July 7, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company
had been collecting personal information in violation of relevant
PRC laws and regulations; (2) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed
to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement
action; and (3) 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.

Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SRAC, SRACW, SRACU)
Class Period: October 7, 2020 - July 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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;
(2) the U.S. government had conveyed that it considered Momentus's
CEO, Kokorich, a national security threat, which jeopardized
Kokorich's continued leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch
schedule and business prospects; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
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 (4) 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 the sponsor and Stable Road
executives in connection with the merger.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

GAMESTOP CORP: Rodriguez Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ANDRES RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAMESTOP CORP. d/b/a GAMESTOP CORP
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06251
(N.D. Cal., August 12, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the 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.gamestop.com/, 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.

Gamestop Corp. is an American video game, consumer electronics, and
gaming merchandise retailer, with its headquarters in Grapevine,
Texas. [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

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Seat Belt Pretensioners
---------------------------------------------------------------
FenderBender reports that a new class action lawsuit has been filed
against General Motors, GM Authority reported.

The lawsuit alleges an equipment defect prevents airbag deployment
and activation of the automatic seat belt pretensioners in certain
frontal crashes, resulting in the death or injury of at least 1,298
people.

This isn't the first time General Motors has faced issues regarding
its sensing and diagnostic modules. Back in 2016, the automaker
recalled 4 million vehicles over issues with the same components,
while a further recall of 88,000 GMC vehicles was issued in 2018.

Vehicles cited in this latest lawsuit include 2010 010 GMC Sierra
2500HD, 2012 Chevy Traverse, 2014 Chevy Traverse, 2014 Chevy
Equinox, 2014 Chevy Silverado 1500, and 2014 Chevy 1500 Express.
[GN]

GJUSHI CONSTRUCTION: Ventura Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO VENTURA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GJUSHI CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC,
ARJAN GJUSHI, and MICHAEL GJUSHI, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06662 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint seeking to recover damages against the Defendants
as a result of its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker from approximately 2012 until May 21, 2021, asserts that the
Defendants did not pay him and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees at the statutory minimum wage as well as premium overtime
pay for all the hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the
federally mandated overtime rate.

Gjushi Construction Co., LLC is a construction company co-owned by
arjan Gjushi and Michael Gjushi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

GREAT AMERICAN: Motion to Overrule Objections Filed in a Bank Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as CENTENNIAL BANK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY & GREAT AMERICAN E&S INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-mc-00018, Centennial Bank filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York a motion
to overrule objections to subpoena for production of documents and
compel production from the Defendants.

This motion arises from a putative class action pending in the
Northern District of Florida, Case No. 4:18-cv-450-AW-MAF,
challenging the placement of force-placed insurance (FPI) on Class
members. The underlying case was initiated on October 1, 2018 and
Great American Insurance Company was initially a Defendant.
Centennial requests that the court overrule the objections stated
in Great American's response and compel Great American to comply
with the subpoena because (1) the objections stated in Great
American's response were untimely under Rule 45(d)(2)(B) and thus
waived; (2) the objections in Great American's response should be
treated as waived as boilerplate objections; and (3) even if
considered, the objections in Great American's response are
insufficiently stated and supported to preclude discovery of
relevant material.

Centennial Bank is a bank holding company based in Conway,
Arkansas.

Great American Insurance Company is an insurance company,
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Great American E&S Insurance Company is an insurance company,
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Peter J. O'Shea, Esq.
         KATZ TELLER BRANT & HILD
         255 East Fifth Street, Suite 2400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 721-4532
         Facsimile: (513) 977-3401
         E-mail: poshea@katzteller.com

                - and –

         Keith L. Bell, Jr., Esq.
         Trevor A. Thompson, Esq.
         CLARK PARTINGTON
         215 South Monroe Street, Suite 530
         Tallahassee, FL 32301
         Telephone: (850) 320-6827
         Facsimile: (850) 597-7591
         E-mail: kbell@clarkpartington.com
                 tthompson@clarkpartington.com

HCA HEALTHCARE: North Carolina Senators Respond to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Barrows and Andrew James, writing for ABC13News, report that
on Aug. 10, a group of Western North Carolina Residents,
represented by one state law firm and another out-of-state law
firm, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that HCA Healthcare's
practices have led to higher prices and worsened the quality of
care in the region.

The lawsuit, which names eight specific plaintiffs, along with "all
others similarly situated" represented by law firms Wallace &
Graham of Salisbury, NC and Fairmark Partners of Washington, DC,
alleges that since HCA bought Mission Health in 2019, it's created
a "hospital monopoly in Asheville" in order to raise prices around
the mountain region, according to a press release. The lawsuit also
alleges HCA "uses illegal contracting and negotiating practices,
does not comply with price transparency laws, and has cut access to
critical rural services."

HCA, a nationwide, for-profit healthcare system, officially took
over Mission Health, North Carolina's sixth largest health system,
in Feb. 2019. The sale has since been met with much back and forth
between mountain residents, even prompting North Carolina Attorney
General Josh Stein to dedicate one of his employees to track all
complaints about Mission Health. Stein approved the sale of Mission
Health to HCA Healthcare in 2019.

"Mission Health was once the crown jewel of North Carolina's
healthcare system," Mona Lisa Wallace of Wallace & Graham said in a
press release. "In filing this action, the Plaintiffs seek to have
HCA live up to its promises of providing quality affordable health
care in Western North Carolina."

Nancy Lindell, a Mission Health/HCA Healthcare NC Division
spokesperson, gave the following statement on behalf of the
hospital:

Once we have been served with the lawsuit, we will respond
appropriately through the legal process. We are committed to caring
for Western North Carolina as demonstrated through more than $330
million in Charity Care and uninsured discounts we provided in
2020, expansion of hospital services including the opening of the
North Tower, a new Pediatric ER, and securing land for a new
120-bed behavioral health hospital. Further, we have invested in
our colleagues with onboarding nearly 1,200 new members this year
and providing more than $3 million in student loan and tuition
reimbursement in 2020. Mission Health is committed to the health
and well-being of every person who comes to us for care and we are
proud of our dedicated hospital teams that are facing the many
challenges of this pandemic and the exceptional care they have
provided to our patients.

NC ATTORNEY GENERAL MONITORING SITUATION AFTER DOCTORS LEAVE RURAL
MISSION HEALTH HOSPITAL

Several North Carolina senators quickly responded to the class
action lawsuit, applauding the efforts of those responsible.

The following joint statement was released by Senator Kevin Corbin,
Senator Julie Mayfield and Representative Brian Turner:

While we are still reviewing the complaint, we applaud these
citizens for taking action. The summary reflects what Western North
Carolina individuals, doctors, and businesses have reported
experiencing since HCA purchased Mission Health: higher costs,
downgraded quality of care, and reduced access to health care,
especially in rural areas.

HCA's practices are particularly troubling because they acquired a
non-profit hospital with a regulated monopoly in Asheville, leaving
no realistic alternatives for many types of care in the region. HCA
promised to maintain quality of care in the Mission Health purchase
agreement and it is time for them to fulfill that promise by
competing fairly and focusing on patients. [GN]

HERCULES TREE: Ray Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN RAY, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. HERCULES TREE SERVICES
LLC, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01168-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   a. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under the FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly
      situated;

   b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to the following class:

      "All present and former full-time hourly employees
      employed by Hercules Tree Services LLC and who worked more
      than 40 hours in any workweek during the period of time
      from June 10, 2018 to the present;"

   c. directing the parties to confer and submit within 14 days
      a proposed Notice informing such putative class members of
      the pendency of this collective action and permitting them
      to opt into the case by signing and submitting a Consent
      to Join Form;

   d. directing Defendants to provide, within 14 days, a
      electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
      delimited format containing the identity of putative class
      members, including their full names, dates of employment,
      last known home addresses, and personal email addresses
      (to the extent that Defendants has them);

   e. directing that Notice, in the form approved by the Court,
      be sent to putative class members by mail and email within
      30 days; and

   f. directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
      or email addresses are found for any putative class
      member.

The Plaintiff and other members of the purported class were
employed by the Defendant Hercules Tree as hourly, non-exempt
employees. Hercules Tree allegedly did not pay Class Members one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in
excess of 10 hours per week, in violation of the FLSA.

Hercules Tree offers commercial and residential tree care and
landscaping services. The Defendant Butzer is the founder, owner,
president, and operator of Hercules Tree.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug. 5
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iWVDpm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: 216-230-2955
          Facsimile: 330-754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

IEC CORPORATION: Britt Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREEM BRITT, et al., v.
IEC CORPORATION d/b/a INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CORPORATION and IEC
US HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA CAREER COLLEGE, Case No.
0:20-cv-60814-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying both Classes under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3);

      "All students who took out federal student loans to enroll
      in any of FCC's Florida campuses between April 20, 2016,
      and April 20, 2020 (FCC Class)"; and

      "All Black students who took out federal student loans to
      enroll in any of FCC's Florida' campuses between April 20,
      2015, and April 20, 2020 (Race Discrimination Class);"

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs Kareem Britt and Sharon Henry move this court to
certify two classes of tens of thousands of student debtors who
were victims of deceptive tactics, misrepresentations and
omissions, and racial targeting employed by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs note that Defendants have repeatedly failed to
comply with discovery obligations, necessitating multiple motions
to compel and efforts to extend the class discovery deadline.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug. 6
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yXTY8s
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Schachter, Esq.
          Brian W. Toth, Esq.
          GELBER SCHACHTER &
          GREENBERG, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 728-0950
          E-mail: efilings@gsgpa.com
                  aschachter@gsgpa.com
                  btoth@gsgpa.com

               - and -

          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          Security Building
          117 NE 1st Avenue
          Miami, FL 33132-2125
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Eileen Connor, Esq.
          Margaret O'Grady, Esq.
          Michael N. Turi, Esq.
          Rebecca C. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF
          HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 390-2576
          E-mail: econnor@law.harvard.edu
                  mogrady@law.harvard.edu
                  mturi@law.harvard.edu
                  reisenbrey@law.harvard.edu

INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bhambhani Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RITU BHAMBHANI, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs v. INNOVATIVE
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civ. Action No.
RDB-19-0355 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland denied Defendant Kuhlman's
Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs Dr. Ritu Bhambhani and Dr. Sudhir Rao, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, bring the putative class
action lawsuit against Defendants Innovative Health Solutions,
Inc., Innovative Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Acclivity Medical, LLC,
DragonSlayer Strategies LLC, Coleman Certified Medical Billing &
Consultant, LLC, as well as Joy Long and Ryan Kuhlam in their
individual capacities, alleging civil violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c) (Count One); conspiracy to commit civil violation
of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count Two); fraudulent
misrepresentation (Count Three); intentional misrepresentation by
concealment or non-disclosure (Count Four); and civil conspiracy
(Count Five) against all Defendants.

Dr. Bhambhani is medical doctor practicing in Abingdon, Maryland
and is board-certified in both Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine.
Dr. Rao is a medical doctor practicing primarily in Mount Airy. The
Third Amended Complaint was filed on May 21, 2021, and is the
operative pleading in the case. He is also board-certified in
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. Defendant IHS is an Indiana
corporation alleged engaged in the marketing, selling, and
distributing of a product known as the Neuro-Stim System
("Neuro-Stim").

In 2014, Neuro-Stim was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for use in acupuncture. In the 510(k)-premarket clearance
application4 submitted to the FDA, IHS specifically described the
device as "an electro acupuncture device for use in the practice of
acupuncture by qualified practitioners of acupuncture as determined
by the states." However, IHS allegedly sold and marketed the device
throughout the United States as a surgically implantable medical
device.

According to the Plaintiffs, IHS sold, marketed, and distributed
the Neuro-Stim in this manner through exclusive-rights sales-agent
distributors, including co-Defendants Acclivity Medical, LLC and
Innovative Healthcare Solutions, LLC ("IHCS"). Acclivity was a
Kentucky LLC, and prior to its dissolution in June of 2017,
Acclivity was owned and controlled by its sole member, Defendant
Kuhlman. The Plaintiffs also allege that Kuhlman served IHS as its
"National Director" and has been employed by IHS since January of
2013.

Dr. Bhambhani and Dr. Rao assert that IHS and its Sales Agents
invested substantial sums in advertising and marketing the
Neuro-Stim in a misleading manner throughout the United States,
including on websites, at trade shows, in brochures, in
newsletters, in video, on phone calls, in emails, and in on-site
presentations at physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers.
The Plaintiffs allege that as a means of enticing Dr. Bhambhani,
Dr. Rao, and other medical providers to purchase the Neuro-Stim and
implement it into their clinical practices, the Defendants promoted
the billing of the device using a specific set of codes used to
report implantable nerve stimulators. This set of codes provided
for between $4,800 and $11,400 per patient in reimbursement from
payers for a procedure to implant the device. IHS and its Sales
Agents allegedly employed the services of independent coding
consultants ("Coding Agents"), including but not limited to
co-Defendant DragonSlayer Strategies LLC.

Overall, the Plaintiffs allege that the exchanges between Miller,
Kuhlman, Dr. Rao, and Goldbach demonstrated that "from the start,
the promise of extraordinary reimbursement was the foundation of
Acclivity's (on behalf of and as directed by IHS) pitch to Dr. Rao
and his staff. Miller continued to advise Dr. Rao and his staff to
use specific codes to bill for the device throughout 2015 and 2016.
In all, between September 2015 and October 2016, Dr. Rao purchased
90 Neuro-Stims for a total of $45,194 paid directly to Acclivity.
Acclivity shipped hundreds of the Neuro-Stim devices to the
Plaintiffs and others in Maryland from the address 456 Glengarry
Way, Covington, KY 41011.

The Plaintiffs allege that Kuhlman is personally responsible for
misrepresentations made to them and others as a Sales Agent for IHS
promoting the Neuro-Stim. They allege that Acclivity, Kuhlman, and
Miller were each member of the NSS Enterprise. "Kulhman and Miller
were officers and/or executives with Acclivity, tasked with
marketing and selling the Neuro-Stim" in defined geographic areas
using the Neuro-Stim System Sales Materials or modified versions
thereof." Acclivity and other Sales Agents processed orders made by
accounts, took payments from ordering medical providers, and then
remitted payment to IHS who in turn would fulfill each order.

On Feb. 6, 2019, Dr. Bhambhani filed suit against Defendant
Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. ("IHS") and Acclivity alleging
fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation by
concealment or non-disclosure, negligent misrepresentation, and
negligence and seeking declaratory judgment that the Defendants
knew or should have known of their misrepresentations. Acclivity
was served at the 456 Glengarry Way address from where the company
shipped the Neuro-Stims to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant Kuhlam, the sole member of the Acclivity LLC,
accepted service on behalf of the company. An Amended Complaint
filed a month later included Defendant IHCS.

On Feb. 11, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss filed by Defendant IHS, allowing Dr. Bhambhani's
claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional
misrepresentation by concealment against IHS to go forward. On Aug.
28, 2020, Dr. Rao joined Dr. Bhambhani in filing a Second Amended
Complaint on behalf of themselves and other medical providers
similarly situated in which they assert claims against the
already-named Defendants, as well as DragonSlayer Strategies LLC,
Joy Long, Terri Anderson, Ryan Kuhlman, and Coleman Certified
Medical Billing & Consultant, LLC. After two attempts to serve
Kuhlman at two different addresses, Kuhlman was ultimately served
at the same 456 Glengarry Way address from where Acclivity shipped
the Neuro-Stims and where Acclivity was served with the first
Complaint in this case.

The now operative Third Amended Complaint asserts claims for civil
violation of RICO (Count One); conspiracy to commit civil violation
of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count Two); fraudulent
misrepresentation (Count Three); intentional misrepresentation by
concealment or non-disclosure (Count Four); and civil conspiracy
(Count Five) against all the Defendants. On June 3, 2021, Defendant
Kuhlman filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
seeking dismissal of all five counts against him. Since Kuhlman's
filing of his Motion, co-Defendant IHS and Acclivity have filed
Answers to the Third Amended Complaint.

Analysis

Defendant Kuhlman makes several arguments in support of dismissal
of all five counts of the Third Amended Complaint as alleged
against him. First, Kuhlman asserts that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over him. He contends that Counts Three, Four, and
Five must be dismissed because he does not have minimum contacts
with the State of Maryland. He then asserts that Counts One and Two
must also be dismissed because of extreme inconvenience or
unfairness of proceedings in this district. Second, Kuhlman
contends that with respect to all five counts in the Third Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of
Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a
plaintiff to assert fraud claims with particularity. Third, Kuhlman
asserts that the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the general
rules of pleading under rule 8(a). Finally, he asserts that Counts
Three, Four, and Five are time-barred. For the reasons that follow,
these arguments are without merit in the context of a Motion to
Dismiss.

I. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Kuhlman.

Defendant Kuhlman asserts that Counts Three, Four, and Five of the
Third Amended Complaint must be dismissed because he lacks
sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Maryland. However,
Judge Bennett holds that Count I and II of the Third Amended
Complaint allege civil violations of RICO against all the
Defendants.

The Judge explains that RICO provides a basis for exercising
personal jurisdiction over a defendant as to RICO claims, therefore
making it permissible to assert pendent personal jurisdiction over
a RICO defendant as to a plaintiff's state law claims. Therefore,
if the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim against Kuhlman
in Counts One and Two which allege civil RICO violations, the Court
may exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over Defendant Kuhlman,
and an analysis of his contacts with the State of Maryland is
unnecessary. The Judge is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged claims against Kuhlman in Counts One and Two of
the Third Amended Complaint, and he need not conduct a minimum
contacts analysis.

Additionally, the Judge holds that exercising personal jurisdiction
over Defendant Kuhlman pursuant to Section 1965 comports with due
process. The Fourth Circuit has noted that when a defendant resides
within the United States, "it is only in highly unusual cases that
inconvenience will rise to a level of constitutional concern."
Therefore, asserting personal jurisdiction over him as to the
Plaintiffs' RICO claims and the rest of the claims in the Third
Amended Complaint will not violate the Fifth Amendment.

