/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210825.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 164

                            Headlines

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Rosi Suit
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
ANNOVIS BIO: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Class Action

ASSURANT INC: Brim Claims Shortchanged on Off-the-Clock Work
ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Appointed Lead Counsel in Tate Class Suit
ATI PHYSICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 15 Deadline
ATI PHYSICAL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 15 Deadline
BALLINAS & VASQUEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arechica Alleges

BASF CATALYSTS: Williams Seeks Final OK of Settlement Agreement
BENEFYTT INC: Class Certification Order in Moser TCPA Suit Vacated
BEST-LINE SHADES: Class & Subclasses Certified in Valenzuela Suit
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Grants Class Certification in Stiner Suit
CARIDAD SEA FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Claims

CCC INTELLIGENT: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Niemis Suit Granted
CERIDA INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galvan Alleges
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Court Stays Discovery in Oakley Class Suit
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Jones Seeks Certification of Class Action
CONCHO RESOURCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline

CONGRESS COLLECTION: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Echols FDCPA Suit
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Illinois Court Dismisses Park Place Suit
CORMEDIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem's Intentional Tort Claim Dismissed

DETROIT PROPERTY: Court Tosses James Bid for Class Certification
DFINITY USA RESEARCH: Roche Freedman Files Securities Class Action
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Feist Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
EL CHEVERE: Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EMIL FRANC: Calle Sues Over Failure to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages

ERIE INSURANCE: Pa. Super. Vacates Coordination Order in HTR Suit
ERNIE'S TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hill Claims
ETOH MONITORING: Meade Suit Seeks to Certify Class
FEDEX GROUND: Hinds Loses Class Certification Bid
FEDEX GROUND: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Oglesby Suit Partly OK'd

FIRST SOLAR: Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
G&J READY MIX: Bolivar Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Paystubs
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Commodities-Related Suit Under Appeal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Credit Default Swap Antitrust Class Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender Discrimination Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: VRDO-Related Suits Underway
HAIKU AT WP: Hong Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
HARRIS WATER: Pino Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
HULU LLC: Fort Scott Files Class Action Over Video Franchise Fees

JMJ ENTERPRISES: Wade Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Maston-Meadows Sues Over Defective Ventilators
LABORATORY CORP: Peterson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Underway

LANDS' END: Court Junks Class Status Bid in Gilbert Suit
LAZY DOG: Sypherd, et al., Seek to Certify California Class
LIFE LINE: Faces Sweeden Empoyment Suit in California State Court
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Bond TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
LOS ANGELES, CA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Arrested Persons
MARIST COLLEGE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Fedele Class Suit
MDL 3005: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Belviq-Related Suits
MEDIASTRATX LLC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Fischman Suit Denied

MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: McCarthy Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
MIDLAND CREDIT: Butela Files Bid for Class Certification
NETFLIX INC: NJ Municipalities Seek to Recover Unpaid Fees
NEW YORK SHAKESPEARE: Brown Hits Discrimination, Seeks Overtime Pay
NEW YORK, NY: Queensbridge Houses' Tenants File Suit v. NYCHA

NEW YORK: Bagley, et al., Seek to Certify Class
NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY: Miner Loses Bid for Conditional Certification
NEXTFOODS INC: Andrade-Heymsfield Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Drinks
NOOM INC: Court Allows $100MM Fraud Class Action to Proceed
NORTH DAKOTA UNIVERSITY: Order Dismissing Berndsen Suit Flipped

OATLY GROUP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
PARADIES SHOPS: Court OKs Settlement Agreement in Bailey Suit
PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL: Williams' Class Settlement Has. Prelim Nod
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline

PIZZA HUT: Faces Mini-TCPA Class Action in Florida
PIZZAROTTI LLC: Gil Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Claims in Hayden Securities Suit Narrowed
PULSES LLC: Family Health Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bumpus Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses

RING LLC: Jack Class Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court
SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Bid Class Certification Partly OK'd
SELECTQUOTE INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of October 15 Deadline
SELECTQUOTE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 15 Deadline
SMALLCAKES STEELE: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Suit Says
STATE FARM: Class Status Partly Granted in Elegant 'Insurance' Suit
STEMILT AG: Garcia Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
SUPERCUTS INC: Delamarter Seeks Certification of Class Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Approve Gibson's Settlement

TENNESSEE: Class Suit Filing Over Federal Unemployment Benefits Set
TI GROUP: Faces Brady Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TIVA HEALTHCARE: Verbal Wins Class Certification Bid
TRIPLE CANOPY: Butterfield Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Omega Hospital Seeks to Certify Class Action

VOLUNTEER HOME: Underpays Home Healthcare Workers, Johnson Claims
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Settlement in Bitzko Suit Wins Final Nod
[*] Canada Courts Approve LIB Settlement Funds Distribution

                            *********

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Rosi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA ROSI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACLARIS
THERAPEUTICS, INC., NEAL WALKER, FRANK RUFFO, KAMIL ALI-JACKSON,
and BRETT FAIR, Case No. 1:19-cv-07118-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order that:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
      acquired Aclaris Securities between May 8, 2018 and August
      12, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class
      Period");"

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
      directors of Aclaris, at all relevant times, members of
      their immediate families and their legal representatives,
      heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the
      Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also
      excluded from the Settlement Class are all putative
      members of the Settlement Class who exclude themselves by
      filing a valid and timely request for exclusion;"

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff Robert Fulcher is an adequate
      class representative and certifying him as Class
      Representative for the Settlement Class;

   3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the
      Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure.

      Payment of the Settlement Fund

      On or before 15 business days after the later of: (i)
      entry of this Order, and (ii) provision to Defendants of
      all information necessary to effectuate a transfer of
      funds, Aclaris and/or Defendants' insurers shall cause
      US$2,650,000.00 in cash to be paid to the Escrow Agent.

      All funds held by the Escrow Agent shall be deemed and
      considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and shall
      remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until
      such time as such funds shall be distributed or returned
      pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of the
      Court.

      Participation in the Settlement

      Settlement Class Members who wish to participate in the
      Settlement shall complete and submit Proofs of Claim in
      accordance with the instructions contained therein. Unless
      the Court orders otherwise, all Proofs of Claim must be
      postmarked or submitted electronically no later than seven
      calendar days after the date of the Settlement Hearing

      Aclaris is a biopharmaceutical company that strives to
      translate scientific discoveries into everyday victories
      in dermatology, and beyond.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gqvKMJ at no extra charge.[CC]

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Activision Blizzard, Inc. ("Activision Blizzard")
(NASDAQ: ATVI) between August 4, 2016 and July 27, 2021. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18624&wire=5

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

Activision Blizzard, Inc. NEWS - ATVI NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) Activision
Blizzard discriminated against women and minority employees; (2)
Activision Blizzard fostered a pervasive "frat boy" workplace
culture that continues to thrive; (3) numerous complaints about
unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation were made to
human resources personnel and executives which went unaddressed;
(4) the pervasive culture of harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation would result in serious impairments to Activision
Blizzard's operations; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company was at greater risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny and
enforcement, including that which would have a material adverse
effect; (6) Activision Blizzard failed to inform shareholders that
the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing had been
investigating Activision Blizzard for harassment and
discrimination; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Activision Blizzard's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Activision Blizzard, you have until October 4, 2021 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Activision Blizzard securities
between August 4, 2016 and July 27, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18624&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

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

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ATVI) investors that acquired shares between August 4, 2016 and
July 27, 2021. Investors have until October 4, 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.

California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a
lawsuit against Activision Blizzard on July 20, 2021, which claimed
that women who work for Activision Blizzard are subjected to
"constant sexual harassment," and that while this was occurring
Activision Blizzard's top executives and human resources personnel
were aware of the harassment, and not only failed to prevent it,
but retaliated against women who complained. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Equal Pay
Act.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4,
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]

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 18 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

ATHA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18627&wire=1
AHCO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=18627&wire=1
LIVE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?prid=18627&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATHA)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased Athira Pharma,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021
and/or purchased common stock in or traceable to the Company's
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
September 2020 initial public offering priced at $17.00 per share.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18627&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the research conducted by
Defendant Kawas, which formed the foundation for Athira's product
candidates and intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas'
scientific misconduct, including the manipulation of key data
through the altering of Western blot images; and (2) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made not misleading.

AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp.
(NASDAQ:AHCO)

AHCO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 11,
2019 - July 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 27, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=18627&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic
growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth
numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation of Securities
and Exchange Commission regulations; (ii) accordingly, the Company
had materially overstated its financial prospects; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Live Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ:LIVE)

LIVE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 28,
2016 - August 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 12, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?prid=18627&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Live
Ventures Incorporated made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) Live's earnings per
share for FY 2016 was actually only $6.33 per share; (2) the
Company used an artificially low share count to boost the earnings
per share by 40%; (3) Live had overstated pretax income for fiscal
2016 by 20% by including $915,500 of "other income" related to
certain amendments that were not negotiated until after the close
of the fiscal year; (4) Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did
not close during first quarter 2017; (5) using December 30, 2017 as
the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) by falsely
stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter, Live
recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled the Company to
report positive net income in what would otherwise have been an
unprofitable quarter; (7) between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2018,
Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in compensation than was
disclosed to investors; and (8) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

ANNOVIS BIO: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 17 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania captioned Zhou v.
Annovis Bio, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-3668) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Annovis
Bio, Inc. ("Annovis" or the "Company") (NYSE: ANVS) securities
between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from August
17, 2021, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your Annovis investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/annovis-bio-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

Annovis is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that is
developing therapies addressing neurodegeneration, such as
Alzheimer's disease ("AD"), Parkinson's disease ("PD"), and
Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome ("AD-DS"). Its lead compound
is ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally administrated drug which
purportedly inhibited the synthesis of neurotoxic proteins that are
the main cause of neurodegeneration.