II. Counts Three, Four, and Five are not time-barred.

Counts Three, Four, and Five assert claims under Maryland law. The
parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations for such
claims is provided by Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section
5-101, which is Maryland's general three-year statute of
limitations. According to Kuhlman, Plaintiff Dr. Bhambhani alleges
that she knew of the injuries complained of in the Third Amended
Complaint at the latest in August of 2016.  Dr. Rao alleges he knew
of the injuries at the latest in March of 2017. Kuhlman was first
named as a Defendant in this action in the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint filed on August 28, 2020. This was more than
three years after both named Plaintiffs allegedly became aware of
their purported injuries.

Judge Bennett finds that given the Plaintiffs' allegations that
Kuhlman was the sole and controlling member of Acclivity at the
time the company was served and that he in fact accepted served on
the company's behalf, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
he had knowledge of the suit and that he knew or should have known
that he was an appropriate defendant in the case. In consideration
of the liberal amendment polices of the Federal Rules and the
overall purpose of the relation back doctrine to provide a
defendant with adequate notice of the claims against him, the Judge
denies the Motion to Dismiss Counts Three, Four, and Five on
limitation grounds. Accepting the facts as alleged by the
Plaintiffs as true, the Judge is satisfied that the Plaintiffs'
amendment adding Kuhlman as a party relates back to the filing of
the original Complaint.

III. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated claims for fraud
against Defendant Kuhlman in all five counts of the Third Amended
Complaint.

The parties do not appear to dispute that Rule 9(b) applies to all
five counts of the Third Amended Complaint. Defendant Kuhlman
contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet both the Rule
8(a)(2) pleading standard, as well as the heightened standard under
Rule 9(b). His primary argument in favor of dismissal for failure
to state a claim is that the Plaintiffs may not impose personal
liability on him for the activities of the Acclivity LLC.

Judge Bennett holds that the Plaintiffs have specifically alleged
why several of the Defendants' statements regarding the Neuro-Stim
were false or were misleading due to omissions regarding the
intended and FDA-approved use of the device, pointing to specific
documents and materials prepared and distributed by the Defendants
and alleging when and how such documents were in fact distributed.
For much of the same reasons discussed by the Court in its previous
Memorandum Opinion regarding claims for fraudulent
misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation by concealment,
the Judge is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated
a claim for relief in Counts One and Two.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant Kuhlman's Motion to
Dismiss is denied. A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yes693uv from Leagle.com.


INVITING FOODS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inviting Foods LLC.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Inviting
Foods LLC doing business as: Hilo Life, Case No.
1:21-cv-04594-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2021).

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

Inviting Foods LLC doing business as Hilo Life --
https://hilolife.com/ -- is a keto-friendly snack brand launched
recently by PepsiCo, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Iterum
Therapeutics plc ("Iterum" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ITRM) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
30, 2020 and July 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 4, 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. Iterum's New Drug Application ("NDA") for
sulopenem failed to include sufficient data to support the drug's
approval for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract
infections ("uUTIs") in adult women. It was unlikely the FDA would
approve the Company's NDA as it was submitted. The Company
downplayed the deficiencies in its NDA. 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 Iterum, 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]

JARINC LTD: Blose Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathan Blose, et al., on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. JARINC, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02184-RM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the parties'
Settlement Agreement, and dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Settlement Agreement resolves the collective and class-wide
claims raised in this lawsuit. Defendants do not oppose this motion
and consent to certification of the class and collective for
settlement purposes only, says the Plaintiff.

On February 18, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
parties' Rule 23 class/FLSA collective action settlement, and
ordered the Parties to distribute Notice of the Settlement to the
class.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 6 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xY5zCW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Spencer, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 452-3887
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  nspencer@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          David Lichtenstein, Esq.
          Matt Molinaro, Esq.
          Kristina Rosett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
          Lichtenstein, LLC
          1556 Williams St., Suite 100
          Denver, CO 80218
          E-mail: dave@lichtensteinlaw.com
                  matt@lichtensteinlaw.com
                  kristina@lichtensteinlaw.com

JMC HOLDINGS: Sawaqed Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KARAM SAWAQED, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. JMC HOLDINGS, LTD. and JOHN M.
CILMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06664 (S.D.N.Y., August 6,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery drivers were not properly reimburse by the
Defendants for the expenses they have incurred while delivering
pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of the
Defendants. This is because the Defendants have employed a flawed
automobile reimbursement policy which reimburses their delivery
drivers on a per-delivery basis that equates to below the IRS
business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. The
Defendants' alleged systemic failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to the Defendants that
also resulted to the diminished net wages of its delivery drivers
beneath the federal minimum wage requirements.

JMC Holdings operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
John M. Cilmi is an owner, officer, and director of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley Pileika, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: apileika@foresterhaynie.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Suit Moved from New Jersey to M.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK HALL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-1833-FLW-TJB, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton) to the U.S.
District Court for the Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) on Aug.
3, 2021.

The Alabama Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-mc-03947-WKW-JTA to the proceeding.

The suit is brought over alleged statutory actions and is assigned
to the Hon. Judge William Keith Watkins.[BN]

Lead Plaintiff San Diego County Employees Retirement Association is
represented by:

          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
          OLSTEIN BROADY & AGNELLO PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744

Plaintiff Frank Hall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          609 W. South Orange Avenue; Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887

Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Alex Gorsky, Dominic J. Caruso, Joan
Casalvieri, Tara Glasgow, and Carol Goodrich are represented by:

          Jack N. Frost, Jr., Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          600 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-7338

Movants Ted Meadows; and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles P.C., are represented by:

          Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
          James Wayne Lampkin, II, Esq.
          P. Leigh GAL O'Dell, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 495-1120
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                  james.lampkin@beasleyallen.com

JOHNSONVILLE LLC: Knuth Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KNUTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JOHNSONVILLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00918
(E.D. Wis., August 5, 2021) is a collective and class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
policy and practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt Sanitation Team Lead approximately from April 2020 until
approximately October 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid, non-exempt employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. But, because the Defendant employed an
unlawful policy, practice, custom, and/or scheme of failing to
include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and
payments, in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of
determining their overtime compensation, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were not properly paid their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the suit says.

Johnsonville, LLC is a sausage producer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Tel: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Duarte Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROCIO DUARTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly aggrieved
v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a federally chartered
bank; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV27762 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
violated California's minimum wage laws by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for all hours worked by
requiring the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees to perform
pre-shift and/or post-shift off-the-clock work.

According to the complaint, during the one-year and sixty-five day
period preceding filing of this complaint, the Plaintiff and each
of the similarly situated aggrieved employees worked for Defendant
in the State of California as a non-exempt teller, bank associate,
or other job classification and/or title with the same or similar
job duties. The Plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee
at all times. The Plaintiff was typically scheduled to work
typically worked 4-5 days a week, with weekly shifts in excess of
five hours and at times eight hours. The Defendant allegedly did
not compensate Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff who worked as a non-exempt employee for the Defendant
in the State of California.

The Defendant is a federally chartered bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Blake R. Jones, Esq.
          Nikki Trenner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telepgone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal. com
                  mike@crosnerlegal. com
                  blake@crosnerlegal.com
                  nikki@crosnerlegal.com

KEDREN COMMUNITY: Faces Jackson Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARMEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEDREN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV29683 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., August 11, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act including failure to pay wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages due upon termination,
failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, disability
discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to provide
reasonable accommodation, retaliation, failure to prevent
harassment, constructive termination, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, whistleblower action, failure to reimburse
required business expenses, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a social worker in
the County of Los Angeles in California from in or about November
2014 until her termination on February 3, 2021.

Kedren Community Health Center, Inc. is a provider of healthcare
services located in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Jonathan D. Roven, Esq.
         Britanie A. Martinez, Esq.
         JONNY LAW
         P.O. Box 3989
         Valley Village, CA 91617-3989
         Telephone: (818) 639-3997
         Facsimile: (818) 471-4164
         E-mail: jon@calljonnylaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Snyder Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDIE SNYDER, RENEE FERA, and PAUL BERAN individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01030-MRH (W.D. Pa., Aug. 3, 2021) is a class
action complaint on behalf of himself and a proposed class of
purchasers and users of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)
and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (Bi-Level PAP) devices and
mechanical ventilators manufactured by Philips, which contain
polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam ("PE-PUR Foam").

On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it
had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it
manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances.

On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United
States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may
enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and
(b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation.
Philips further disclosed in its Recall Notice that "these issues
can result in serious injury which can be life-threatening, cause
permanent impairment, and/or require medical intervention to
preclude permanent impairment," says the suit.

Philips has disclosed that the absence of visible particles in the
devices does not mean that PE-PUR Foam breakdown has not already
begun. Philips reported that lab analysis of the degraded foam
reveals the presence of harmful chemicals, including: Toluene
Diamine ("TDA"), Toluene Diisocyanate ("TDI"), and Diethylene
Glycol ("DEG").

Prior to issuing the Recall Notice, Philips received complaints
regarding the presence of black debris/particles within the airpath
circuit of its devices (extending from the device outlet,
humidifier, tubing, and mask). Philips also received reports of
headaches, upper airway irritation, cough, chest pressure and sinus
infection from users of these devices, added the suit.

Philips recommended that patients using the recalled CPAP and
Bi-Level PAP devices immediately discontinue using their devices
and that patients using the recalled ventilators for
life-sustaining therapy consult with their physicians regarding
alternative ventilator options.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages based on, inter alia,
Philips' alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, misrepresentations, omissions, and breaches of state
consumer protection laws in connection with its manufacture,
marketing and sales of devices containing PE-PUR Foam on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Class Members. In addition, Plaintiffs
seek medical monitoring damages for users of Philips' devices
identified in the Recall Notice, who are at risk of suffering from
serious injury, including irritation (skin, eye, and respiratory
tract), inflammatory response, headache, asthma, adverse effects to
other organs (e.g., kidneys and liver) and toxic carcinogenic
affect.

The Plaintiffs purchased and used the CPAP devices for personal use
as they related to a sleep apnea diagnosis. All Plaintiffs were
harmed and suffered damages, the suit contends.

Royal Philips is a Dutch multinational corporation with its
principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Royal Philips is the parent company of the Philips Group of
healthcare technology businesses, including Connected Care
businesses focusing on Sleep & Respiratory Care. Royal Philips
holds directly or indirectly 100% of its subsidiaries Philips NA
and Philips RS. Royal Philips controls Philips NA and Philips RS in
the manufacturing, selling, distributing, and supplying of the
recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices.

Philips NA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02141. Philips NA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Royal Philips.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Joel M. Walker, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE& MILLER, LLP
          1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104
          Pittsburgh, PA 15243
          Telephone: (412) 857-5350
          E-mail: ben@nshmlaw.com
                  jmwalker@nshmlaw.com

               - and -

          William Pietragallo, II, Esq.
          Peter St. Tienne Wolff, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO
          BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-2000
          Facsimile: (412) 263-2001
          E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com
                  psw@pietragallo.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
          Joel M. Walker, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE& MILLER, LLP
          1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104
          Pittsburgh, PA 15243
          Telephone: (412) 857-5350
          E-mail: ben@nshmlaw.com
                  jmwalker@nshmlaw.com

               - and -

          William Pietragallo, II, Esq.
          Peter St. Tienne Wolff
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO
          BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-2000
          Facsimile: (412) 263-2001
          E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com
                  psw@pietragallo.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Walker Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01472-JCZ-KWR
(E.D. La., Aug. 3, 2021) is a class action complaint on behalf of
himself and a proposed class of purchasers and users of Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway
Pressure (Bi-Level PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
manufactured by Philips, which contain polyester-based polyurethane
sound abatement foam ("PE-PUR Foam").

On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it
had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it
manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances.

On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United
States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may
enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and
(b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation.
Philips further disclosed in its Recall Notice that "these issues
can result in serious injury which can be life-threatening, cause
permanent impairment, and/or require medical intervention to
preclude permanent impairment," says the suit.

Philips has disclosed that the absence of visible particles in the
devices does not mean that PE-PUR Foam breakdown has not already
begun. Philips reported that lab analysis of the degraded foam
reveals the presence of harmful chemicals, including: Toluene
Diamine ("TDA"), Toluene Diisocyanate ("TDI"), and Diethylene
Glycol ("DEG").

Prior to issuing the Recall Notice, Philips received complaints
regarding the presence of black debris/particles within the airpath
circuit of its devices (extending from the device outlet,
humidifier, tubing, and mask). Philips also received reports of
headaches, upper airway irritation, cough, chest pressure and sinus
infection from users of these devices, added the suit.

Philips recommended that patients using the recalled CPAP and
Bi-Level PAP devices immediately discontinue using their devices
and that patients using the recalled ventilators for
life-sustaining therapy consult with their physicians regarding
alternative ventilator options.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages based on, inter alia,
Philips' alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, misrepresentations, omissions, and breaches of state
consumer protection laws in connection with its manufacture,
marketing and sales of devices containing PE-PUR Foam on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Class Members. In addition, Plaintiffs
seek medical monitoring damages for users of Philips' devices
identified in the Recall Notice, who are at risk of suffering from
serious injury, including irritation (skin, eye, and respiratory
tract), inflammatory response, headache, asthma, adverse effects to
other organs (e.g., kidneys and liver) and toxic carcinogenic
affect.

The Plaintiff purchased and used the CPAP devices for personal use
as they related to a sleep apnea diagnosis. All Plaintiffs were
harmed and suffered damages, the suit contends.

Royal Philips is a Dutch multinational corporation with its
principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Royal Philips is the parent company of the Philips Group of
healthcare technology businesses, including Connected Care
businesses focusing on Sleep & Respiratory Care. Royal Philips
holds directly or indirectly 100% of its subsidiaries Philips NA
and Philips RS. Royal Philips controls Philips NA and Philips RS in
the manufacturing, selling, distributing, and supplying of the
recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices.

Philips NA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02141. Philips NA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Royal Philips.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ron A. Austin, Esq.
          Catherine Hilton, Esq.
          RON AUSTIN LAW, LLC
          400 Manhattan Boulevard
          Harvey, LA 70058
          Telephone: (504) 227-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 227-8122
          E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com
                  chilton@ronaustinlaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Aker Class Suit Over CPAP/BiPAP Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA AKERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01008-MRH (W.D.
Pa., July 29, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought against the
Defendants by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers who purchased certain CPAP/BiPAP
machines or ventilators manufactured and sold by the Defendants.

Philips manufactures and sells medical equipment products. These
products include Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP") and
Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure ("BiPAP") machines, which are used
in the treatment of sleep apnea, and ventilators, which treat
respiratory failure.

On June 14, 2021, Philips announced a recall of many of its
CPAP/BiPAP machines and its ventilators because they suffer from a
defect which could result in serious injury, permanent impairment,
and even be life-threatening, says the suit.

These products contain polyester-based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") foam
which is used to minimize the sound produced by the devices.
According to Philips, this PE-PUR foam can deteriorate over time,
causing it to break down. When the foam breaks down, small foam
particles and gases can be inhaled or ingested though use of the
devices which assist patients with respiration. Allegedly, the foam
may emit volatile organic compounds, which when inhaled, can result
in serious adverse health effects, including cancer.

Unfortunately for patients, Philips has known about these dangers
for years but did nothing to warn patients or doctors until
recently.

Furthermore, despite the recall, Philips is still not actually
repairing or replacing affected devices, which many patients rely
upon on a daily basis to treat serious medical conditions. Since
Philips is now telling patients it is not safe to use these
devices, but many patients rely on them to treat serious health
conditions, Philips leaves many patients with no safe option but to
pay full price for a newer version, added the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased a Philips device included in the recall.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the device or would have
paid less for it if she had known about the foam problems and
potential health hazards.

As a result of Philips's alleged unfair, deceptive, and/or
fraudulent business practices, owners of these devices, including
Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury in fact, and
otherwise have been harmed by Philips's conduct.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a Dutch multinational company
headquartered in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and is the parent company
of Philips North America LLC and Philips RS North America LLC.

Defendant Philips North America LLC is a Delaware company with its
principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The
Defendant Philips RS North America LLC (formerly Respironics, Inc.)
is a Delaware company with its headquarters and principal place of
business in Murrysville, Pennsylvania.

Sleep apnea (sometimes called obstructive sleep apnea) is a
disorder in which breathing is disturbed temporarily during sleep.
Breathing may stop or become very shallow. These periods are called
"apneas," and they may be associated with fatigue, daytime
sleepiness, depression, interrupted sleep, or snoring, among other
symptoms. Serious cases can lead to hypertension, heart attack, or
stroke, among other medical ailments. It is estimated that over 25
million Americans suffer from sleep apnea.

CPAP therapy is the most common treatment for sleep apnea. In CPAP
therapy, a machine delivers a flow of air through a mask over the
nose or mouth, which increases air pressure in the throat so that
the airway does not collapse during inhalation. CPAP therapy
assists breathing during sleep and can successfully treat sleep
apnea. According to the Mayo Clinic, "CPAP is the most consistently
successful and most commonly used method of treating obstructive
sleep apnea."

BiPAP machines and Automatic Positive Airway Pressure (APAP)
machines are similar devices that also treat sleep apnea. BiPAP
machines use two different pressures, one for inhaling and one for
exhaling. APAP machines adjust pressure automatically during the
night as needed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
           Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
           Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
           Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
           CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
           DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
           361 W. Lancaster Avenue
           Haverford, PA 19041
           Telephone: (610) 642-8500
           Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
           E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
                   bfj@chimicles.com
                    amk@chimicles.com

                - and -

           Franklin D Azar, Esq.
           Paul R. Wood, Esq.
           FRANKLIN D. AZAR &
           ASSOCIATES, P.C.
           14426 East Evans Avenue
           Aurora, CO 80014
           Telephone: (303) 757-3300
           Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
           E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                   woodp@fdazar.com

LA SUPERIOR: Faces Davalos Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LA Superior Central
Office, Inc. The case is captioned as Annabel Davalos vs. LA
Superior Central Office, Inc., an unknown business entity, Case No.
34-2021-00305182-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., July
29, 2021).

The suit is brought over employment-related issues.

The Defendant includes Does 1-100; LA Superior Central Office,
Inc., an unknown business entity; LA Superior Northgate, Inc., an
unknown business entity; and LA Superior Super Mercadoes, an
unknown business entity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

LENCHO OILFIELD: Birdwell Seeks to Send Notice to SCT Worker Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BIRDWELL,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated, v. LENCHO
OILFIELD SERVICES INC. and LAWRENCE DECULIT, Case No.
5:20-cv-00855-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff Birdwell files a
motion to authorize notice to similarly situated workers:

The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, current and former Solids Control Technicians (SCT) are
hired by the  Defendant Lencho.

The Plaintiff seeks to send notice to other individuals who have
been engaged or hired by Lencho as Solids Control Technicians.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion the Defendant's motion dated
Aug. 6 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2W4ihDp at no extra charge.[CC]

The attorney for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, is:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (832) 827-3192
          E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
                  service@tranlf.com

LESSEREVIL LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lesserevil LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Lesserevil LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04596-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2021).

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

LesserEvil Snacks -- https://lesserevil.com/ -- is a natural snack
food company located in Danbury, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINKEDIN CORP: Claims in Consolidated Topdevz Complaint Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOPDEVZ, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. LINKEDIN
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08324-SVK (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California:

   (i) granted in part and denied in part LinkedIn's motion to
       dismiss the Consolidated Complaint pursuant to Federal
       Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6); and

  (ii) denied LinkedIn's motion to strike the class allegations
       pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
       23(d).
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of advertisers,
allege that Defendant LinkedIn overstates the level of actual user
engagement with ads placed on the LinkedIn platform in order to
charge premium rates to advertisers. LinkedIn operates on an online
platform where users can post resumes, engage in career networking,
and find job listings. It charges advertisers for the opportunity
to display advertisements to users on its platform. Types of ads
include "Sponsored Content" (which delivers ads on LinkedIn
members' feeds), "Text Ads" (which appear in a sidebar or at the
top of the LinkedIn user interface), "Sponsored Messages" (which
deliver direct messages to specific contacts), and "Dynamic Ads"
(which target specific audiences with personalized content).

Digital advertisements on LinkedIn are sold through online
auctions, and advertisers use metrics provided by LinkedIn to
determine how much to bid for advertisements on the platform and to
track the performance of their advertisements. LinkedIn includes a
link to the LinkedIn Ads Agreement at the point of purchase for
every ad campaign. Under the Ads Agreement, every advertiser
"agrees to pay on the basis and at the rate shown when a campaign,
order or other purchase was submitted, e.g., price per impression,
click" or other pricing options. LinkedIn does not provide
advertisers with access to raw data regarding which users viewed
their ads, their level of engagement, or whether the users are real
humans or automated bots. Instead, it provides various metrics,
such as "reach metrics," which purport to measure the number of
impressions, views, and clicks. It uses its ad metrics to calculate
the rate paid by advertisers, depending on what pricing rate
selected when they purchased the ad campaign.

In August 2020, LinkedIn discovered that its video ad metrics for
Sponsored Content ads may have been inflated because the company
counted video views from a user's LinkedIn app even when the user
merely scrolled past the video and the video was only playing
offscreen. In November 2020, LinkedIn notified the affected
advertisers and provided them with makegoods.

On Nov. 25, 2020, Plaintiffs TopDevz, LLC and Noirefy, Inc. filed a
class action complaint against LinkedIn in Case No. 5:20-cv-08324.
On Jan. 21, 2021, Synergy, Inc. filed a class action complaint
against LinkedIn in Case No. 5:21-cv-00513. On Feb. 24, 2021, upon
stipulation of the Parties, the Court consolidated the two cases
and ordered the filing of a Consolidated Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint contains causes of action for: (1)
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. C. Section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); (2) fraudulent
misrepresentation; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) negligent
misrepresentation; (5) breach of implied duty to perform with
reasonable care; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and (7) accounting.

The Consolidated Complaint defines the class as "all persons or
entities who paid for the placement of advertisements on LinkedIn's
platform up to the date of the filing of this action."

Discussion

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Together with its Motion to Dismiss, LinkedIn filed a Request for
Judicial Notice ("RJN") asking the Court to take judicial notice of
two documents: (1) a LinkedIn Marketing Solutions post entitled
"Forecasted Results in Campaign Manager" ("Forecasted Results
Page"), which is referenced and quoted in the Consolidated
Complaint; and (2) LinkedIn Contracting Entity Terms, which are
incorporated by reference into the LinkedIn Ads Agreement
referenced in, quoted in, and attached to the Consolidated
Complaint. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the RJN.

Judge van Keulen finds that the Consolidated Complaint alleges the
contents of the Forecasted Results Page. In addition, the relevance
and authenticity of the document is not disputed. Accordingly, the
Forecasted Results Page is properly the subject of judicial notice.
The Judge therefore grants LinkedIn's request for judicial notice
of the Forecasted Results Page.

The Contracting Entity Terms are not cited in the Consolidated
Complaint, although they are referenced in the Ads Agreement that
is attached to and referred to in the complaint.  LinkedIn refers
to the Contracting Entity Terms only in its motion to strike the
class allegations. The JUdge declines to strike the class
allegations at this pleadings stage of the case, and thus he does
not consider the contents of the Contracting Entity Terms. He
therefore denies LinkedIn's request for judicial notice of that
document at this stage of the litigation.

B. Motion to Dismiss

LinkedIn's motion to dismiss challenges the following causes of
action in the Consolidated Complaint: (1) the UCL claim; (2) the
claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,
and negligent misrepresentation; (3) the claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) the claim
for accounting.

1. UCL

a. Standing

LinkedIn argues that the Plaintiffs cannot invoke the protections
of the UCL because they are companies litigating commercial
disputes, not consumers or members of the public that the UCL is
meant to protect. The Plaintiffs argue they have standing to bring
UCL claims because as small businesses, they are not required to
allege harm to the public or consumers.

Judge van Keulen holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations of harm to
the public are vague and conclusory. These allegations lack the
necessary factual support. Moreover, because of the vagueness of
these allegations, the Judge cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs
have made actionable UCL allegations that extend "beyond the scope
of the parties' contractual relationship," as they contend.
Accordingly, the UCL claim is dismissed with leave to amend on the
ground that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts showing either
that they are small and unsophisticated entities or that LinkedIn's
alleged conduct affected the public at large or consumers
generally.

b. Restitution

LinkedIn argues that the Plaintiffs' claim for restitution under
the UCL is barred because they cannot show that they lack an
adequate remedy at law. It relies on the recent decision in Sonner
v. Premier Nutrition Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit held that "a
federal court must apply traditional legal principles before
awarding restitution under the UCL and CLRA" and "state law cannot
expand or limit a federal court's equitable authority."

The Plaintiffs argue that the case is distinguishable from Sonner
because they seek legal restitution, not equitable restitution.
They argue that because they seek to recover from LinkedIn's
general assets, their restitution claim is legal, whereas an
equitable restitution claim would be directed at particular funds.

Judge van Keulen finds that the dispositive issue in Sonner was the
plaintiff's failure to plead inadequate remedies at law or explain
why the remedies she requested in the complaint would be
inadequate." The Consolidated Complaint suffers from the same
defect because nowhere in the complaint do the Plaintiffs allege
that the damages they seek are inadequate or otherwise distinguish
their request for restitution from their request for damages. The
Plaintiffs request an opportunity to amend their pleading to
attempt to distinguish Sonner on the grounds that their UCL claims
seek unique relief beyond their other claims. If the Plaintiffs
elect to amend their UCL claim in this manner, they should be
prepared to address the principle that "nonrestitutionary
disgorgement is not available under the UCL." For the reasons
stated, the Plaintiffs' claim for restitution under the UCL is
dismissed with leave to amend.

c. "Unlawful" prong

The UCL permits prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business
acts or practices, and each of the three prongs provides "a
separate and distinct theory of liability." The Plaintiff's UCL
claim alleges that LinkedIn engaged in unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business acts and practices. LinkedIn argues that the
Plaintiffs' claim under the "unlawful" prong of the UCL fails
because such a claim cannot be premised on a breach of contract.

Judge van Keulen finds that the Consolidated Complaint contains
passing references to LinkedIn's alleged "unlawful" conduct but
those references are conclusory and do not specifically identify
the laws LinkedIn is alleged to have violated. The Consolidated
Complaint elsewhere states in conclusory fashion that LinkedIn's
conduct was "contrary to legislatively declared public policies
that seek to protect consumers from misleading statements, as
reflected in laws like the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 45), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section
1770), and California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17500)."  However, in the Plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion to dismiss, they do not address LinkedIn's argument that
they have not identified any statute or other law that may properly
serve as a predicate for a claim under the UCL's "unlawful" prong.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' UCL claim is dismissed to the extent
it alleges violation of UCL's "unlawful" prong. If the Plaintiffs
intend to pursue a claim under the UCL's "unlawful" claim, they are
granted leave to amend to identify what law they are "borrowing" as
the basis for the UCL claim and plead facts establishing that the
borrowed law is violated.

d. Rule 9(b) pleading standard

LinkedIn challenges the Plaintiffs' UCL cause of action, to the
extent it sounds in fraud, for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b)
pleading standards.

2. Fraud and Misrepresentation

a. Rule 9(b) pleading standard

LinkedIn argues that the Plaintiffs fail to plead their claims for
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent
misrepresentation (as well as the UCL claim, to the extent it is
sounds in fraud) with the specificity required under Rule 9(b).

Judge van Kuelen holds that the Consolidated Complaint repeatedly
refers to "statements," "misstatements," and "representations" by
LinkedIn concerning its metrics. However, she says, the Plaintiffs
do not identify the substance of any particular representation or
when and by whom it was made. Accordingly, the particular
circumstances concerning the alleged fraud and misrepresentation
cannot be discerned, and thus the fraud-based claims are subject to
dismissal. Accordingly, LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the fraud and
misrepresentation claims for failure to comply with Rule 9(b)
pleading standards is granted with leave to amend.

b. Economic loss rule

LinkedIn also argues that the Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent
misrepresentation seek purely economic damages arising from the
parties' contractual relationship and should be dismissed under the
economic loss rule. The Plaintiffs argue that their claims fall
within two exceptions to the economic loss rule that permit
recovery of their economic losses: a special relationship between
the Plaintiffs and LinkedIn, and fraudulent inducement of the
Plaintiffs into entering a contract with LinkedIn.

Because van Keulen finds that the Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims do
not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, she does not
consider LinkedIn's economic loss rule argument at this juncture.
However, if the Plaintiffs choose to amend their tort claims, they
must be prepared to justify why this dispute between corporate
entities regarding a written contract and seeking economic damages
implicates the law of tort.

3. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

LinkedIn argues that the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails because they
have not identified a contractual term that gives rise to the
claimed duty. The Plaintiffs argue that LinkedIn violated the duty
of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Parties' Ads
Agreement when it included non-genuine engagement in its
advertising metrics.

Judge van Keulen holds that the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails to identify
the term of the contract that gives rise to the implied covenant.
The Plaintiffs fail to tie the alleged breaches of the implied
covenant to any particular term of the contract. The Plaintiffs
have failed to show how LinkedIn's alleged acts of calculating and
communicating inflated ad metrics breached a duty of good faith and
fair dealing. Accordingly, the claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dismissed with leave to
amend.

4. Accounting

LinkedIn argues that the Plaintiffs' claim for accounting seeks
equitable relief and is barred because they have not shown that
their legal remedies are inadequate. The Plaintiffs argue that they
adequately plead their accounting claim as an alternative to their
legal claims.

Judge van Keulen finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts
sufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship. They also have
not plausibly alleged that the relevant accounts are "so
complicated that an ordinary legal action demanding a fixed sum is
impracticable. Their opposition to the motion to dismiss offers to
provide "further specificity" on their claim for accounting.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim for accounting is dismissed with
leave to amend.

5. Implausibility of claims based on Challenged Traffic

LinkedIn argues that all claims based on "Challenged Traffic"
should be dismissed as implausible on their face. The term
"Challenged Traffic" does not appear in the Consolidated Complaint,
but LinkedIn defines it in the motion to dismiss as "bot traffic,
fraudulent clicks, and erroneous clicks." LinkedIn argues that the
Plaintiffs offer no support for their allegations that the ad
metrics they received were inflated by Challenged Traffic."

The Plaintiffs take the position that this argument should be
rejected because it is not directed to an entire claim but instead
asks the Court to reject factual allegations within claims. They
also argue that they offer sufficient factual support in the
Consolidated Complaint for their allegations that LinkedIn's ad
metrics are systematically inflated by non-genuine engagement. They
further argue that they seek recovery for platform-wide price
inflation regardless of whether specific transactions resulted from
Challenged Traffic.

Judge van Keulen finds under the circumstances of the case that a
partial dismissal of the "Challenged Traffic" claims would not be
feasible or appropriate. First, because the Plaintiffs do not use
the term "Challenged Traffic" in the Consolidated Complaint,
dismissal of claims "to the extent" they rely on "Challenged
Traffic" may lead to uncertainty about what claims remain in the
case. Second, LinkedIn's argument that the Plaintiffs must present
"specific examples of how their advertisements were affected" by
Challenged Traffic rather than relying on investigations and
studies conducted by digital marketing experts and another
advertiser imposes too high a burden on the Plaintiffs at the
pleading stage. Drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs,
the Judge finds their allegations of "Challenged Traffic"
sufficient and therefore denies LinkedIn's motion to dismiss claims
based on "Challenged Traffic."

C. Motion to Strike

The proposed class is defined in the Consolidated Complaint as "all
persons or entities who paid for the placement of advertisements on
LinkedIn's platform up to the date of the filing of this action."
LinkedIn challenges the class allegations on three grounds: (1) the
proposed class includes foreign advertisers; (2) the proposed class
includes advertisers who did not purchase ads within the statute of
limitations; and (3) the proposed class is not ascertainable.

1. Inclusion of foreign advertisers

LinkedIn argues that the proposed class includes foreign
advertisers who contracted with LinkedIn's foreign entities and are
not entitled to bring claims in the United Status under California
law. The Plaintiffs argue that the Ads Agreement does not preclude
foreign advertisers from being included as unnamed plaintiffs in a
class action brought by similarly-situated plaintiffs who are
themselves entitled to bring an action in this District.

The parties' arguments concerning the propriety of including
foreign advertisers in the proposed class present complex issues
that are better decided at the class certification stage based on a
more complete record. Judge van Keulen therefore denies the motion
to strike on this ground.

2. Inclusion of advertisers who did not purchase ads within the
statute of limitations

LinkedIn argues that the proposed class improperly includes
advertisers who purchased ads outside the applicable limitations
period. The Plaintiffs respond that LinkedIn's argument overlooks
the tolling available under some of the Plaintiffs' causes of
action, which renders LinkedIn's statute of limitations arguments
premature.

Judge van keulen holds that additional development of the factual
record is necessary to decide the statute of limitations argument
advanced by LinkedIn. Accordingly, she denies the motion to strike
on this ground.

3. Ascertainability

LinkedIn argues that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is not
ascertainable because it includes advertisers who lack standing
because they were not billed for the allegedly inflated metrics.
The Plaintiffs respond that under Ninth Circuit jurisprudence,
there is no ascertainability requirement for class certification.
They also argue that all proposed class members have standing
because the Consolidated Complaint alleges that every LinkedIn
advertiser overpaid.

Again, LinkedIn's argument regarding ascertainability is best
decided at the class certification stage with the benefit of more
complete briefing and development of the record. Accordingly, Judge
van Kuelen denies the motion to strike on this ground.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge van Keulen granted with leave to
amend LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for UCL,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and accounting. She denied (i) LinkedIn's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims based on Challenged Traffic and
motion to strike the class allegation.

If the Plaintiffs wish to attempt to address the deficiencies
identified in this order, they may file Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) within 14 days of the date of the Order. LinkedIn must file a
response within 14 days of the filing of the SAC. If LinkedIn
responds by filing a motion to dismiss the SAC, the normal briefing
schedule of Civil Local Rule 7-3 will apply. The Court will inform
the parties if a hearing is necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4b7cj7k3 from Leagle.com.


LOCKHEED ANDREWS: Class Action Suits in Flint Water Case Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beth LeBlanc, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a federal
district judge certified two separate issue groups for class action
lawsuits filed against two engineering firms that were hired to
advise the city of Flint ahead of the Flint Water Crisis.

In a 144-page opinion released on Aug. 11, U.S. District Judge
Judith Levy certified a "multi-defendant" issues class and a "LAN"
issues class that can proceed with a suit against LAN, or Lockheed
Andrews & Newnam, and VNA, or Veolia North America.

The two firms, which are accused of providing bad advice related to
the Flint lead contamination water crisis, did not join a $641
million settlement between Flint residents and the state and area
hospitals. They will instead proceed forward with the litigation
process.

Levy, in her opinion, declined to grant plaintiffs' request to
certify one "master" issues class and four subclasses, instead
limiting the certifications to two.

"Issues-based resolution of common claims will streamline
litigation at both the class and individual levels by allowing the
parties to dispute common, class-wide claims 'in one fell swoop,'"
Levy said.

VNA in a statement said Levy's opinion indicated that "the true
responsibility for the Flint water crisis lies with the government
officials who failed to protect the people of Flint."

"As we have repeatedly stated, Veolia North America had no role in
the decision to switch the water source to the Flint River and the
resulting harmful consequences for the people of Flint," said
Carrie Griffiths, a spokeswoman for Veolia North America. "We are
looking forward to proving these facts at trial."