On July 28, 2021, after the market closed, Annovis reported interim
clinical data from its Phase 2a trial. Among other things, the
Company reported that AD patients 25 days after treatment failed to
show statistically significant improvement compared to the placebo.
Annovis also reported that, although patients showed cognitive
improvements in certain areas, the results were not statistically
significant.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $65.94, or 60%, to
close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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: (1) that Annovis's ANVS401 did not show statistically
significant results across two patient populations as to factors
such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Annovis securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
August 17, 2021, date of this notice ask the Court to appoint you
as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class 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. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.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. [GN]

ASSURANT INC: Brim Claims Shortchanged on Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Charlton Brim, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Assurant, Inc., Defendant.,
Case No. 21-cv-00221 (S.D. Ohio, August 5, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest and any other remedies under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendant operates customer service call center locations
throughout the United States, including in Springfield, Ohio where
Brim worked as a Customer Service Representative from June 2011
until August 2019. Brim claims to have regularly worked a
substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of her job duties
but was never compensated Plaintiff for this time worked.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michelle L. Kranz, Esq.
      ZOLL & KRANZ, LLC
      6620 W. Central Ave., Suite 100
      Toledo, OH 43617
      Tel: (419) 841-9623
      Fax: (419) 841-9719
      Email: michelle@toledolaw.com

             - and -

      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
             zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com


ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Appointed Lead Counsel in Tate Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ANDREW TATE, Plaintiff v. ATERIAN, INC., et al.,
Defendants, and JEFF COON, Plaintiff v. ATERIAN, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 21 Civ. 4323 (VM), 21 Civ. 5163 (VM)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Movants' motions to
consolidate the actions, appoints Joseph Nolff as the Lead
Plaintiff, and appoints The Rosen Law Firm as the Lead Counsel.

Before the Court are six pending motions from Antonio Velardo,
Joseph Nolff, Tamara Rasoumoff, Andrew Zenoff, Hungen Lin, and
Boris Kerzhner for consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), as well as appointment and approval of a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel under the PSLRA. The Court received three
responses from Velardo, Nolff, and Zenoff, as well as two replies
from Velardo and Zenoff. After all motions were filed, Kerzhner and
Lin filed notices of non-opposition to the competing motions for
appointment, in recognition of the fact that Kerzhner and Lin did
not suffer the greatest financial loss.

The claims in the class-action suit arise out of alleged violations
of the federal securities laws by Defendant Aterian between Dec. 1,
2020 and May 3, 2021. Aterian is a "technology-enabled consumer
products platform that builds, acquires and partners with
e-commerce brands." It allegedly misrepresented the health and
viability of its core businesses, which was exposed by a May 4,
2021 report released by Culper Research. That report caused the
publicly traded Aterian stock to lose approximately 24% of its
value in a single day.

The various complaints filed by the Plaintiffs individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated all allege that Aterian's
actions during the Class Period violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Discussion

A. Consolidation

Rule 42(a) states that consolidation is appropriate when two or
more actions "involve a common question of law or fact." Similarly,
the PSLRA contemplates consolidation when "more than one action on
behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims
arising under this chapter has been filed."

Under these standards, Judge Marrero finds that the two actions
currently before it involve the same or substantially similar
underlying conduct, claims, and parties such that consolidation is
appropriate.

B. Lead Plaintiff

Once the Court has determined that consolidation is appropriate, it
must appoint the "most adequate plaintiff" to be lead plaintiff.
PSLRA instructs that the presumptively "most adequate plaintiff" is
the Movant who (1) has filed a timely motion to be appointed; (2)
has the "largest financial interest;" and (3) makes a preliminary
showing that they satisfy the Rule 23 requirements for class
representative.

As to the first requirement, Judge Marrero finds taht each Movant
has filed a timely motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.

As to the second requirement, he finds that of the Movants, Nolff
has demonstrated by far the greatest financial loss ($470,510).
This amount outpaces each of Velardo ($103,815), Rasoumoff
($57,819.51), Zenoff ($119,011.73), Lin ($14,687), and Kerzhner
($25,773). In fact, Zenoff and Velardo, the two Movants with the
next greatest loss, both concede that Nolff has sustained a greater
loss. Therefore, the Judge concludes that Nolff has the largest
financial interest.

As to the third requirement, the Judge is satisfied that Nolff has
made a preliminary showing of typicality and adequacy of
representation. Nolff brings the same securities claims as all
other plaintiffs in the Class, and therefore his interests are
closely aligned with the rest of the Class. He, having suffered the
greatest financial loss, is highly motivated to represent the Class
adequately. Furthermore, his background and experience in investing
suggest he is capable of leading a complex securities class action.
Accordingly, because Nolff satisfies each of PLSRA's three
requirements, the Judge presumes that Nolff is the most adequate
plaintiff.

The presumption of most adequate plaintiff "may be rebutted only
upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class" that the
most adequate plaintiff (1) "will not fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class" or (2) "is subject to unique defenses
that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the
class." Of the Movants, only Velardo makes a case that Nolff is not
suited to be lead plaintiff in the action. Velardo's argument
essentially is that Nolff has not provided the Court with enough
information to make the necessary preliminary showing of typicality
and adequacy of representation. But Velardo offers no "proof" that
Nolff cannot capably represent the class as required on rebuttal.
Therefore, the Judge finds that the presumption that Nolff is the
"most adequate plaintiff" has not been rebutted and will appoint
Nolff as the Lead Plaintiff in the action.

C. Lead Counsel

Nolff has selected The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel, a
representative of which has submitted a resume setting forth the
firm's attorneys and relevant experience. The Judge is persuaded
that, based on the experience it has in litigating class action
lawsuits, The Rosen Law Firm can capably represent the class.
Accordingly, he approves Nolff's selection of The Rosen Law Firm as
its choice of lead counsel.