The city initially had hired LAN to consult on the use of the Flint
River as a water source in 2011, at which time the company
"cautioned against it and warned that the dormant (Flint Water
Treatment Plant) would require millions of dollars in upgrades in
order to treat the raw river water safely," according to a summary
of the case in Levy's opinion.

The city continued to pursue a switch in water sources and, in
2013, hired LAN again to determine the steps the city would need to
take to transition to the Flint River. At the time, the city ended
its contract with the Detroit area water system with the plan to
eventually join the then unfinished Karegnondi Water Authority.

LAN, at that time, advised on the upgrades and water quality
control needed and said an April 2014 timeline was possible. It did
not recommend a corrosion control program, Levy wrote.

When chlorine was used to address E. coli in the water after the
switch to the Flint River, officials did not put in corrosion
controls and LAN "allegedly never raised red flags" about the harm
that could result, according to Levy's summary.

The city, in February 2015, hired VNA and rehired LAN to review the
city's water to address public health concerns that had cropped up
about the water after the switch.

Both LAN and VNA recommended ferric chloride, which experts said
would have increased water acidity and corosivity, Levy wrote.

About a week after it was hired, VNA said in an interim report that
the city "was in compliance with drinking water standards," the
judge wrote. But, internally, the company mentioned concerns about
corrosion and indicated a reconnection to Detroit water would have
been the easiest solution.

LAN has argued its role was mischaracterized because it was
"basically shut out from water quality decision making," Levy
wrote.

VNA has argued that its final report recommended an initiation of
discussions with the state about adding corrosion controls. [GN]

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Mason Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in the purported
class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie.

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

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

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

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

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

In April 2021, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("Mason MOU") with counsel for the lead plaintiffs in
the Mason matter.  Under the terms of the Mason MOU, the Company
will pay up to $7 million to settle the claims asserted in the
Mason matter on behalf of all Mason Putative Class Employees who
(i) opted-in to the collective action ("Collective Members") and
(ii) are currently or were employed in New York and did not
previously file an opt-in notice to participate in the collective
action (the "New York Non Opt-Ins").  

The New York Non Opt-Ins will have an opportunity to file an opt-in
notice to participate in the settlement.  

To the extent that a New York Non Opt-In does not subsequently file
such a notice, then the amount apportioned to that claim shall
revert to the Company.  

In addition, any checks issued to the Collective Members and the
New York Non Opt-Ins which are not cashed within one hundred eighty
days will revert to the Company.  

The Mason MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval
of the definitive settlement agreement. There can be no assurance
that a settlement will be finalized and approved or as to the
ultimate outcome of the litigation.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "If a final, court-approved settlement is
not reached, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and
believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that
must be met for success on the merits.  If the parties are unable
to finalize the settlement, the Mason matter could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results of
operations.  As a result of these developments, the Company
determined that a probable loss has been incurred and has accrued
within SG&A a $7 million liability during the first quarter of
2021.  As of June 30, 2021, the remaining accrual related to this
matter is $7 million, which has been included in the caption
"Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements" on its condensed
consolidated balance sheet."

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

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Entered in Savidis Purported Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in the purported
class action suit initiated by Tanya Savidis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized or
approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation.

Lumber Liquidators said, "If a final, court-approved settlement is
not reached, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and
believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that
must be met for success on the merits. If the parties are unable to
finalize the settlement, the Savidis matter could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results of
operations."

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


MAPA ENTERPRISES: Zaragota Seeks Warehouse Workers' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
BIBIANA ZARAGOTA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPA ENTERPRISES, INC. and PATRICIA TOMILLO,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03223-TWT (N.D.
Ga., August 8, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
associate from 2011 to June 30, 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendants did not pay him his lawfully earned overtime
at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime premium pay against the Defendant, as well
as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation
costs and expenses together with attorney's fees, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

MAPA Enterprises, Inc. operates warehouse facility in Atlantaowned
by Patricia Tomillo. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Tel: (678) 330-2909
          Fax: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@ovetimeclaimslawyer.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hall Suit Transferred to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HALL, KEVIN BRANCA, and
GEORGE ABDELSAYED individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:21-mc-80165, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on on July 27, 2021.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-01370-JLS-AHG to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.

Marriott International is an American multinational company that
operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties. It is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Marriott International is represented by:

          Amy Bridget Alderfer, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (213) 892-7941
          Facsimile: (213) 784-9067

Movant Julie Drassinower is represented by:

          Michael Houchinm Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com

MOUTH OF THE SOUTH: Underpays Servers, Speirs et al. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY SPEIRS and M.S., a Minot, BY EMILY SPEIRS, her Mother and
Next Friend, Each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOUTH OF THE SOUTH; CBD, LLC,
CUTCHALL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., and RYAN D. ERNST, Defendants,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00298-BCB-SMB (D. Neb., August 6, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Speirs as a aerver from October
2017 until July 27, 2021 and Plaintiff M.S. as a non-tipped seating
hostess and table busser from February 2021 until the present.

According to the complaint, the Defendants classified Plaintiff
Speirs and other Servers as hourly employees, non-exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA, but they were paid below the
federal minimum wage while they were performing tipped work and
non-tipped work. The Defendants required Plaintiff Speirs and other
servers as a condition to their employment to pay into an illegal
tip pool to such a degree that their wages and their tips combined
frequently did not amount to a lawful minimum wage. In addition,
the Defendants did not compensate them for the time spent
performing off-the-clock work, that is around 15 minutes after
being clocked out by the Defendant's Restaurant manager, says the
suit.

The Corporate Defendants are a joint enterprise that share
responsibilities of the operation of the Mouth of the South Grub
restaurant located at 16909 Lakeside Hills, Suite 118, Omaha,
Nebraska 68130. Ryan D. Ernst is a principal, director, officer
and/or owner of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NASHVILLE BOOTING: Tennessee Court Trims Claims in Ladd Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY LADD, et al., Plaintiffs v. NASHVILLE BOOTING,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00626 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli
Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs have brought a class action against the Defendant, a
parking enforcement company.

The proposed class includes "all persons who have had a vehicle
immobilized by Nashville Booting LLC for longer than one hour after
requesting removal of the immobilization device, from three years
prior to the filing of the lawsuit up to the date the class is
certified."

The Defendant enters into agreements with private property owners
to "boot" vehicles that do not belong on owners' property.
Nashville Ordinance Section 6.81.170(E) authorizes the Defendant to
boot vehicles but requires removal within one hour if a vehicle
owner contacts a booting company to request removal.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has continually violated
Nashville Ordinance 6.81.170(E) by "unlawfully interfering" with
their "use and enjoyment" of their vehicles by failing to remove
booting devices within one hour of the Plaintiffs requesting the
Defendant to do so.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (i) negligent bailment,
(ii) negligent bailment per se, (iii) conversion, (iv) trespass to
chattels, and (v) violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The
Plaintiffs filed a response. The Defendant replied.

Discussion

Via the Motion, the Defendant requests dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, it contends that
the Plaintiffs have failed (i) to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983; (ii) to state a claim for negligent bailment; (iii)
to state claims for conversion and trespass to chattels; and (iv)
to identify any compensable damages.

(i) Alleged Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim should
be dismissed because the Defendant is not a governmental actor and
therefore no state action has taken place. In their Response, the
Plaintiffs state that they "agree to withdraw their claim for
violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count V), and do not object
to Nashville Booting's Motion to Dismiss as to this claim." Judge
Richardson agrees with the Defendant that there is no state action
here and accepts the Plaintiffs' withdrawal, and thus will dismiss
their Count V claim for violations of Section 1983.

(ii) Alleged Negligence

a. Negligent Bailment

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' negligent bailment
claim fails because they have not alleged that it lost or damaged
their vehicles and has not alleged facts from which it could
reasonably be inferred that the Defendant lost or damaged the
Plaintiffs' vehicles.

However, Judge Richardson holds that the damage to the Plaintiffs'
vehicles is not necessary to establish a prima facie case of
negligence. In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs do not
mention, let alone rely on, an alleged ability to establish a prima
facie case under Tenn. Instead, they allege, with apparent
invocation of a straightforward common law negligence theory, that
"as a direct and proximate result of Nashville Booting's negligent
failure to remove their booting devices by the conclusion of their
involuntary/constructive bailment, the Plaintiff and the other
members of the putative class were denied use and enjoyment of
their vehicles and suffered other compensable damages."

Both Tenn. Code Ann. Section 24-5-111 and Anderson are inapplicable
and irrelevant to the question in the case: Whether the Plaintiff
thus has plausibly alleged a claim of negligence. Later on in the
litigation, the Plaintiffs conceivably could seek to invoke Tenn.
Code Ann. Section 24-5-111 to establish a prima facie case to shift
the burden to Defendant in the manner suggested in Anderson, but at
this juncture, the Plaintiffs need not do so.

Hence, the Judge finds that Plaintiffs have pleaded factual matter
sufficient to state a claim for negligence in the context of
bailment. The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a claim for common
law negligence and therefore the Defendant's motion to dismiss this
claim is denied.

b. Negligence per se

Although the Defendant has not addressed the Plaintiffs' separately
pleaded claim of negligent bailment per se, Judge Richardson
nevertheless addresses it. He finds that the Plaintiffs have not
referred the Court to any standard of care articulated in the
Nashville ordinance on which the Plaintiffs rely.

The Judge explains that like the plaintiff in United Inventory
Servs., the Plaintiffs have pointed to a rule intended to protect a
class of persons that include them, but that is not enough. The
ordinance (namely, its one-hour unbooting deadline) must set forth
a standard of care, and the Judge cannot conclude that such
deadline is a creature of holistic societal concerns so as to
constitute a standard of care. That is not to say that a violation
of the ordinance is not unlawful and thus entails some
consequence(s); it is only to say that the Plaintiffs have not
alleged (or established in their briefing), and the Judge cannot
find on his own, that the ordinance prescribes a standard of care.
Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
negligence per se claim is granted.

(iii) Alleged Conversion and Trespass to Chattels

The Defendant argues that the conversion and trespass to chattels
claims both fail because there was only an unintended delay in the
removal of the boots on the Plaintiffs' vehicles, not an outright
refusal to remove the boots. Conversion is an intentional tort, and
a party seeking to make out a prima facie case of conversion must
prove (1) the appropriation of another's property to one's own use
and benefit, (2) by the intentional exercise of dominion over it,
(3) in defiance of the true owner's rights.

Judge Richardson opines that the Plaintiffs' allegation that the
Defendant deprived them of the use of their vehicle for a
substantial amount of time, in the case, longer than one hour (in
violation of a local ordinance) and in one case more than eight
hours, suffices to state a plausible claim for relief for trespass
to chattels. Therefore, although both parties agree that the
Defendant initially had authority to boot the Plaintiffs' vehicles,
the Defendant's alleged failure to timely remove the boots as
required by ordinance suffices to constitute the required alleged
interference (or "intermeddlement") with the Plaintiffs' vehicles
and alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs' use of their vehicles for a
substantial time. Accordingly, the Judge denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim.

(iv) Alleged Compensatory Damages

As an alternative basis to avoid the referenced denial of the
Motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim for negligence,
conversion, and trespass to chattels, the Defendant contends that
"Plaintiffs have referenced only three types of direct, subsequent
damages: (1) an alleged loss of use of their respective vehicles;
(2) wasted time; and (3) frustration" and that none of those
damages are compensable.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges compensable damages as to
their negligent bailment and conversion claims in the form of
denial of the "use and enjoyment of their vehicles." Likewise, as
to their trespass to chattels claim, the Plaintiffs allege
deprivation of the "use and enjoyment of their vehicles," albeit
without here specifically identifying (in redundant fashion) such
deprivation as a form of compensable damages. Although the
Plaintiffs' Response attempts to add on allegations of damages for
"the inconvenience, frustration, and loss of enjoyment of life,"
damages of this nature were not alleged in the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint and so the Court will disregard them in determining
whether any of the Plaintiffs' claims fail due to insufficient
allegations of compensable damage

Judge Richardson concludes that the allegations of damages are
general indeed, and not supported by much factual matter, and yet
still have been found sufficient. Likewise, although the
Plaintiffs' allegations of damages are not supported by much
factual matter, the Plaintiffs have alleged damages of a particular
nature (loss of use of vehicles), and the allegation is plausible
-- because, for example, it is easily inferable that someone stuck
away from home could be forced, as a result of the denial of the
use of his or her vehicle, to procure more costly transportation
(for example, ride-share services). At trial, such damages
conceivably could prove at trial to be minimal or even non-exist at
all. But whether the Plaintiff can prove any damages (minimal or
otherwise) is not at issue at the pleading stage.

Conclusion

Judge Richardson holds that with respect to two of the Plaintiffs'
five counts, the Defendant is entitled to dismissal. As to the
other three counts, he says the Defendant presents arguments that
conceivably could gain traction before a jury but do not persuade
him that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the
applicable pleadings standards.

Thus, and for the reasons he discussed, Judge Richardson grants the
Motion in part and denies it in part. The Motion is granted as to
Count V (Section 1983 violations) and Count II (negligence per se).
The Motion is denied as to Count I (negligent bailment), Count III
(conversion), and Count IV (trespass to chattels).

An appropriate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/d29dnaax from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kane Russell Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sigety, Esq., of Kane Russell Coleman Logan, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that NCAA sports have been on summer break, but
that has not stopped collegiate athletics from making headlines. On
June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in NCAA v.
Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), unanimously striking down an NCAA
restriction on the education-related benefits a college can offer
student-athletes. Then, on July 1, numerous state laws, and an NCAA
rule change went into effect that allow college athletes to receive
compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). While those
developments have left their mark, what's coming next may have an
even bigger impact on the NCAA. Enter In re College Athlete NIL
Litigation (a.k.a. In re NIL Litigation), a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The story of In re NIL Litigation begins on June 15, 2020 when
Grant House, a swimmer from Arizona State, and Sedona Prince, a
basketball player from the University of Oregon, filed a
class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and the Power Five
Conferences (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC). About three
weeks later on July 8, 2020, Tymir Oliver, a former defensive
tackle for the University of Illinois with the same local attorney
as House and Prince, filed a substantially similar lawsuit against
the NCAA. House, Prince, and Oliver (the Plaintiffs) challenged the
NCAA's prohibition against student athletes receiving compensation
for their NIL, arguing that the prohibition violates antitrust laws
because it constitutes a conspiracy to fix the amount student
athletes may be paid for licensing and selling their NIL at $0, and
because it prevents student athletes from accessing the market for
the licensing and/or sale of their NIL. On behalf of all current
and former Division I student athletes who competed during the four
years prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the Plaintiffs sought an
injunction prohibiting enforcement of the NCAA's restraint on NIL
compensation. On behalf of athletes in the Social Media Damages
Sub-Class,1 the Plaintiffs sought social media earnings athletes
would have received if not for the NCAA's NIL restraints. And on
behalf of athletes in the Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class,2 the
Plaintiffs sought the share of game telecast group licensing
revenue athletes would have received absent the NCAA's NIL
restraints.

It was no coincidence that these cases were filed in California.
Both House and Oliver relied on California's Fair Pay to Play Act,
which would allow student-athletes to monetarily benefit from their
NIL beginning in January 2023. The Plaintiffs argued that if the
California law (which was the first of its kind at the time) took
effect, it would create an unrestricted market for the use of
student-athlete NILs. Although the NCAA opposed the Fair Pay to
Play Act and continued to enforce NIL restraints, the organization
began to loosen its restrictions, voting in October 2019 to allow
students to benefit from their NIL and in April 2020 endorsing
recommended rule changes issued by an internal working group that
would allow athletes to receive compensation for certain
activities, including endorsements, autographs, and personal
appearances. As such, the Plaintiffs argued that the NCAA's
previous positions on NIL benefits were unfounded, and they were
therefore entitled to the requested relief.

Fast forward to today. On July 14, 2021, the District Court entered
an order combining the House and Oliver lawsuits into In re NIL
Litigation. On July 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint added
a Lost Opportunities Damages Sub-Class3 and a Former Players
Damages Sub-Class,4 and added players on FBS football teams at
independent schools to the definition of the Group Licensing
Damages Sub-Class. The Amended Complaint also cites the Alston
decision, pointing out that the unanimous Supreme Court rejected
the NCAA's position that its amateurism restraints are not subject
to traditional antitrust analyses. The NCAA had argued that NCAA v.
Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 119 (1984)contemplated an antitrust
exemption for the NCAA's amateurism model. But the Supreme Court
rejected this argument, instead finding that the NCAA is subject to
rule of reason antitrust scrutiny because it exercises monopsony
(i.e. a single buyer controls the demand for goods or services)
power in the market for student-athlete services. Based on this
finding, the Alston court rejected the existence of an amateurism
exemption and found that the NCAA's restraint on education benefits
violated U.S. antitrust law.

While Justice Neil Gorsuch made sure to state in his majority
Alston opinion that it was only intended to apply to the contested
restriction on education benefits, it is not difficult to see how
the Supreme Court's rejection of an amateurism exception to
antitrust law could extend to the challenged NIL restraints in In
re NIL Litigation. Further, Justice Kavanaugh was not so restrained
in his concurring opinion, specifically addressing the legality of
the NCAA's remaining compensation rules and stating that they
should each be subject to a rule of reason analysis without the
benefit of an amateurism exemption. He even went so far as to
acknowledge that the NCAA is "suppressing the pay of student
athletes" by engaging in price-fixing of the athletes' labor,
suggesting that he believes it violates antitrust law to prevent
athletes from being paid directly for their labor.

The NCAA has 21 days to answer the Amended Complaint, a deadline
that falls on August 16, 2021. This will be the first in-court
opportunity the NCAA has to take a position on the Supreme Court's
Alston decisionand how it affects their amateurism model. One can
expect the NCAA to argue that the Alston decision is limited to the
educational benefits restraint it specifically addressed, and
therefore it has no bearing on whether the NCAA should pay damages
for past NIL benefits class members would have received if not for
the NIL restraints. But with the rejection of the antitrust
exemption in the Alston opinion and Kavanaugh's questioning of
whether any price-fixing measure put in place by the NCAA survives
antitrust scrutiny, the NCAA's defense may not hold up. We could be
looking at the complete restructuring of the NCAA amateurism model.
[GN]

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Suit Over Unlawful Payment Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Baugher, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a class
action against mortgage servicer Nationstar Mortgage accused of
using illegal tactics to collect payments has been settled for $7
million, the plaintiffs' attorneys report. The plaintiffs'
attorneys are Ed Maginnis, Karl Gwaltney, and Asa Edwards of
Maginnis Howard in Raleigh and Scott C. Harris of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman. [GN]

NEEL'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosales Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MODESTO ROSALES and JESUS EQULANO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEEL'S PIZZA and PASTA
INC. and GURVINDER SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04524
(E.D.N.Y., August 11, 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 overtime wages, failure
to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
premium, failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Mr. Rosales and Mr. Equlano were employed by the Defendants from
March 2020 until April 2021 and March 2020 until May 2021,
respectively. The Plaintiffs' primary duties were as food
preparers, cooks, cleaners, supply stockers, and delivery persons.

Neel's Pizza and Pasta Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator
located at 10-01 36th Ave., Long Island City, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

NESTLE PURINA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Salinas Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL SALINAS, on behalf of himself and the Class members v.
NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY; NESTLE USA, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01140-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal., July 26, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to pay
minimum wages and failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, penalties, and interest to the full
extent permitted by the California Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders, as well as other relief.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendants for various
projects as a forklift operator. The Plaintiff began employment
with Defendants in February 2015 in Maricopa, California.

Nestle Purina produces and markets pet food, treats, and cat
litters. It operates throughout the United States and overseas,
including the state of California. Nestle Purina employs hundreds
of hourly, non-exempt workers similarly situated to Plaintiff in
California.

Nestle USA produces and distributes a broad range of food and
beverage products in the United States, including in California. It
operates over 150 locations in 31 states and employs more than
30,000 employees in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstain, Esq.
          Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com

NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Clark Suit Over Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHAYA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public, v. NETGAIN
TECHNOLOGY, LLC, and CARESOUTH CAROLINA, Case No.
3:21-cv-01432-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2021) seeks to hold the
Defendants responsible for the harms it caused her and the hundreds
of thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable ransomware attack that took place on or around December
3, 2020 by which cyber criminals infiltrated Defendants'
inadequately protected network servers where highly sensitive
personal and medical information was being kept unprotected (Data
Breach).

According to the complaint, the cybercriminals gained access to
certain of Defendants' network servers with the apparent intention
of profiting from such access. Netgain chose to negotiate with the
criminals, paying a significant amount of money to them in exchange
for a promise from the attackers that they would delete the copies
of the data that was in their possession, and that they would not
publish, sell or otherwise share the data, the suit contends.

Defendant Netgain is a cloud hosting and information technology
services provider that provides services to several organizations
in the healthcare and accounting industries nationwide.

The Data Breach appears on the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' online public breach tool and shows that approximately
76,035 CareSouth patients were affected by the Data Breach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

NEW BONNEY: Faces Cuevas Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Bonney, LLC. The
case is captioned as Gabriel Cuevas vs. New Bonney, LLC, an unknown
business entity, Case No. 34-2021-00305189-CU-OE-GDS (Calif.
Super., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2021).

The suit is brought over employment-related issues.

The Defendant includes Does 1-100.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

NEW PRIME: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Nyachira Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER NYACHIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW PRIME, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-03211-BP (W.D. Mo., August 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated truck
drivers all minimum wages to which they are entitled for
orientation time, for over-the-road training, and for all hours
worked.

Mr. Moore was employed by the Defendant as an over-the-road truck
driver from approximately October 2020 to January 2021.

New Prime, Inc. is a trucking company with a principal office in
Springfield, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Hillary Schwab, Esq.
         FAIR WORK, P.C.
         192 South Street, Suite 450
         Boston, MA 02111
         Telephone: (617) 607-3261
         Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
         E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

               - and -
                  
         Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
         HODES LAW FIRM, LLC
         6 Victory Lane, Suite 6
         Liberty, MO 64068
         Telephone: (816) 222-4338
         Facsimile: (816) 931-1718
         E-mail: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com

                - and –

         Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
         Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
         CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
         214 S. Spring Street
         Independence, MO 64050
         Telephone: (816) 974-7220
         Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
         E-mail: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
                 v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com

NIPPON EXPRESS: Quezada BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NIPPON EXPRESS USA INC., Case No.
2021-CH-03046, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04309 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act by causing the biometric data
from employees' fingerprints to be recorded, collected, and stored
without consent.

Nippon Express USA Inc. is a global logistics company headquartered
in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         David K. Haase, Esq.        
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: dhaase@littler.com

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Cisneros BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NORMA CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No.
2021-CH-02337, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on August 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04285 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by allegedly capturing,
collecting, storing, and/or using the voiceprint biometric
identifiers of the Plaintiff and Class members without valid
consent.

Nuance Communications, Inc. is an American multinational computer
software technology company, headquartered in Burlington,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         David C. Layden, Esq.
         Elena M. Olivieri, Esq.
         JENNER & BLOCK LLP
         353 N. Clark Street
         Chicago, IL 60654-3456
         Telephone: (312) 222-9350
         Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
         E-mail: DLayden@jenner.com
                 EOlivieri@jenner.com

OUTDOOR SPORTSMAN: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outdoor Sportsman
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Outdoor Sportsman
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04611 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2021).

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

Outdoor Sportsman Group -- https://www.outdoorsg.com/ -- is the
largest media company devoted to bringing the best in content and
entertainment to America's 80-million+ outdoor enthusiasts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


PACTIV LLC: Wilson Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, v. PACTIV LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01691-SB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certify the following Classes:

      -- Rounding Class

         "All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant in
         California who were paid based on their scheduled shift
         time and not their actual clock in time from May 29,
         2016, through the date of class certification;"

      -- Regular Rate Class

         "All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant in
         California who were paid a non-discretionary bonus or
         incentive during the same pay period that they were
         paid overtime wages from May 29, 2016 through the date
         of class certification;"

      -- Premises Rest Break Class

         "All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who
         worked at one of Defendant's San Bernardino, Sante Fe
         Springs, or Stockton, California locations from May 29,
         2016, through the date of certification;"

      -- Third Rest Break Class:

         "All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who
         worked at least one shift more than 10 hours at its San
         Bernardino facility in California from May 29, 2016,
         through February 28, 2020;"

      -- Second Meal Break Class:

         "All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who
         worked at least one shift more than 10 hours at its San
         Bernadino facili y in California from May 29, 2016,
         through February 28, 2020;" and

      -- Derivative Claims

         "Plaintiff's Complaint also includes claims pursuant to
         Labor Code sections 510, 1198, 1194, 1997, 1197.1, 15
         201, 202, 203, 204, and 226, and Business & Professions
         Code section 17200, et seq. These claims are entirely
         or partially 17 derivative of the putative class claims
         at issue in this Motion and should be certified along
         with them."

   2. appointing Plaintiff Mark Wilson as representative for the  
      proposed Classes; and

   3. appointing Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel for the
      proposed Classes.

Pactiv is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and
foodservice products, supplying packers, processors, supermarkets,
restaurants, institutions and foodservice outlets across North
America.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
          Joseph Hakakian, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                  Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
                  Joseph.Hakakian@capstonelawyers.com

PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Faces Williams Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matthew Williams vs.
Palamerican Security (California) Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 34-2021-00305148-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento
Cty., July 29, 2021).

The suit is brought over employment-related issues.

The Defendants include Does 1-50; Palamerican Security (California)
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Palamerican Security, Inc., a
Tennessee corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

PANERA BREAD: Court Grants Sally's Bid to Remand MMPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDALL SALLY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01068-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T.
Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, grants Sally's Motion to Remand.

The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") case arises out
of Defendant Panera's "clean" advertising campaign. Plaintiff Sally
originally filed his class-action petition in the Circuit Court for
the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The Plaintiff's MMPA action
centers around Panera's claim, made in advertisements, on its
website, and displayed in its restaurants, that all of its food is
"clean," a word that Panera self-defines as meaning that the food
is free from any "artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or
colors from artificial sources."

In his Petition, the Plaintiff identified numerous ingredients in
Panera's food items that Plaintiff asserts fall into the categories
from which Panera claims its food is 100% free, including ascorbic
acid, citric acid, potassium sorbate, and tocopherols.  In support
of his argument, the Plaintiff refers to numerous FDA regulations,
guidance, and warning letters that he contends show the ingredients
in Panera's food are not, by Panera's definition, "clean." He
similarly cites to non-FDA references purporting to reveal the
"unclean" character of various Panera ingredients, including
websites, scholarly journal articles, and online resources.
According to the Plaintiff, Panera's use of the Challenged
Ingredients, in tandem with the clean campaign, violates the MMPA,
which prohibits the use of "any deception, false promise, or
misrepresentation of any material fact in connection with the sale
or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce."

Panera timely removed the case to the Court, citing to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331, which provides federal district courts "original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States." The Plaintiff's Petition,
Panera argues, raises "important issues of federal law" having
ramifications "for the nationwide labeling of food products." That
is so, according to Panera, because to resolve the Plaintiff's
claim the Court must address whether the Challenged Ingredients
"must be declared and labeled as 'preservatives' under federal
law." Because, in Panera's view, the "key issue in the case turns
on the interpretation and application of federal regulations," the
Plaintiff's claim necessarily raises a substantial federal
question, thereby granting the Court federal-question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and the test laid out by the Supreme
Court in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering &
Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) and clarified in Gunn v. Minton,
568 U.S. 251 (2013).

The Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, maintaining that he has
merely stated a fact-bound, state-law claim and that the
implication or interpretation of federal law as it pertains to his
state-law claim does not create federal-question jurisdiction. More
specifically, the Plaintiff contends that federal law does not
create the right of action here and his MMPA claim does not
necessarily raise any issues of federal law, as "a court need not
address federal law at all" in determining whether "Panera's
'clean' representations violate Missouri law." In fact, the
Plaintiff insists, federal law will only be analyzed if Panera
raises it as a defense to Plaintiff's claim, and defenses cannot
give rise to federal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff further urges that his MMPA claim is not
"substantial" within the meaning of Grable because he "need not
demonstrate violation of federal law" to prevail on that claim;
indeed, according to the Plaintiff, he does not allege that
"because Panera violated federal law, it also violated state law."
Because the case does not fit into the small category of state-law
claims that give rise to federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff argues,
the Court must remand. Finally, to the extent Panera attempted to
raise complete preemption as an additional basis for removal, the
Plaintiff argues there is no such preemption.

In opposition, Panera reiterated its view that FDA regulations are
integral to the Plaintiff's claim, emphasizing the FDA's charge
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 ("FDCA") of
regulating and policing food labeling. From Panera's perspective,
the "Plaintiff's claim boils down to this: Panera violated the MMPA
because the Challenged Ingredients disclosed on Panera's labels
are, contrary to Panera's advertising and labeling, 'artificial
preservatives' as defined by the FDA."

Consistent with its Notice of Removal ("NOR"), Panera continued to
rely on Grable, in which the Supreme Court explained that federal
courts may exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims that
"necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and
substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing
any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities." While the Plaintiff preemptively addressed
complete preemption in his Motion, Panera did not attempt to
justify the Court's exercise of jurisdiction on complete preemption
grounds, and therefore Judge Schelp does not address preemption as
a basis for the Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Judge solely
focuses his analysis on whether the Court has jurisdiction under
Grable.

Judge Schelp concludes that the Plaintiff is the "master of his
complaint," and as such he "may avoid federal jurisdiction by
exclusive reliance on state law." In his Petition, the Plaintiff
alleged only a violation of the MMPA, a state law; thus, federal
law does not create the cause of action alleged in the case. Nor
does the case fall within the narrow category of cases described in
Grable, as Panera has failed to carry its burden of showing that an
issue of federal law is either necessarily raised or substantial in
this case. Therefore, Judge Schelp holds that the Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and
the Court must remand the case.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted. A
separate Order of Remand accompanies the Memorandum and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/465w2csv from Leagle.com.


PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT: Stebbins Suit Moved From D.N.H. to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL STEBBINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT SERVICES d/b/a
WILDCO PES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00272, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-15117 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the common law of New Jersey by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated service
technicians appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Petroleum Equipment Services, doing business as Wildco PES, is a
petroleum products company located in Manchester, New Hampshire.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Thomas C. Tretter, Esq.
         SHEEHAN, SCHIAVONI, JUTRAS AND MAGLIOCCHETTI, LLP
         70 Bailey Boulevard
         Haverhill, MA 01830
         Telephone: (978) 373-9161
         Facsimile: (978) 372-5530

                - and –

         Manali Arora, Esq.
         Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
         SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
         1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
         Telephone: (856) 685-7420
         Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

PFIZER INC: Chantix Contains N-Nitroso-Varenicline, Harris Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSLYN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06789 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud, and
violation of the New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
varenicline-containing medications under the brand name Chantix.
The Defendant failed to disclose the presence of dangerously high
levels of N-nitroso-varenicline, a carcinogenic impurity, on
Chantix medications. Had the Defendant engaged in proper testing of
the product, it would have known that the product contained
unacceptable amounts of N-nitroso-varenicline. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged omission, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers have been injured and harmed because: (a) they would not
have purchased Chantix on the same terms if they knew that Chantix
contained harmful levels of N-nitroso-varenicline, and is not
generally recognized as safe for human consumption; and (b) Chantix
does not have the characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits
as promised by the Defendant.

Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation, with its principal place of business at
235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York. [BN]

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

PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS: Commisso Suit Transferred to W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Commisso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Professional Business Systems doing
business as: PracticeFirst Medical Management Solutions, Case No.
5:21-cv-00896 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York on August 16, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00932-JLS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Professional Business Systems -- https://www.pbsteam.com/ -- offers
a full line of printers, copiers and multi-function devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@wbmllp.com


PROSPECT INTERNATIONAL: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUIS R. CHAVARRIA RAMIREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROSPECT INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION; PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21-civ-03392, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on August 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06250 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

Prospect International Airport Services Corporation is a provider
of airport transport support services, headquartered in Illinois.

Prospect Airport Services, Inc. is a provider of airport transport
support services, headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Jason A. Geller, Esq.
         Andrew E. Saxon, Esq.
         Kevin L. Quan, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 490-9000
         Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
         E-mail: jgeller@fisherphillips.com
                 asaxon@fisherphillips.com
                 kquan@fisherphillips.com

RALPH LAUREN: Ross Sues Over 100% Pima Cotton Label on Shirts
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARIS ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 6:21-cv-01295-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla., August 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
shirts under the Polo Ralph Lauren brand. The shirts are
represented to be Pima Cotton and/or 100% Pima Cotton. However,
laboratory analysis found that the product is not made entirely
from Pima cotton, but mainly from less expensive shorter cotton
fibers and/or cotton byproduct fibers. Had the Plaintiff and Class
members known the truth, they would not have bought the product or
would have paid less for it, says the suit.

Ralph Lauren Corporation is a clothing manufacturer with a
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joel Oster, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBENSTEIN
         22052 W. 66th St #192
         Shawnee, KS 66226
         Telephone: (913) 206-7575
         E-mail: joel@joelosterlaw.com

               - and –

         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bauman Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit entitled, Bauman, Bauman and Nosalek
v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates,
LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts), is pending.

This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020, wherein
the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those
at issue in the Moehrl, Sitzer and Rubenstein matters, but rather
than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR,
this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules
of a multiple listing service that is owned by realtors, including
in part by one of Realogy's company-owned brokerages.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the
defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as
well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company (together with the other companies named in the
complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in March 2021
and, on April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to
which the defendants replied on May 17, 2021.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Leeder Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in Leeder v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR),
Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH
Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies,
Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division), is
pending.

In this putative class action filed on January 25, 2021, the
plaintiff takes issue with certain NAR policies, including those
related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and
Sitzer matters as well as those at issue in the 2020 settlement
between the DOJ and NAR, but claims the alleged conspiracy has
harmed buyers (instead of sellers).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent
injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same
or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the
action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company (together with the other companies named in the
complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 20,
2021 and, on June 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed his opposition to
which the defendants replied on July 6, 2021.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Conti Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Conti v. San Francisco Association of
Realtors, National Association of Realtors, Greater San Diego
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Compass SF I,
Inc., Sotheby's International Realty, Homeservices of America,
Inc., Rodeo Realty, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California San Francisco Division), has been
voluntarily dismissed.

In this putative class action filed on March 19, 2021, the
plaintiff raises claims regarding the NAR policies and rules
similar to those at issue in the Leeder matter, alleging violations
of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, the California
Unfair Competition Law as well as unjust enrichment claims.

The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from
establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or
practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of
damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses.

On May 27, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Court Dismisses Rubenstein Suit
----------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court dismissed the
putative class action suit entitled,  Rubenstein, Nolan v. The
National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Coldwell
Banker, Sotheby's Investment Realty, and Homeservices of America,
Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut).

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs take issue with the
same NAR policies related to buyer broker compensation at issue in
the Moehrl and Sitzer matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has
harmed buyers (instead of sellers) and is a federal racketeering
violation (instead of a violation of federal antitrust law).

In October 2020, the plaintiffs filed a statement with the Court
outlining the alleged racketeering violations.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
November 2020 and in January 2021, the plaintiffs filed their
objections and opposition.

In January 2021, the Court granted defendants' motion to stay
discovery pending its determination of the pending motion to
dismiss.

On July 26, 2021, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Moehrl Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa
and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings
Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long
& Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty,
Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl
complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl
and Sawbill litigation reported in the company's Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and
defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions
to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by
each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named
in the prior Moehrl complaint).