Order

For the reasons he stated, Judge Marrero respectfully requested the
Clerk of Court to consolidate these actions for all pretrial
purposes. All filings in connection with the consolidated action be
docketed against the lower-numbered case, 21 Civ. 4323. The Clerk
of Court close the referenced higher-numbered case, 21 Civ. 5163,
as a separate action and remove it from the Court's docket.

Judge Marrero granted the motion of Nolff for appointment as the
Lead Plaintiff for the proposed class in the action and his motion
for appointment of The Rosen Law Firm as the Llead Counsel for the
class.

The motions of Velardo, Rasoumoff, Zenoff, Lin, and Kerzhner for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for lead counsel are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2vnfnenp from Leagle.com.


ATI PHYSICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against ATI Physical therapy, Inc. ("ATI" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ATIP) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired ATI securities between April 1,
2021 and July 23, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until October 15, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

ATI is an outpatient physical therapy company. It owns and operates
nearly 900 physical therapy clinics across 25 states.

On June 17, 2021, ATI became public via a business combination with
FVAC ("Business Combination").

On July 26, 2021, before the market opened, ATI reported its
financial results for second quarter 2021, the period in which the
Business Combination was completed. Among other things, ATI
reported that "the acceleration of attrition among [its] therapists
in the second quarter and continuing into the third quarter,
combined with the intensifying competition for clinicians in the
labor market, prevented us from being able to meet the demand we
have and increased our labor costs." Though ATI was implementing
certain remedial actions, the Company reduced its fiscal 2021
forecast due to the foregoing factors.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.62, or 43%, to
close at $4.72 per share on July 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline the next
trading session by as much as 19%. As a result, FVAC investors who
could have voted against the Business Combination and redeemed
their shares at $10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.28 per
share.

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: (1) that ATI was experiencing attrition among its
physical therapists; (2) that ATI faced increasing competition for
clinicians in the labor market; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company faced difficulties retaining therapists and
incurred increased labor costs; (4) that, as a result of the labor
shortage, the Company would open fewer new clinics; and (5) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

ATI PHYSICAL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. (f/k/a
Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II ("FVAC")) ("ATI" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ATIP) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired ATI publicly traded securities between April 1,
2021 and July 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b)
holders of FVAC Class A common stock as of May 24, 2021 who were
eligible to vote at FVAC's June 15, 2021 special meeting.

FVAC was a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC" or "blank
check" company) formed for the purpose of effecting a merger,
capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more
businesses. ATI is an outpatient physical therapy company that owns
and operates nearly 90 physical therapy clinics across 25 states.
On June 17, 2021, ATI became public via a business combination with
FVAC.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing
attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing
competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result,
ATI faced difficulties retaining therapists and incurred increased
labor costs; (iv) given the labor shortage, ATI would open fewer
new clinics; and (v) consequently, Defendants' positive statements
about ATI's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of ATI during
the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 15,
2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

BALLINAS & VASQUEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arechica Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL ARECHICA OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALLINAS & VASQUEZ CORP. (D/B/A
METATE); METATE 3 CORP. (D/B/A METATE RESTAURANT DOBBS FERRY);
METATE 4 CORP (D/B/A METATE MEXICAN RESTAURANT PALISADE); CECILIO
BALLINAS; ELSA TERRON, and NATAHEL COMONFORT GONZALEZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06829 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Arechica was employed by the Defendants as kitchen
staff.

BALLINAS & VASQUEZ CORP. owns and operates three Mexican
restaurants, located at Bronx, NY 10463 under the name "Metate", at
Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522 under the name "Metate Restaurant Dobbs
Ferry", and at Avenue Yonkers, NY 10703 under the name "Metate
Mexican Restaurant Palisade". [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

BASF CATALYSTS: Williams Seeks Final OK of Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.
v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying a Settlement Class;

   3. appointing Kimberlee Williams, Gayle Williams, Marilyn L.
      Holley, Sheila Ware, Donnette Wengerd, and Rosanne
      Chernick as representatives for the Class;

   4. appointing Christopher M. Placitella as Lead Class Counsel
      and Stewart L. Cohen, Harry M. Roth, Michael Coren, Robert
      L. Pratter, Eric S. Pasternack, Jared M. Placitella and
      the law firm of Cohen Placitella & Roth, P.C., as Class
      Counsel;

   5. approving the proposed Plan of Distribution and
      authorization for the Settlement Administrator to disburse
      the Settlement Fund;

   6. appointing Hon. Marina Corodemus, J.S.C. (Retired) to the
      position of Settlement Trustee and Special Master under
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53;

   7. appointing Verus LLC as the Settlement Administrator;

   8. appointing Edgar C. Gentle, III, Esq. as the Lien
      Administrator;

   9. awarding Class Counsel the full $22.5 million in
      attorneys' fees and $1.2 million in reimbursable expenses
      that Defendants have agreed to pay over and separate from
      the $72.5 million Settlement Fund; and

  10. awarding the Class Representatives incentive awards of
      $50,000 each for their contribution to achieving the
      Settlement.

BASF manufactures and markets environmental and process catalysts.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j8T0k2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:

          Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
          Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C .
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-9003

BENEFYTT INC: Class Certification Order in Moser TCPA Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH J. MOSER, individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BENEFYTT, INC.;
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants, and UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a
Texas Corporation; COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a South
Carolina Corporation; DONISI JAX, INC., Nationwide Health Advisors,
a Florida Corporation; CHARLES DONISI, an individual; EVAN
JAXTHEIMER, an individual; HELPING HAND HEALTH GROUP, INC., a
Florida Corporation; ANTHONY MARESCA, an individual; MATTHEW
HERMAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 19-56224 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacates the class
certification order and remands the case to the district court for
proceedings consistent with its decision.

The Ninth Circuit principally considers whether a defendant waived
any objection under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), to the district court's
certification of nationwide classes because the defendant did not
file a motion to dismiss the claims of non-resident putative class
members for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Moser filed the putative nationwide class action in federal court
in California against Benefytt, formerly known as Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc. ("HII"), alleging that HII was responsible for
unwanted sales calls that violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Moser is a resident of California. HII is
incorporated in Delaware and represents that its principal place of
business is Florida. Moser sued other defendants too (including
appellant National Congress of Employers, Inc.), but they are not
relevant in the matter.

The district court denied HII's motion to dismiss and ruled that
HII's motion to strike certain class allegations was premature. HII
did not move to dismiss Moser's claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction. There is no dispute that the district court had
specific personal jurisdiction over Moser's own claims against HII,
which "arise out of or relate to" HII's contacts with California.

Subsequently, Moser asked the district court to certify two
nationwide classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In
response, HII argued (among other things) that the district court
could not certify classes of that scope because the district court
lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-California
plaintiffs under Bristol-Myers, 137 S.Ct. 1773.

In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibited a California state court
from exercising specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident
plaintiffs' claims in a mass action against a non-resident company.
That some plaintiffs were injured in California, the Supreme Court
held, "does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction
over the nonresidents' claims," "even when third parties can bring
claims similar to those brought by the nonresidents." Bristol-Myers
did not address whether its approach would apply to a class action
in federal court. But in opposing class certification, HII argued
that it did.

The district court did not address HII's Bristol-Myers argument on
the merits. Instead, it concluded that under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(h)(1), HII had waived its personal jurisdiction
defense by not raising it at the motion to dismiss stage, given
that the Supreme Court had decided Bristol-Myers approximately one
month before HII filed its Rule 12 motion. After finding that Rule
23's requirements were otherwise met, the district court certified
two nationwide classes. The Ninth Circuit then granted HII leave to
appeal the class certification order.

Discussion

A.

The dissent's contrary analysis turns on an apparent
misunderstanding of how the personal jurisdiction issues bear on,
and form part of, the district court's class certification
decision. The dissent notes that "denials of motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction are not ordinarily reviewable on
interlocutory appeal," and then proceeds to assert that the Ninth
Circuit lacks jurisdiction to address "the resolution" of HII's
supposedly "separate Rule 12 motion," which the dissent
alternatively describes as "the district court's personal
jurisdiction order under Rule 12(b)(2)."

The Ninth Circuit opines that the problem with the dissent's
analysis is that there was no Rule 12 motion to dismiss
non-resident class members for lack of personal jurisdiction, nor
did the district court resolve such a motion. HII's argument is
that under Bristol-Myers, the district court could not certify
nationwide classes consistent with Rule 23. The dissent says Rule
23(f) "appeals are limited to those issues that bear on the
soundness of the class certification decision." That test is
clearly met in the case.

The Ninth Circuit thus declines the dissent's invitation to create
an unprecedented limitation on its jurisdiction under Rule 23(f),
which would also create a split with both the Fifth Circuit
(Cruson) and the Seventh Circuit (Mussat). It therefore proceeds to
the district court's determination that the Defendants waived any
Bristol-Myers-based objection to class certification.

B.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court erred in concluding
that HII waived its personal jurisdiction objection to class
certification by failing to assert the defense at the Rule 12
stage. It explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
allows a defendant to move to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. As relevant in the case, under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) a
party "waives any defense" under Rule 12(b)(2) by "omitting it from
a motion in the circumstances described in Rule 12(g)(2)." Rule
12(g)(2), in turn, provides that "a party that makes a motion under
this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a
defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted
from its earlier motion."

The Appellate Court opines that there were no claims the district
court could have dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds when it
decided HII's motion to dismiss because Moser was the only
plaintiff and there was specific personal jurisdiction over his
claims against HII. Because it found the issue waived, the district
court did not address the merits of HII's Bristol-Myers objection
to class certification. Although HII asks the Appellate Court to
resolve that issue now, like the Fifth Circuit in Cruson, it leaves
that matter for the district court on remand.

The case involves allegations that HII was responsible for a
network of agents that made unlawful telephone calls to persons
across the country. The district court can determine in the first
instance whether consideration of the Bristol-Myers argument will
require additional record development, including as to HII's and
its alleged agents' contacts with California. And because the
permissible scope of the certified class (and record) may change,
the Ninth Circuit does not reach HII's other arguments on why class
certification under Rule 23 was otherwise improper.

Opinion

The Ninth Circuit vacates the class certification order and remands
the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with its
decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/62d99ntn from Leagle.com.

Anne M. Voigts (argued) -- avoigts@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding
LLP, in Palo Alto, California; Matthew V.H. Noller --
mnoller@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, in Sacramento,
California; David L. Balser, Zachary A. McEntyre, and Danielle
Chattin, King & Spalding LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia; for
Defendants-Appellants.