In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.


The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their
respective franchisees to comply with NAR's policies and Code of
Ethics.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to
otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. In
October 2019, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a statement
of interest for this matter, in their words "to correct the
inaccurate portrayal, by defendant The National Association of
Realtors ('NAR'), of a 2008 consent decree between the United
States and NAR." A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was
granted on an interim basis by the Court in May 2020.

In October 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss
filed in August 2019 by each of NAR and the Company (together with
the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint).

Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


RENTGROW INC: Fernandez Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO A. FERNANDEZ,
individually and as a representative of the class, v. RENTGROW,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01190-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. certifying a class of consumers defined as follows, for
      claims pled in the operative complaint under 15 U.S.C.
      section 1681e(b):

      "All individuals who were the subject of a consumer report
      (1) furnished by Defendant between April 23, 2017 and May
      24, 2019 at 7:28 a.m. and (2) which reported OFAC/SDN
      information indicating a possible match, and (3) where
      there is not also a match between the (a) date of birth,
      (b) address, or (c) social security number associated with
      the subject of the report and the corresponding
      information regarding the person on the OFAC/SDN List;"

   2. appointing him as Class Representative, and Berger
      Montague PC and Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. as Class
      Counsel.

RentGrow is a provider of online tenant screening services for
independent rental owners.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5997
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470

               - and -

          Martin E. Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD.
          100 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 100
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825.2300
          E-mail: mwolf@gwcfirm.com

REP PERIMETER: Underpays Psych Techs, Clemons Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. REP PERIMETER HOLDINGS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01113 (W.D. Tenn., August 5, 2021)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid psych
tech during the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of
this complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had a common plan, policy
and practice of automatically deducting 30-minute meal periods from
the time keeping system during each of her and other similarly
situated psych techs' scheduled shifts, whether or not they were
relieved of their job duties and/or whether or not they performed
job duties during such meal period times. As a result, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated psych techs were not properly paid all
their compensable time, including overtime hours at the applicable
FLSA overtime rates of pay, the Plaintiff added.

REP Perimeter Holdings, LLC operates as an investment holding
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, II, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
             OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: REZI), a leading global provider
of home comfort and security solutions and distributor of
commercial and residential security and audio-visual products, on
Aug. 3 disclosed that it has entered into a binding agreement in
principle to settle the pending securities class action litigation
arising from allegations with respect to statements and disclosures
made in 2019.

The proposed settlement calls for a payment of $55 million in
resolution of claims asserted against Resideo and all other
defendants. Approximately $39 million is expected to be funded with
proceeds from available insurance. Resideo recorded a $16 million
expense in its second quarter 2021 financial results to account for
the portion of the settlement it expects to fund. Including the
impact of the settlement, Resideo's GAAP operating profit is
expected to be $121 million for the second quarter 2021. Resideo
will release full second quarter 2021 financial results after the
market close on Thursday, August 5, 2021.

The settlement remains subject to final documentation, approval by
the court and is subject to the satisfaction of customary
conditions to effectiveness. A final non-appealable closure of the
litigation is expected towards the end of 2021.

                           About Resideo

Resideo is a leading global manufacturer and distributor of
technology-driven products and solutions that provide comfort,
security, energy efficiency and control to customers worldwide.
Building on a 130-year heritage, Resideo has a presence in more
than 150 million homes, with 15 million systems installed in homes
each year. We continue to serve more than 110,000 professionals
through leading distributors, including our ADI Global Distribution
business, which exports to more than 100 countries from nearly 200
stocking locations around the world. For more information about
Resideo, please visit www.resideo.com. [GN]

Shafeel Hussein: Faces Aguilar in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shafeel Hussein, et
al. The case is captioned as Daniel Aguilar, et al. v. Shafeel
Hussein, Case No. 34-2021-00304998-CU-FR-GDS (Calif. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., July 27, 2021).

The Defendants include Naushad Hussein and Shafeel Hussein.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Richard Kislik, Esq.
          1700 Montgomery St., Ste. 207
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1023
          Telephone: (415) 997-9524
          Facsimile: (415) 534-3200
          E-mail: andy@njfirm.com

SHAMROCK FOODS: Arreola Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN A. ARREOLA, an
individual,  on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-04123-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the Class for settlement purposes only;

   2. finding the Settlement fair, reasonable and adequate, and
      in the best interests of the Class Members;

   3. approving Class Counsel's application for an award of
      attorney's fees of $103,250.00 and reasonable costs;

   4. approving the Class Representative's application for
      $7,500.00;

   5. approving the payment of the reasonable settlement
      administrative costs; and

   6. granting final approval of the class action settlement in
      this matter and entering of a Final Order and Judgment
      incorporating by reference the terms and definitions in
      the Settlement.

Shamrock manufactures its own dairy products under the Shamrock
Farms label.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com

SOMACIS INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Chambers Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
LORELEI CHAMBERS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOMACIS INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00033445-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 5, 2021) brings
this complaint against the Defendants seeking for penalties for
their alleged willful violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, who is a current employee of the Defendant since on
or about October 3, 1977, alleges that the Defendants failed to
timely pay her and other aggrieved employees. Instead of paying
them every end of the week, they were paid on a bi-weekly basis and
thus is subject to the timing requirements of Labor Code section
204, the Plaintiff asserts.

Somacis Inc. manufactures printed circuit boards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SPECTRUM HEALTH: Abernathy Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKLIN B. ABERNATHY,
CURTIS HOLLOWAY, MICHAEL JORDAN, THOMAS CURTIN-HILTZ, KIETH NIEMIC,
AND GILNO CARDOSO, v. SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; LARISSA DIAS,
LMHU, DIRECTOR; AND "JANE DOE, No. 1" MOUD PROGRAM CLINICIAN, v.
CAROL MICI, COMMISSIONER FOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; AND MICHAEL
RODRIGUES, SUPERINTENDENT OF MCI SHIRLEY MEDIUM, Case No.
1:21-cv-11290-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff Abernathy, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated class members seeks to
maintain this action as a class action on behalf of:

   "Curtis Holloway, Michael Jordan, Thomas Curtin-Hiltz, Kieth
   Niemic and Gildo Cardoso and all other similarly situated
   inmates inside the Massachusetts Department of Correction who
   suffer from Opioid use disorder and have been denied access
   to alternative opioid use disorder treatment medication
   Buprenorphine (sold under brand names such as Subutex,
   Suboxone, and Bunavail), who have applied, are presently
   requesting alternative treatment medication buprenorphine,
   were requesting buprenorphine, may have been prescribed
   buprenorphine, or may have been and continue to be or may be
   adversely affected by the practices described in the verified
   civil rights complaint."

The Plaintiff further moves to include in the court's order:

   1. a designation of appointment of counsel as class counsel.

   2. authorizing the appropriate notice of the maintenance of
      this class action be given to the members of the class
      pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A) of the Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure.

Spectrum Health operates as a non-profit health care organization.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug. 6
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AQ1ylV
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.



SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Accounting Review Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action suit related to
accounting review, is pending.

On February 10, 2020, February 24, 2020, and March 24, 2020, three
separate private securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III,
former chief financial officer, Jose Garcia, and former controller
(principal accounting officer), John Gilson.

On April 20, 2020, the Class Actions were consolidated by the
court, and on July 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint which added Shawn Campbell, the Company's
former Vice President for the 737NG and 737 Max program, as a
defendant.

Allegations in the Consolidated Class Action include (i) violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and
Messrs. Gentile, Garcia and Gilson, (ii) violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, and
(iii) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder against all defendants.

On June 11, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit (the Derivative
Action 1) was filed against the Company (as nominal defendant), all
members of the Company's Board of Directors, and Messrs. Garcia and
Gilson in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma. Allegations in the Derivative Action 1 include (i) breach
of fiduciary duty, (ii) abuse of control, and (iii) gross
mismanagement.

On October 5, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit (the
Derivative Action 2 and, together with Derivative Action 1, the
Derivative Actions) was filed against the Company (as nominal
defendant), all members of the Company's Board of Directors, and
Messrs. Garcia and Gilson in the Eighteenth Judicial District,
District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. Allegations in the
Derivative Action 2 include (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii)
waste of corporate assets, and (iii) unjust enrichment.

The facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and Derivative
Actions relate to the accounting process compliance independent
review discussed in the Company's January 30, 2020 press release
and described under Management's Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Accounting Review
of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2019, and its resulting conclusions.

The Company voluntarily reported to the SEC the determination that,
with respect to the third quarter of 2019, the Company did not
comply with its established accounting processes related to
potential third quarter contingent liabilities received after the
quarter-end.

On March 24, 2020, the Staff of the SEC Enforcement Division
informed the Company that it had determined to close its inquiry
without recommending any enforcement action against the Company. In
addition, the facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and
Derivative Actions relate to the Company's disclosures regarding
the B737 MAX grounding and Spirit's production rate (and related
matters) after the grounding.

On September 18, 2020, the Company and individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action. That motion is
pending.

The Derivative Actions have been stayed pending a decision on the
Consolidated Class Action.

The Company and the individual defendants deny the allegations in
the Consolidated Class Action and the Derivative Actions.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


STABLE ROAD: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:
SRAC) investors that acquired shares between October 7, 2020 and
July 13, 2021. Investors have until September 13, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made known on
July 13, 2021 that it has sued Stable Road, a special-purpose
acquisition company. It is alleged in particular that Momentus, a
Company Stable Road was attempting to acquire, lied about its
technology, including a false claim that its propulsion system had
been "successfully tested" in space. Momentus' misleading
statements were repeated by Stable Road in public filings, while
according to the SEC, failed to conduct adequate due diligence of
Momentus. In October, Momentus agreed to go public by way of a
merger with Stable Road for an enterprise value of about $1.2
billion, a price that was later revised lower to $700 million.
Stable Road fell more than 10% in after-market trading on July 13,
2021, following this news.

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
13, 2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

STERETT HEAVY: Behne Seeks Unpaid Wages and Retaliation Under FPWA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY BEHNE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STERETT HEAVY HAULING LLC, Case No. 132334740
(Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 10, 2021) is an action for
damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of interest, fees, and
costs for unpaid wages and retaliation in violation of the Fla.
Stat. section 448.07 and the Florida Private Whistleblower's Act
(FPWA).

The Plaintiff contends that during his tenure with Defendant, he
performed work for which he was not paid. He began working for
Defendant as a CDL Heavy Hauler in November 2020, and he worked in
this capacity until February 2021.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Defendant operates a heavy hauling business in Hillsborough
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          Daniel E. Kalter, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: DSmith@wfclaw.com
                  RCooke@wfclaw.com

STEVEN COHEN: Faces Weinberg FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Offices of Steven
Cohen, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Weinberg v. Law Offices
of Steven Cohen, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04242-LDH-RML
(E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit and is assigned to the Hon. Judge
LaShann DeArcy Hall.

The Defendants include Law Offices of Steven Cohen, LLC and
Velocity Investments, LLC.

The Law Offices of Steven Cohen provides litigation coverage in the
States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com

STUCKEY CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Machine Drivers, Perry Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMORRIS PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STUCKEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. and EARL STUCKEY,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00162-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., August 12,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
Class members overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week; automatically deducting a meal break from each shift they
worked, despite the fact that they were not completely relieved of
duties during this supposed break; and deducting a cost from their
pay for cleaning their uniforms.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a curve machine driver
in and around the cities of Panama City and Destin in the State of
Florida from March 2019 until June 2021.

Stuckey Construction, Inc. is a construction company based in
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
         JACKSON+JACKSON
         1992 Lewis Turner Blvd., Suite 1023
         Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
         Telephone: (850) 200-4594
         Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
         E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net

SYNERGIES3 TEC: Overland FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to E.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TALON OVERLAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SYNERGIES3 TEC SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00447, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on August 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-01008-SRC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated installation technicians overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Synergies3 Tec Services, LLC is a satellite installation provider
for AT&T customers across the U.S., headquartered in Carrollton,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
         Jay Eidsness, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3200
         Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
         E-mail: srey@nka.com
                 jeidness@nka.com

TESLA INC: Settles Battery Problem Class Action Lawsuit for $1.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
YK Law LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP on Aug. 11
disclosed that on behalf of their clients, they have reached an
agreement to settle Plaintiffs' claims regarding Tesla's temporary
limitation of maximum battery voltage in 1,743 Tesla Model S
vehicles.

Under the proposed settlement, Tesla will pay $1.5 million towards
a common settlement fund, whereby payments of $625 will be made to
eligible Settlement Class Members. In addition to the proposed
payments to the settlement class members, Tesla has agreed to
maintain diagnostic software in warranty vehicles and to notify
owners and lessees if Tesla determines that battery service or
repair may be needed.

The settlement is now pending approval by federal district court
judge Hon. Beth L. Freeman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The court will set a hearing
date for preliminary settlement approval, which if approved will
result in the third-party administrator issuing notice to the 1,743
class members. If the court later grants final settlement approval,
the third-party administrator will allocate and distribute payments
of $625 to each of the Settlement Class Members.

The motion also seeks appointment of Edward Chen, YK Law LLP,
Robert Nelson and Nimish Desai, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, as Settlement Class Counsel, and the appointment of Plaintiff
David Rasmussen as Settlement Class Representative.

YK Law LLP: International firm with extensive and strategic
connections with China, YK Law has a diverse and experienced team
of lawyers that are committed to providing clients with the highest
quality legal services, all while adhering to a "client first"
mentality. YK attorneys assist clients with achieving their goals,
and serve as strategic consultants, partners, and supporters to
their clients. YK attorneys rely on the power of teamwork across
borders and timezones to fully share legal knowledge and possess a
deep understanding and particular expertise managing cross-border
disputes involving the United States and China.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP: Lieff Cabraser is one of
the country's largest and most successful firms exclusively
representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, having secured
verdicts or settlements worth over $124 billion for clients
nationwide. With over 100 attorneys, the firm has led some of the
most significant class action litigation of the last decade.

Source:
Henry Li, Co-Managing Partner
YK Law, LLP
Dir: 213.817.7552
Email: hli@yklaw.us
URL: http://yklaw.us

Contact Information:
Henry Li, Co-Managing Partner
YK Law, LLP
Dir: 213.817.7552
Email: hli@yklaw.us [GN]

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Rotstain Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEGGY ROIF ROTSTAIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRUSTMARK
NATIONAL BANK, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-2384-N
(N.D. Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division:

   (i) grants Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A.
       ("SG")'s motions for leave to file supplemental authority
       and to certify interlocutory appeal; and

  (ii) denies Foreign Defendants HSBC Bank PLC's, SG's, and
       Blaise Friedli's Rule 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss for lack
       of personal jurisdiction.

The case arises out of the Stanford Ponzi scheme. Stanford
operated, directly or indirectly, a network of over 100
interrelated companies in over 13 countries to perpetrate his Ponzi
scheme.

The Court appointed Ralph S. Janvey to serve as Receiver for the
Stanford entities, and take control of the Receivership Assets and
the Receivership Records. The Receivership Order vested the
Receiver with "the full power of an equity receiver under common
law as well as such powers as are enumerated" in the Receivership
Order.

Among these enumerated powers, the Court "authorized the Receiver
to immediately take and have complete and exclusive control,
possession, and custody of the Receivership Estate and to any
assets traceable to assets owned by the Receivership Estate."
Additionally, the Court "specifically directed and authorized the
Receiver to collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and
possession of all the funds, accounts, mail, and other assets of,
or in the possession or under the control of, the Receivership
Estate, or assets traceable to assets owned or controlled by the
Receivership Estate, wherever situated," and to file in the Court
"such actions or proceedings to impose a constructive trust, obtain
possession, and/or recover judgment with respect to persons or
entities who received assets or records traceable to the
Receivership Estate."

The Court also, by substantial agreement of the interested parties,
appointed the Official Stanford Investors Committee, to act much
like a creditors' committee in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The instant case was originally filed in state court in Harris
County, Texas by Plaintiff Rotstain as a putative class action
against various financial institutions accused of aiding Stanford
with his Ponzi scheme. The Defendants removed to federal court, and
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case
to the Court. The Court granted OSIC's motion to intervene as
plaintiff. The Foreign Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The Court denied the motions, finding that
the Foreign Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas.
The Foreign Defendants now argue that developments in the
intervening six years demonstrate that Foreign Defendants do not
have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas and that the exercise
of personal jurisdiction offends traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.

Discussion

I. Motions to Dismiss

A. Minimum Contacts

As a preliminary matter, Judge Godbey notes that the Court has
previously denied motions to dismiss from the Foreign Defendants.
There, the Court found that each of the Foreign Defendants had
sufficient minimum contacts with Texas through its relationship
with Stanford and Stanford personnel. The Foreign Defendants now
allege that the intervening six years of discovery have revealed
that the exercise of jurisdiction is improper. In response, the
Plaintiffs argue that HSBC's motion is barred by Rule 12 and law of
the case.

Judge Godbey addresses the Plaintiffs' procedural argument first,
and then addresses the Foreign Defendants' arguments as to specific
personal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs argue that Rule 12 does not permit a party, in
response to an amended complaint, to make a second motion to
dismiss on the same substantive basis as a prior motion to dismiss
which was denied. However, Rule 12 does not apply in this context.
In the case, Judge Godbey finds that the Foreign Defendants have
consistently objected to the Court's exercise of personal
jurisdiction. Moreover, personal jurisdiction "may be reviewed
again at subsequent stages in the trial court proceedings as
evidence accumulates."

The Plaintiffs also argue that law of the case bars Foreign
Defendants from moving to dismiss an amended complaint on the same
grounds as their prior motion to dismiss when the operative facts
are the same. The law of the case doctrine does not apply here,
where the determination of personal jurisdiction has not been
decided on appeal. Rather, the court is "free to reconsider an
interlocutory order] and reverse its decision for any reason it
deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an
intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law."

Having addressed the Plaintiffs' procedural arguments, Judge Godbey
turns to the merits of the Foreign Defendants' personal
jurisdiction arguments. The Foreign Defendants allege that the
Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over them. While the
Court has considered this issue multiple times in the past, the
Foreign Defendants argue that additional jurisdictional discovery
reveals that Foreign Defendants lack sufficient minimum contacts
with Texas.

Judge Godbey disagrees and denies the motions to dismiss. First, he
remains unpersuaded by HSBC's arguments that HSBC merely engaged in
conduct directed from London to Antigua. Second, the Judge notes
the extensive relationship between the parties. He determines that
there are sufficient minimum contacts to support specific personal
jurisdiction as to HSBC. Because HSBC's contacts with Texas relate
to its provision of banking services for Stanford, the Judge
determines that the Plaintiffs' claims arise out of HSBC's contacts
with Texas.

For largely the same reasons, Judge Godbet determines that there
are sufficient minimum contacts to support specific personal
jurisdiction as to SG and Friedli. First, he notes that it is not a
case in which SG has been haled into court due to "random,
fortuitous, or attenuated contacts" or due to the "unilateral
activity" of Stanford. Rather, SG engaged in a 24-year business
relationship with Stanford, during which SG maintained at least
seven accounts for Stanford. Second, and as with HSBC, it is
insufficient for SG to claim that it did not engage in acts in
Texas when it was aware of the fact that Stanford was based in
Texas throughout the lengthy duration of their banking
relationship. Hence, SG and Friedli have sufficient minimum
contacts with Texas and that Plaintiffs' claims arise from those
contacts.

B. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Comports with Fair Play and
Substantial Justice

Judge Godbey now turns to whether the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants would offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice. Once minimum contacts
are found, as in the case, "it is rare to say the assertion of
jurisdiction is unfair."  Factors bearing on the inquiry are: (1)
the burden on the nonresident defendant of litigating in the forum
state; (2) the forum state's interest; (3) the plaintiff's interest
in securing relief; (4) the interest of the interstate judicial
system in the administration of justice; and (5) the shared
interest of the several states in furthering "fundamental social
policies."

Applying these factors, the Court previously determined that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants would
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.  The Foreign Defendants argue that, because of parallel
proceedings initiated by the Antiguan Joint Liquidators in both
England and Switzerland, the exercise of personal jurisdiction no
longer comports with fair play and substantial justice.

Judge Godbey disagrees. He holds that the Joint Liquidators'
parallel suits do not significantly change the calculus under the
factors listed. First, the Foreign Defendants are still able to
afford the burden of litigating in Texas. Second, Texas still
retains an interest in this dispute, as Stanford's empire was
centered here, and Texas investors suffered losses from the Ponzi
scheme. Third, while Plaintiffs may be less interested in this
forum in light of the parallel litigation, the Plaintiffs' interest
in securing relief in this action, which has been pending for far
longer than either the Swiss or English suits, remains substantial.
Fourth, the interest of efficient administration continues to favor
resolving this dispute under the MDL. Finally, the shared interest
of the several states continues to favor maintaining this action.
Here, Plaintiffs allege that Foreign Defendants' conduct associated
with the Texas-based Stanford Ponzi scheme violated Texas law.

Thus, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Foreign
Defendants by a federal court in Texas is neither unreasonable nor
unfair. Accordingly, the Judge determines that the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Conclusion

Because the Foreign Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts
with Texas and the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,
Judge Godbey determines that the Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Foreign Defendants. Accordingly, he denied the Foreign
Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2). He denies certification for an interlocutory
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vmfbhu6 from
Leagle.com.


TURNING POINT: Faces Garner Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turning Point of
Central California, Inc. The case is captioned as DAN GARNER, AN
INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs.
TURNING POINT OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC., Case No. BCV-21-101712
(Calif. Super., Kern Cty., July 26, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

The case is assigned to Thomas S. Clark.

Turning Point of Central California Inc. Turning Point of Central
California, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com

UNIVAR SOLUTIONS: Santiago Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAVIER SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVAR SOLUTIONS INC., UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS USA INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, Case No. 21STCV25600,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on August 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06527-MCS-JDE to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest
period premiums, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, final wages not timely paid, and failure to permit
inspections or provide copies of wage records.

Univar Solutions Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor and provider of value-added services, headquartered in
Illinois.

Univar Solutions USA Inc. is a distributor of chemicals across the
U.S., headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Rebecca Aragon, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299

               - and –

         Kieran D. Hartley, Esq.
         James A. Becerra, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: khartley@littler.com
                 jbecerra@littler.com

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Wnorowski Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRYSTIAN WNOROWSKI, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01589 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael
P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Wnorowski brings the class action against the University
of New Haven ("UNH") for a partial refund of tuition and fees based
on claims of breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust
enrichment. He asserts that UNH's contract with its students
required it to provide an in-person, on-campus experience during
the Spring 2020 semester, and that UNH failed to do so when it
closed the campus in mid-March 2020 due to Covid-19.

UNH is an institution of higher learning in West Haven,
Connecticut. Wnorowski, a resident and citizen of Connecticut, is a
full-time student at UNH. He enrolled as a full-time student for
the Spring 2020 semester after paying tuition and fees. He sues on
behalf of two classes that allegedly include several thousand other
students, 42.3% of whom are Connecticut citizens.

UNH advertises its programs to prospective new students via its
website and brochures. These materials tout the benefits of its
campus and in-person facilities, such as residence halls, "an
engaged, vibrant campus community," and dining facilities. Some
students choose to apply to UNH for admission based in part on
these materials. When it accepts a student for admission, UNH sends
her an offer letter that invites her to browse the school's website
and visit the campus, along with additional materials describing
the school and campus. Based in part on these materials, a student
might choose to accept UNH's offer of admission and make an
enrollment deposit.

Separately, the school promotes a distinct, fully online program
"claiming you can 'study when and where you choose.'" Ahead of each
semester, a student chooses which courses to take and whether to
take those in the fully online program or the on-campus program.
UNH uses a separate website for its online-only program, and
tuition for the online-only program is determined separately from
that for the on-campus program.

Within her program, a student selects courses based on a list that
provides the course description, "meeting time, professor, and
physical classroom location" of the class, or "ONLINE" if the class
is virtual. Students in many of UNH's on-campus courses and
programs are subject to "strict personal attendance requirements."
In addition, UNH charges students fees that support labs and access
to on-campus parking lots, health and counseling services, and the
recreation center.

In advance of the Spring 2020 semester, students registered for
classes knowing "the description meeting time, professor, and
physical classroom location" of each in-person class. Expecting
that classes would be held in-person, "students attended classrooms
to receive in-person instruction," which UNH provided.

On March 9, 2020, six and a half weeks into the semester, UNH
announced it would be transitioning to remote instruction "as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic." Soon thereafter, the State of
Connecticut issued workplace restrictions for non-essential
workers, and on March 16 UNH extended its remote instruction to the
end of the semester. All students were forced to leave campus and
continue their education online. The University has not refunded
any of the Spring semester tuition or fees.

On Nov. 12, 2020, Wnorowski filed his amended class action
complaint, claiming that UNH breached its contractual obligation to
provide an in-person experience by transitioning to fully remote
learning. Even though Wnorowski paid full tuition and certain fees
thinking he would be learning in-person, UNH has not refunded any
payments. In the alternative, he claims that UNH was unjustly
enriched by retaining these tuition and fee payments while it
delivered a remote learning experience. UNH responded by filing a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff
filed a memorandum in opposition, and the Defendants filed a
reply.

Discussion

UNH argues that the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims
fail either because they are foreclosed by a common law doctrine
foreclosing judicial inquiry into allegations of "educational
malpractice," see Gupta v. New Britain Gen. Hosp., 687 A.2d 111
(Conn. 1996), or because its contract with students never included
an enforceable promise to offer an in-person experience in Spring
2020. The Plaintiff contends that his claim qualifies for an
exception to the common law doctrine because UNH made a "specific
promise" to provide an in-person program separate from its broader
educational obligation. The parties further disagree whether
Wnorowski can bring an unjust enrichment claim since they agree on
the existence of the educational contract.

A. Educational Malpractice Bar

Connecticut common law does not recognize the tort of "educational
malpractice," i.e., the claim that an academic institution did not
"provide adequate educational services." These claims involve the
judiciary in the awkward tasks of defining what constitutes a
reasonable educational program and of deciding whether that
standard has been breached. There are two exceptions to the
educational malpractice bar: first, where the school "fails in some
fundamental respect, as by not offering any of the courses
necessary to obtain certification in a particular field"; and
second, where "the educational institution failed to fulfill a
specific contractual promise distinct from any overall obligation
to offer a reasonable program."

Wnorowski contends that his claim falls within the second
exception, and Judge Shea agrees -- at least at the pleadings
stage. He holds that the agreement between Wnorowski and UNH is
ambiguous, and when reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor,
Wnorowski advances a reasonable reading in which the school
promised to provide an in-person experience when Wnorowski chose
in-person classes and paid certain fees. Because the agreement is
ambiguous, "the determination of the parties' intent is question of
fact," citing Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC, 311 Conn. 93, 101
(2014), one that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

Mr. Wnorowski alleges that UNH made an express or implied promise
to conduct in-person classes and to provide an on-campus experience
during the Spring 2020 semester. Judge Shea finds that Wnorowski
has sufficiently pled that a reasonable person could interpret his
contract with UNH to include a specific provision for an on-campus
education. A promise to provide in-person classes or an on-campus
experience would be "specific" under Gupta as it would avoid
inquiry into broader educational choices or the overall adequacy of
the plaintiff's education; the only question would be whether UNH
provided an on-campus education. Such a singular promise would not
require the Court to oversee broad educational policy choices.

UNH also argues that a determination of damages will necessarily
involve the Court in an investigation of academic value of the sort
barred by Gupta, in that the Court will have to decide the
difference in value between an in-person education and an online
education. Under Connecticut law, however, a court may award
nominal damages for breach of contract even in the absence of a
showing of harm. So difficulties in calculating damages are not a
basis to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. And Judge Shea
agrees with his colleague, Judge Dooley, that they also should not
be a basis for applying the educational malpractice bar -- at least
at the motion to dismiss stage. If Wnorowski's contract with UNH
included a promise of in-person education, then, the educational
malpractice bar would not be an obstacle to the lawsuit.

B. Breach of Contract

Mr. Wnorowski alleges that his educational contract with UNH
included a provision, either express or implied, that he would
receive an in-person education and an on-campus experience. UNH
argues that the contractual materials did not adequately specify
Wnorowski's supposed entitlement to an in-person education, and so
it was never obliged to provide one. To allege a breach of
contract, Wnorowski must plead 1) formation of an agreement 2)
performance by one party, 3) breach by the other party, and 4)
damage.

At this stage, Judge Shea finds that the materials comprising the
contract are ambiguous on this point, and Wnorowski has advanced a
reasonable reading of the contract as promising in-person
education. In short, UNH hangs its hat on a general disclaimer that
does not clearly cover the specific -- and dramatic -- change UNH
made to students' learning experience. A reasonable party could
have interpreted the disclaimer as not contemplating such a major
shift.

C. Unjust Enrichment

In the alternative Wnorowski seeks to recover pro-rated tuition and
fee payments "to the extent it is determined a contract does not
exist or otherwise apply" on an unjust enrichment theory. The
Plaintiffs seeking recovery for unjust enrichment must prove (1)
that the defendants were benefited, (2) that the defendants
unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits, and (3) that
the failure of payment was to the plaintiffs' detriment."

Judge Shea holds that Wnorowski has adequately alleged all three
elements. First, he asserts that he paid UNH the entire tuition and
fees while not receiving the entire benefit, use of campus
faculties.  He alleges UNH was able to run its programs more
cheaply and thus profited from retaining his full payment of
tuition and fees. He asserts UNH wrongfully retained the entirety
of these payments even though it did not provide the entire service
these fees were to fund. Finally, this retention of funds is to the
detriment of tuition-paying and fee-paying students.

Finally, UNH contends that since the parties agree there was a
contract, unjust enrichment is not cognizable. But claims for
unjust enrichment may be pled in the alternative to a breach of
contract claim, and Judge Shea sees no reason not to allow
Wnorowski to do so.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Shea concludes that Gupta does not
bar the suit, the contract is ambiguous about whether UNH
specifically promised an in-person education, and the Plaintiff may
pursue the unjust enrichment claim in the alternative. He denied
UNH's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Ruling is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3zsvp2jx from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Rivadeneira Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FELIPE RIVADENEIRA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA and
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Case No.
21-CA-3748, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on August 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:21-cv-01925-CEH-AAS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

University of South Florida is a public research university in
Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq.
         101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 318-5700
         Facsimile: (813) 318-5900
         E-mail: mccrear@gtlaw.com

WASTE PRO: Seeks to Decertify Wright Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WRIGHT,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WASTE PRO USA, INC., and WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
0:19-cv-62051-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order decertifying the collective and dismissing the
Opt-In Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.

This Court conditionally certified a collective consisting of:

   "all Drivers employed by Waste Pro Florida who received a day
   rate in any of its twenty-five (25) divisions, largely based
   upon nearly identical declarations that uniformly alleged
   several pay policies that violated the FLSA."

THe Plaintiff's declarations alleged in lockstep that Waste Pro
Florida violated the FLSA by: (1) paying Drivers less than the full
day rate if they worked less than a certain number of hours in a
day; (2) uniformly requiring Drivers to work off-the-clock; (3)
automatically deducting 30-minute lunches from Driver's daily pay;
and (4) adding bonuses earned during to the workweek to the day
rate, which Plaintiff alleged to result in a "miscalculation" of
the regular rate and the invalidation of the day rate compensation
method. All of the declarants, including Plaintiff Wright, alleged
that all of these pay practices were uniformly applied to all
Drivers who were paid a day rate during the relevant period. The
Court accepted Plaintiff's claims of uniformity, as it was required
to do at the more lenient conditional certification stage.

The Plaintiff worked as a Residential Driver in Waste Pro Florida's
Palm Beach and Pembroke Pines division from October 2014 to
February 2016. On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit
against Waste Pro USA, Waste Pro Florida, and Waste Pro of South
Carolina, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The Plaintiff sued in South Carolina
even though he only worked in Florida

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 6 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Uq3jGW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802
          E-mail: morgan@forthepeople.com
                  pbotros@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy S. Tingley, Esq.
          Matthew J. Pearce, Esq.
          Jennifer Elouise Belbeck, Esq.
          STOVASH, CASE & TINGLEY, P. A.
          The VUE at Lake Eola
          220 N. Rosalind Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 316-0393
          Facsimile: (407) 316-8969
          E-mail: atingley@sctlaw.com
                  mpearce@sctlaw.com
                  jbelbeck@sctlaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Appeal From Summary Judgment Rulings in Stagner Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID AND VIOLA STAGNER, Appellants-Respondents v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR AEGIS ASSET BACKED
SECURITIES TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-1,
and SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC., Respondents, and MILLSAP &
SINGER, P.C., Respondent-Appellant, Case No. WD83819, Consolidated
with No. WD83842 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri for
the Western District, issued an Order dismissing:

   (i) David and Viola Stagner's appeal from partial summary
       judgment rulings entered by the Circuit Court of Ray
       County, Missouri, in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
       Trustee for Aegis Asset Backed Securities Trust Mortgage
       Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-1, Select Portfolio
       Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), and Millsap & Singer, P.C.; and

  (ii) Millsap & Singer's appeal from the circuit court granting
       the Stagners' motion for class certification and denying
       its motion to decertify the class.

The Stagners resided at 7805 Pendleton Road, Orrick, Ray County,
Missouri. On Oct. 16, 2003, David Stagner signed a Promissory Note
with lender Aegis Funding Corporation. The Stagners both signed a
Deed of Trust on the Property to secure the Promissory Note.

Millsap & Singer is a Missouri law firm located in St. Louis,
Missouri, and engaged in communications with homeowners before
foreclosure proceedings regarding foreclosure sales, drafted
certain documents in compliance with Missouri law, and conducted
foreclosure sales as trustee, in Ray County, Missouri. On June 28,
2012, Aegis, by its nominee, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., assigned the Stagners' Deed of Trust to Wells Fargo.
SPS was the servicer of the Stagners' mortgage loan. On July 30,
2015, a document titled "Appointment of Successor - Trustee" was
recorded in the office of the Ray County Recorder of Deeds. The
document identified Wells Fargo as the legal holder of the
Stagners' Note secured by the Deed of Trust. By the terms of the
document, Wells Fargo removed the original trustee and appointed
Millsap & Singer as successor trustee.

At Wells Fargo's request, Millsap & Singer foreclosed on the
Property on Dec. 4, 2015. Wells Fargo purchased the property for
$92,000. By a Successor Trustee's Deed Under Foreclosure dated Dec.
4, 2015, and recorded in the office of the Ray County Recorder of
Deeds on Dec. 14, 2015, Millsap & Singer conveyed the Property to
Wells Fargo.

On March 23, 2016, the Stagners filed a six-count Petition,
alleging wrongful foreclosure in that: (1) Wells Fargo was never
the legal holder of the Note; (2) Wells Fargo had no authority to
appoint Millsap & Singer as Successor Trustee; and, therefore, (3)
Millsap & Singer was not authorized to act as successor trustee on
the Deed of Trust or to conduct a foreclosure sale. The Stagners
asserted claims for Wrongful Foreclosure against Wells Fargo and
SPS (Counts I and II), Quiet Title against Wells Fargo and SPS
(Count III), Class Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against
Millsap & Singer (Count IV), Class Action for Violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") against Millsap &
Singer (Count V), and Violations of the MMPA against Wells Fargo
and SPS (Count VI).

On Aug. 26, 2016, pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure
52.08, the Stagners moved the circuit court to certify their claims
against Millsap & Singer as a class action. Millsap & Singer
opposed class certification. On Feb. 22, 2017, the circuit court
granted the Stagners' Motion for Class Certification, defining the
class as: "All Missouri residents whose home mortgage loan was
negotiated or sold and whose foreclosure sale was conducted by
Millsap & Singer, P.C. as Successor Trustee and took place after
Dec. 31, 2008." Millsap & Singer did not seek to appeal the circuit
court's interlocutory class certification ruling pursuant to Rule
52.08(f).