Matthew W.H. Wessler (argued) -- matt@guptawessler.com -- Gupta
Wessler PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Neil K. Sawhney --
neil@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, San Francisco,
California; Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, in San Francisco, California; Christopher J. Reichman and
Justin Prato, Prato & Reichman APC, in San Diego, California; for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicole A. Saharsky -- nsaharsky@mayerbrown.com -- Andrew J. Pincus
-- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- and Daniel E. Jones --
djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, in Washington, D.C.;
Steven P. Lehotsky and Jonathan D. Urick, U.S. Chamber Litigation
Center, in Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America.


BEST-LINE SHADES: Class & Subclasses Certified in Valenzuela Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOLORES VALENZUELA, et al., Plaintiffs v. BEST-LINE
SHADES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07293-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) and for conditional certification under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Background

Plaintiffs Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar
filed the putative wage and hour class and collective action
against their former employer Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line,
Inc., and its owner and president Jill Schaffer seeking to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under the FLSA and California labor
laws.

The Defendants operated and managed a curtain manufacturing
facility "Best-Line Shades" in Richmond, California until it closed
in March 2020. The Plaintiffs worked at Best-Line varying periods
of time: Valenzuela worked at Best-Line the longest period of time
-- over 20 years -- before being terminated at the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Flores worked at Best-Line for approximately 17
years. Menjivar worked at Best-Line for approximately 10 months,
from January to October 2018.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to maintain
records of meal periods and instead utilized an auto-deduct policy
whereby 30 minutes was automatically deducted from each employee's
wages without any corresponding time records. In addition, they
allege that the Defendants advised the class members on March 17,
2020 that it would cease operations indefinitely, but failed to pay
employees for the two-week period leading up to March 17.

Ms. Valenzuela filed the putative class and collective action on
Nov. 5, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged claims for: 1) federal Fair
Labor Standards Act violation, 2) failure to pay contractual wages,
3) failure to pay minimum wages, 4) failure to pay overtime wages,
5) wage statement and recordkeeping violations, 6) meal period
violations, 7) rest period violations, 8) failure to provide
reimbursement for necessary business expenditures, 9) failure to
pay all wages owed upon termination, 10) retaliation for
participating in a protected activity, and 11) violation of
California Unfair Competition Law.

Four months later, Valenzuela filed a first amended complaint
seeking to add Ms. Flores as a named Plaintiff and to add claims
for failure to make payroll records available and penalties
pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. Six months later, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint adding Plaintiff Menjivar and
Defendant Richard Schaeffer. The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave
to amend and the second amended complaint is now the operative
complaint, although Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their claims
against Mr. Schaeffer.

In May 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. The Defendants failed to file an opposition or
response to the motion and at a subsequent status conference
advised the Court that the Best-Line entities have been dissolved.
Judge Corley thus took the motion for class certification under
submission without an opposition.

Discussion

I. Rule 23 Class Action

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of: "All non-exempt
employees who were employed by BEST-LINE SHADES, INC. and
BEST-LINE, INC. in the State of California at any time from
November 5, 2015 to March 17, 2020."

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of three subclasses: (1) a
meal period auto-deduction subclass, (2) a wage statement subclass,
and (3) final pay and wage statement subclass.

The meal period subclass is defined as: "All non-exempt employees
who were employed by BEST-LINE SHADES, INC. and BEST-LINE, INC. in
the State of California who worked at least one shift greater than
5 hours at any time from November 5, 2015 to March 17, 2020, who
were subject to Defendants' auto-deduct policy."

The wage statement subclass is defined as: "All non-exempt
employees who were employed by BEST-LINE SHADES, INC. and
BEST-LINE, INC. in the State of California at any time from
November 5, 2015 to March 17, 2020 who failed to receive a wage
statement at all, or who due to the meal period violation described
in the accompanying motion failed to receive an accurate wage
statement that reflected all hours worked."

The final pay subclass is defined as: "All non-exempt employees who
were employed by BEST-LINE SHADES, INC. and BEST-LINE, INC. in the
State of California at any time from November 5, 2015 to March 17,
2020 who were not paid all wages due when they were terminated or
quit as required by California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and
203."

A. Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)

The Court may certify a class only where "(1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."

Judge Corley holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a).
She finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' proposed class exceeds the
numerical threshold, and may be as high as 46; (ii) liability under
the Plaintiffs' claims turns on common factual and legal questions
related to the Defendants' alleged policies and practices with
respect to the auto-deduction of class member's meal periods,
whether the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs' final wages,
and whether Defendants provided accurate wage statements; (iii) the
Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class because all class
members were subject to the same policies and practices;; and (iv)
there do not appear to be any conflicts between the named
Plaintiffs and the other class members, and the class counsel is
highly experienced in class action wage and hour litigation.

B. Plaintiffs have Satisfied the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) requires: (i) that the questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members; and (ii) that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The test of Rule 23(b)(3)
is "far more demanding" than that of Rule 23(a).

Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs have Satisfied the
Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). She is persuaded that common issues
predominate with respect to the Plaintiffs' meal period
auto-deduction subclass. She also finds class action is superior to
individual litigation with respect to the Plaintiffs' final pay
subclass and their meal period subclass.

Accordingly, Judge grants the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23(b)(3)
certification of their final pay, wage statement, and meal period
subclasses.

II. FLSA Collective Action

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a FLSA opt-in class of: "All
non-exempt employees who were employed by BEST-LINE SHADES, INC.
and BESTLINE, INC. in the State of California at any time from
March 4, 2020 to March 17, 2020, who performed work for Defendants
prior to March 17, 2020 and who did not receive timely, final
payment of all overtime wages on their final check."

They Plaintiffs request that the Court orders notice pursuant to
Hoffmann La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170-72 (1989),
because members of the collective are unaware of the action or the
opt-in procedure.

For the reasons she discussed with respect to the Plaintiffs' final
pay and wage statement subclasses, Judge Corley holds that the
Plaintiffs have shown that members of the collective are similarly
situated as required under the first step of the FLSA certification
inquiry. Under Labor Code sections 203 and 226, employers are
required to pay final wages at termination and provide employees
with an itemized wage statement. The Plaintiffs have submitted
declarations from the named Plaintiffs and the Defendants'
discovery responses which indicate that the Defendants did neither.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden at the
first stage to make "substantial allegations" that they and the
putative class members "were subject to a single illegal policy."
Conditional certification of the proposed FLSA class is thus
appropriate.

Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a class and collective action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and FLSA, Section Section
216(b). Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar are
appointed as the Class Representatives and Mallison & Martinez is
appointed the Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs will submit a proposed class notice and notice plan
by Aug. 27, 2021. They will move for summary judgment by Nov. 18,
2021.

The Order disposes of Docket No. 47.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/z8aat893 from Leagle.com.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Grants Class Certification in Stiner Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES,
INC.; et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Guy B. Wallace enters an order granting class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)
of the following three classes.

The first two classes seek declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Unruh
Act, and as well as statutory minimum damages under the Unruh Act.
The third class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages
under the CLRA, the UCL and the Elder Financial Abuse statute:

   1. All persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs,
      scooters, or other mobility aids or who have vision
      disabilities and who reside or have resided at a
      residential care facility for the elderly located in
      California and owned, operated and/or managed by Brookdale
      during the three years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action,
      including their successors-in-interest if deceased,
      excluding any persons who are subject to arbitration.

   2. All persons with disabilities who require assistance with
      activities of daily living and who reside or have resided
      at a residential care facility for the elderly located in
      California and owned, operated and/or managed by Brookdale
      during the three years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action,
      including their successors-in-interest if deceased,
      excluding any persons who are subject to arbitration.

   3. All persons who resided or reside at one of the
      residential care facilities for the elderly located in
      California and owned, operated and/or managed by Brookdale
      during the period from May 16, 2015 through the conclusion
      of this action, and who contracted with Brookdale or
      another assisted living facility for services for which
      Brookdale was paid money, including their successors-in-
      interest if deceased, excluding any persons
      who are subject to arbitration.

In this case, thousands of vulnerable senior citizens and persons
with disabilities seek redress for violations of their statutory
rights under federal and California law. Defendants Brookdale
Senior Living, Inc. and Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.
have subjected the putative class members to systemic violations of
their civil rights under ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act.

Further, in violation of California's consumer protection laws,
Brookdale has subjected the putative class members to a deceptive
scheme in which it promises to assess their needs for care and then
provide care services to them. Brookdale, however, does not
disclose to the putative class members that it has a policy and
practice of understaffing its facilities, and that as a result, the
residents of its assisted living facilities are placed at a
substantial risk of being denied care services on any given day.
The residents pay thousands of dollars to Brookdale every month for
care that they often do not receive, while Brookdale pockets
literally billions of dollars and strips them of their life
savings. In short, Brookdale's wrongful conduct has subjected the
putative class members to discrimination, deception, elder
financial abuse and indignity.

Moreover, the Defendants have violated the ADA and the Unruh Act by
systemically understaffing their assisted living facilities. As a
result, Plaintiffs are routinely denied essential services with
respect to their activities of daily living (ADLs), such as
assistance with toileting, dressing, grooming, bathing, ambulation,
escorting, medication administration and housekeeping. Plaintiffs
have requested that 12 make a reasonable modification in policy and
practice pursuant to the ADA to provide sufficient staffing to
ensure that residents with disabilities receive the services
specified in their assessments and care plans. Defendants have
refused to do so. Instead, Defendants continue to staff their
facilities based on corporate staffing procedures that are not
reasonably designed to ensure the amount of staffing necessary to
deliver to the residents the services they need as set forth in
Brookdale's own care plans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XPic79 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Travis C. Close, Esq.
          Rachel L. Steyer, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
                  tclose@schneiderwallace.com
                   rsteyer@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
          STEBNER & ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
          E-mail: kathryn@stebnerassociates.com
                  brian@stebnerassociates.com

               - and -

          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq.
          Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
          Amy Xu, Esq.
          Rosen Bien, Esq.
          GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                  Bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
                  jyelin@rbgg.com
                  axu@rbgg.com

               - and -

          David T. Marks, Esq.
          Jacques Balette, Esq.
          MARKS, BALETTE, GIESSEL
          & YOUNG, P.L.L.C.
          7521 Westview Drive
          Houston, TX 77055
          Telephone: (713) 681-3070
          Facsimile: (713) 681-2811
          E-mail: davidm@marksfirm.com
                  jacquesb@marksfirm.com

CARIDAD SEA FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ENERIA RODRIGUEZ and JOSE RAMON FRANCO ORTIZ, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARIDAD SEA
FOOD RESTAURANT CORP., EL NUEVO VALLE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT CORP., 231
EL VALLE SEAFOOD CORP., and JOSEAN C. MENDEZ VALDEZ (AKA CARLOS
MENDEZ), Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06849 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks.