On July 27, 2017, Millsap & Singer filed a motion for summary
judgment on Count IV and partial summary judgment on Count V of the
Stagners' Petition. The motion alleged that each of those counts
rested on the same legal theory -- that Millsap & Singer had a duty
to investigate Wells Fargo's authority to enforce the Note because
it knew that the Note had previously been sold on the secondary
market—and that the Stagners could not prove either causation or
damage because Wells Fargo had the authority to enforce the Note
and to appoint Millsap & Singer to act as Successor Trustee. On the
same date, Millsap & Singer filed a motion to decertify the
previously certified class on the grounds that the claims were not
susceptible to class-wide treatment. The circuit court denied the
motion to decertify on Sept. 14, 2017.

On Jan. 2, 2018, Wells Fargo and SPS filed a Joint Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts I and III in their entirety
and Count VI in part on the grounds that Wells Fargo had standing
to enforce the Stagners' Note and Deed of Trust in the underlying
foreclosure. On July 9, 2018, Wells Fargo and SPS filed a second
Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Stagners'
claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and release.

On Dec. 27, 2018, the circuit court granted in part Wells Fargo and
SPS's January 2, 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo
and SPS and against the Stagners on Counts I (Wrongful Foreclosure)
and III (Quiet Title) of their Petition and denied summary judgment
on Count VI (Violations of the MMPA). The circuit court also
granted in part defendant Millsap & Singer's July 27, 2017 Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. The circuit court granted summary
judgment in favor of Millsap & Singer against the Stagners on Count
IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) of their Petition and denied summary
judgment on Count V (Violations of the MMPA). At no time did the
circuit court certify its December 2018 Order or any portion
thereof pursuant to Rule 74.01(b) for interlocutory appeal.

On Feb. 22, 2019, Millsap & Singer filed another Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count V of the Stagners' Petition on the grounds that
the MMPA claim that Millsap & Singer charged excessive or improper
fees when it acted as Successor Trustee could not be pursued by the
Stagners because Millsap & Singer never charged any fees to the
Stagners and the Stagners never paid any fees to Millsap & Singer.

On March 20, 2019, Wells Fargo and SPS filed a Joint Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Stagners' remaining claims against them in
Counts II (alleging wrongful foreclosure because the Stagners were
not in default) and VI (alleging violation of the MMPA) on the
grounds that the circuit court's summary judgment ruling on Dec.
27, 2018, determined that Wells Fargo had the lawful authority to
enforce the Note.

On Oct. 15, 2019, the circuit court denied Wells Fargo and SPS's
July 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment. Also on that date, the
circuit court granted in part Wells Fargo and SPS's March 20, 2019
Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling in favor of Wells Fargo
and SPS and against the Stagners on Count II of their Petition;
ruling in favor of SPS and against the Stagners on Count VI of
their Petition; and denying Wells Fargo's motion for summary
judgment as to Count VI. At no time did the circuit court certify
its October 2019 Order or any portion thereof pursuant to Rule
74.01(b) for interlocutory appeal.

Thereafter, on Feb. 21, 2020, the circuit court granted Millsap &
Singer's Feb. 22, 2019 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count V
(asserting MMPA violations of excessive charges and fees), ruling
in favor of Millsap & Singer and against the Stagners on Count V of
their Petition. Over objection by the Stagners, the circuit court
certified its summary judgment ruling of Feb. 21, 2020, as "final
for purposes of appeal." This is the only ruling that the circuit
court attempted to certify pursuant to Rule 74.01(b) for
interlocutory appeal.

On June 1, 2020, the Stagners appealed from the partial summary
judgment rulings entered by the circuit court on Dec. 27, 2018,
Oct. 15, 2019, and Feb. 21, 2020, and was assigned case number
WD83819. On June 12, 2020, Millsap & Singer appealed from the class
certification rulings entered by the circuit court on Feb. 22,
2017, and Sept. 14, 2017, and was assigned case number WD83842. On
June 15, 2020, the Court ordered the appeals consolidated under
case number WD83819.

Discussion

Before the Appellate Court can reach the merits of the issues in
this consolidated appeal, it has a duty to determine, sua sponte,
whether it has jurisdiction. For it have jurisdiction, the judgment
entered by the circuit court and appealed by the parties must have
been a 'final judgment' as that phrase is used in section
512.020(5). A "final judgment" for purposes of appeal under section
512.020(5) must satisfy two criteria. First, it must be a judgment
(i.e., it must fully resolve at least one claim in a lawsuit and
establish all the rights and liabilities of the parties with
respect to that claim). Second, it must be 'final,' either because
it disposes of all claims (or the last claim) in a lawsuit, or
because it has been certified for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule
74.01(b).

A. Explicit Denial of Summary Judgment for Wells Fargo

Initially, it is clear that there is no judgment that disposes of
all claims for, in its October 2019 ruling, the circuit expressly
denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment as to Count VI and
at no time did the circuit court revise its interlocutory denial
ruling. As such, the MMPA claim of Count VI remains pending; and,
certainly as to Wells Fargo, there is no ruling by the circuit
court that has finally disposed of all claims as to Wells Fargo.
There simply is no Wells Fargo "judicial unit" that is properly
before the Appellate Court on the appeal.

Wells Fargo argues in supplemental letter briefing to the Court on
this topic that the circuit court's previous summary judgment
ruling in favor of Wells Fargo as to the wrongful foreclosure count
(Count I) should serve to "dispose of the MMPA claim against Wells
Fargo in Count VI by necessary implication."

The Appellate Court holds that there is nothing in Chapter 512 of
the Revised Statutes of Missouri, Rule 74.01 of the Missouri Rules
of Civil Procedure, or case precedent interpreting the same that
permits transforming an express denial of a motion for summary
judgment into a grant of summary judgment by implication. Simply
put, without such authority, the claims involving Wells Fargo are
not properly before the Appellate Court as it does not have
jurisdiction at this time to entertain a review of any such
rulings.

B. Interlocutory Appeal for SPS and Millsap & Singer Is Improper

The Appellate Court says partial summary judgment orders are merely
interlocutory and can be added to, amended, or set aside by the
court at any time prior to final judgment. In the case, it finds
that there is no collective group of rulings from the circuit court
that "dispose of all issues as to all parties, leaving nothing for
future determination." Hence, it must look to Rule 74.01(b) to
determine if the circuit court has properly certified as final for
purposes of appeal all claims relating to SPS and Millsap &
Singer.

The Appellate Court finds that the only summary judgment rulings in
favor of SPS were in the circuit court's December 2018 ruling
(granting summary judgment as to Counts I and III) and October 2019
ruling (granting summary judgment as to Counts II and VI). And
neither of these rulings did the circuit court make "an express
determination" pursuant to Rule 74.01(b) "that there is no just
reason for delay."

Next, as to Millsap & Singer, the circuit court's February 2020
ruling granted summary judgment as to Count V in favor of Millsap &
Singer and against the Stagners; likewise, the February 2020 ruling
attempts to certify this summary judgment ruling as final for
purposes of appeal under Rule 74.01(b). However, the circuit
court's February 2020 ruling did not dispose of all claims by or
against Millsap & Singer.

With regard to the circuit court's February 2020 ruling that
granted Millsap & Singer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count V
of the Stagners' Petition, the Appellate Court holds that the
ruling does not dispose of, and expressly certify for interlocutory
appeal, all claims against Millsap & Singer. As it has noted
previously, there were two counts alleged against Millsap & Singer,
Count IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) and Count V (MMPA class
action). There simply is no ruling below in which the circuit court
has made an express determination that there is no just reason for
delaying the immediate appeal of its rulings as to Millsap & Singer
as to "all claims by or against at least one party, i.e., Millsap &
Singer." Further, the counts against Millsap & Singer are closely
intertwined and are not "sufficiently distinct from the claims that
remain pending at the circuit court." Without such express
determination, there is no right to immediate appeal of the claims
involving Millsap & Singer to the Court at this time.

This does not end the discussion, however.

C. Five-Factor Analysis for Circuit Court's Rule 74.01(b)
Discretionary Determination

Because it anticipates that one or more of the parties may, upon
remand, seek to have the circuit court certify all of its summary
judgment rulings that dispose of all claims by or against one
party, the Appellate Court notes that Rule 74.01(b), while it is
indeed a procedural tool for use at the circuit court's discretion
-- such discretion is not unfettered discretion. Hence, upon
remand, it reminds the circuit court of its responsibilities
relating to the exercise of Rule 74.01(b) discretion.

Accordingly, all of the Stagners' claims asserted in their Petition
are premised on Wells Fargo holding the Stagners' Note, appointing
Millsap & Singer as Successor Trustee, and Millsap & Singer acting
as successor trustee on the Deed of Trust and conducting a
foreclosure sale on the Property. The resolved claim against
Millsap & Singer (Count V - MMPA violations of excessive charges
and fees) is closely intertwined with the unresolved and currently
pending claim against Wells Fargo (Count VI - MMPA violations of
excessive charges and fees).

Additionally, it is also closely intertwined with the remaining
claims that were partially resolved below by summary judgment but
were not certified by the circuit court for immediate interlocutory
appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b). Hence, it is difficult to
perceive what increase in judicial economy -- either in the circuit
court or appellate court -- the certification would be intended to
promote." And, if there is no such judicial economy present, there
would be little sense in attempting to certify such interlocutory
rulings pursuant to Rule 74.01(b) upon remand (at least in the
present form of the circuit court's interlocutory rulings).

Conclusion

Because there is no "final judgment" presently in the case before
the Appellate Court, it lacks jurisdiction. Further, because there
is no "final judgment" before the Appellate Court, Millsap &
Singer's challenge to the circuit court's class certification
ruling granting class certification is likewise premature for
appellate review. The consolidated appeals are dismissed and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate
Court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/etj58mkx from Leagle.com.


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the class action
initiated by Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa against Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L.
("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary, is still stayed.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary WUFSA.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages.

The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a
time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint
formally admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds.

In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class
members has been completed and the case proceeded to the
evidentiary stage.

The case will be stayed until (i) the Attorney-General instructs
the Prosecutor to continue to litigate the claims on behalf of the
plaintiff (during the time the registration of Consumidores
Financieros before the Secretary of Commerce remains suspended); or
(ii) the parties report to the Court that the plaintiff recovered
its legal capacity.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WHICH WICH: Faces Thompson ADA Suit in Central Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Which Wich Franchise,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Tyrone Thompson v. Which Wich
Franchise, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06040-VAP-PLA (C.D. Cal.,
July 27, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
demanding $5 million in damages.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips.

The Defendants include Which Wich Franchise, Inc., a Texas
corporation and  Does 1 to 10 inclusive.[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
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com

WILSON LOGISTICS: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILSON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-03212-WBG (W.D. Mo., August 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated truck
drivers all minimum wages to which they are entitled for
orientation time, for over-the-road training, and for all hours
worked.

Mr. Moore was employed by the Defendant as an over-the-road truck
driver from approximately August 2020 until December 2020.

Wilson Logistics, Inc. is a trucking company with a principal
office in Springfield, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
         HODES LAW FIRM, LLC
         6 Victory Lane, Suite 6
         Liberty, MO 64068
         Telephone: (816) 222-4338
         Facsimile: (816) 931-1718
         E-mail: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com

                - and –

         Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
         Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
         CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
         214 S. Spring Street
         Independence, MO 64050
         Telephone: (816) 974-7220
         Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
         E-mail: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
                 v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com

                - and –

         Hillary Schwab, Esq.
         FAIR WORK, P.C.
         192 South Street, Suite 450
         Boston, MA 02111
         Telephone: (617) 607-3261
         Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
         E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

WITH PRIDE: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WITH PRIDE AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING, INC.
and MICHAEL DOLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04515 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 11, 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 overtime wages, failure to comply with
recordkeeping requirements, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a
technician-assistant from June 2020 until March 2021.

With Pride Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. is a heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractor, headquartered
in East Farmingdale, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

ZOOM VIDEO: Files Motion for Preliminary Settlement in Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Collins, writing for Law/Street, reports that Zoom Video
Communications, Inc. and its users filed a motion for approval of
the preliminary class action settlement in the Northern District of
California over Zoom's alleged misrepresentations and violations of
customers' security and privacy.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Zoom's platform soared in popularity
for its video conferencing services. The motion said Zoom "claimed
to have end-to-end encryption" when it "in fact [. . .] did not"
have that level of security, which led to uninvited users to hijack
sessions, also known as "Zoombombing."

Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that "Zoom improperly shared
its users' data without notice or consent through the use of third
party software integrations from companies such as Facebook." As a
result, 14 class action lawsuits were filed against Zoom between
March and May 2020, and were consolidated into the current class
action complaint.

The two parties commenced negotiations last November and they
concluded recently.

The plaintiffs are defining the Settlement Class as "All Persons in
the United States who, between March 30, 2016 and the Settlement
Date, registered, used, opened, or downloaded the Zoom Meetings
Application" except Enterprise and Government accounts. There will
be a non-reversionary monetary fund of $85 million: users who paid
for an account can receive 15% of the money they paid to Zoom, or a
$25 compensation, whichever is greater; and free users can make a
claim for $15.

Under the agreement, Zoom will also "make over a dozen major
changes to its practices, designed to improve meeting security,
bolster privacy disclosures, and safeguard consumer data," such as
providing "in-meeting notifications to make it easier for users to
understand who can see, save, and share Zoom users' information and
content."

The defendant also agreed not to reintegrate Facebook's software
development kit into Zoom meetings for a year and will ask Facebook
to delete data obtained from U.S. users. The plaintiffs' counsel
are asking for up to 25% of the settlement fund for attorney's fees
($21.25 million).

The plaintiffs are represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
and Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. Zoom is represented by Cooley LLP. [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that in an Oct.
9 court filing, Zoom Video Communications Inc. said the securities
lawsuit filed against it should be dismissed for failing to allege
elements required by the applicable federal securities fraud
statute. The Northern District of California case arose amid Zoom's
rise to popularity as a video conferencing application during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

According to last month's opposition, the company's share price
dropped precipitously after executives and official filings misled
investors about its end to end encryption feature. In addition,
Zoom purportedly collected users' personal data and shared it with
Facebook, even in the case of users without Facebook accounts.
Among other things, the investor pointed to an FTC settlement with
Zoom over the false representation of its product's security and
encryption.

In the filing, Zoom contended that the complaint "fails to plead a
single actionable mis-statement, a strong inference of scienter, or
loss causation under the Exchange Act." In particular, the
investors purportedly fell short of pleading that statements were
false or misleading with particularity. In addition, the plaintiff
incorrectly argued for a definition of end-to-end encryption that
clashes with Ninth Circuit precedent because he failed to prove
that it is the meaning accepted and used by the industry, the reply
said.

Zoom also claimed that the plaintiff put forward only conclusory
and nonspecific references in support of his claim that company
officers knew or recklessly disregarded that the disputed
statements would mislead investors. Allegations concerning founder
Eric S. Yuan's development of the product, and in turn, familiarity
with it, fall short of plausibly establishing the state-of-mind
requirement, the reply said.

Reference to the FTC settlement, Zoom contended, does not otherwise
validate the plaintiff's falsity and scienter theories. The
settlement, wherein Zoom neither admitted nor denied the
allegations, is hardly analogous to the SEC and fraud cases to
which the plaintiff compares it, the filing said. Instead, the case
with the FTC, "an entity whose mandate does not encompass
securities fraud and thus does not implicate investors," is
immaterial to the falsity and knowledge allegations.

The video conferencing software company asked the court to grant
the motion with prejudice. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for
Aug. 26 before Judge James Donato.

Zoom is represented by Cooley LLP, and the investor and putative
class by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

A California investor thereafter complained that the company made
false claims that users' communications were encrypted and that
user data was secure. [GN]

ZYMERGEN INC: Klafter Lesser Reminds of August 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Klafter Lesser LLP, which has extensive experience in recovering
investor losses, on Aug. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed (21-cv-06028, N.D. Cal.) against Zymergen, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ZY) on behalf of persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Zymergen common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with Zymergen's April 2021 IPO.

After the close of the markets on August 3, 2021, Zymergen shocked
investors when it announced that it was experiencing issues with
"its commercial product pipeline that will impact the Company's
delivery timeline and revenue projections and that the Company no
longer expects product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue
to be immaterial in 2022."

It also stated that a market expected to drive future revenues, the
total addressable market for foldable display applications had
become "a smaller near-term market opportunity that is growing less
rapidly than anticipated" and further announced that its CEO, Josh
Hoffman, was immediately stepping down as CEO and as a member of
the board. These revelations resulted in a 76% decline in the price
of Zymergen stock on August 4, 2021.

On May 24, 2021, during its earnings call, Zymergen executives
reaffirmed product pipeline expectations and stated that the
qualification process for Hyaline was "progressing in-line with our
expectations" and was set to begin driving revenues "later in
2021." The class action that has been filed does not include claims
based on these May Zymergen statements.

If you purchased Zymergen stock on its IPO or in the open market
during the period April 21, 2021 through August 3, 2021, and have
sustained losses of at least $50,000 due to Zymergen's August 3,
2021 announcement, please contact Klafter Lesser LLP at
www.klafterlesser.com or Amir Alimehri, at his contact information
below. Zymergen investors have until October 4, 2021 to file a
motion to serve as lead plaintiff.

                          About the Firm

Klafter Lesser LLP prosecutes cases throughout the USA and prides
itself on litigating every case to obtain the largest recovery that
the circumstances warrant. Please visit our website for more
information about the Firm.

Contacts:
Amir Alimehri
Amir.alimehri@klafterlesser.com
2 International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
(914) 934-9200 x 314 [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 ***