CARIDAD SEA FOOD RESTAURANT CORP. owns and operates a restaurant in
Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Avenue
          Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2243
          Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com

CCC INTELLIGENT: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Niemis Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL NIEMIS, Plaintiff v. CCC INTELLIGENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-2956-WFJ-JSS (M.D.
Fla.), Judge William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants Defendant CCC's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for all claims.

Background

Plaintiff Niemis brings the putative class action alleging
Defendant CCC systematically applied unexplained and unjustified
condition adjustments when determining the value of wrecked cars
deemed to be "total losses." The case is one of several pending in
United States district courts challenging the valuation systems
used by Defendant CCC.

Plaintiff Niemis is a Florida resident who insured his automobile
through Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary
of USAA Casualty Insurance Company ("USAA"). In May 2020, the
Plaintiff's car -- a 2016 Jaguar F-Type R Automatic AWD -- became
damaged in an accident. The Plaintiff submitted an insurance claim
to Garrison, which deemed his vehicle a total loss. Under the terms
of the Insurance Policy, Garrison agreed to pay the Plaintiff the
actual cash value of the insured vehicle upon the occurrence of a
total loss. The policy defined actual cash value as "the amount
that it would cost, at the time of loss, to buy a comparable
vehicle."

Defendant CCC is an information technologies company that values
total loss vehicles for insurance companies. It signed a contract
with USAA to provide valuation reports for total loss vehicles.
Garrison would then use these reports to determine how much it
would pay its insureds for their claims. Defendant CCC provided
Garrison a valuation report for Plaintiff Niemis' car, determining
that the actual cash value was $46,213 before taxes and fees.
Garrison paid the Plaintiff this amount in June 2020, and the
Plaintiff accepted.

The Plaintiff takes issue with the methodologies Defendant CCC used
to value his car. When calculating actual cash value, CCC compiles
a list of "Comparable Vehicles" to help determine the market value
of the insured's loss vehicle. According to the Plaintiff, CCC has
a practice of illegitimately decreasing the value of the comparable
vehicles, which, in turn, downgrades the value of the insured's
loss vehicle. The Plaintiff argues these unfounded condition
adjustments caused his car to be valued at $2,585 less than it
should have.

In the event Garrison and Plaintiff Niemis could not agree on the
amount of loss, the Policy contains an appraisal provision that
either party can invoke.

After learning that Plaintiff Niemis disputed the valuation of his
car, Garrison invoked the appraisal provision in December 2020. The
Plaintiff agreed to participate in the appraisal process. The
appraisers selected by Garrison and the Plaintiff agreed that the
value of Plaintiff's loss vehicle was $48,796.24. Garrison then
paid the Plaintiff an additional $2,583.24, which was the
difference between Garrison's original valuation and the
appraisers' new valuation.

The Plaintiff filed the action in Florida state court in October
2020. He brings the case on behalf of himself and a putative class
of individuals in Florida who had car insurance through Garrison
and whose vehicles suffered total losses. Defendant CCC removed the
action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005. Neither Garrison nor USAA are parties in the case. Before
the Court today is Defendant CCC's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

Analysis

I. Defendant CCC is Entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings for the
Tortious Interference Claim.

Plaintiff Niemis first alleges that Defendant CCC tortiously
interfered with the Insurance Policy between him and Garrison. He
alleges a breach occurred when Garrison offered him $46,213 for his
vehicle -- an amount $2,585 less than what he claims is the actual
cash value of the car. The Plaintiff argues Defendant CCC
intentionally procured this breach by using unfounded negative
condition adjustments to calculate an inaccurately low valuation of
Plaintiff's car, which, in turn, enabled Garrison to offer less
than the actual cash value. He argues this behavior interfered with
Garrison's contractual duties under the insurance policy, as well
as its statutory duties under Fla. Stat. Section 625.9743.

Judge Jung finds that to establish a claim for tortious
interference, Plaintiff Niemis must show there was a breach of the
insurance policy. But, pursuant to the analysis in J.P.F.D Inv.
Corp. v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 769 F. App'x 698 (11th Cir.
2019), a breach would accrue only if Garrison refused to pay the
appraisal award. That is not what happened in the case; Garrison
timely and fully complied with the policy when it paid the
Plaintiff the loss amount agreed to by the appraisers. Defendant
CCC is therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings for this
claim. One cannot tortiously interfere with an unaccrued contract.

II. Defendant CCC is Entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings for the
Third-Party Beneficiary Claim.

The Plaintiff bases his second claim on the Services Agreement
between USAA and Defendant CCC. Although the Plaintiff admits he is
not a party to the Services Agreement, he nevertheless argues he
can enforce the agreement as an intended third-party beneficiary.
He claims Defendant CCC breached the Services Agreement by failing
to provide accurate valuation reports for total loss claims made by
Garrison's insureds.

Judge Jung holds that Section 2.1 does not specifically and clearly
signal an intent to benefit insureds like Plaintiff Niemis.
Although this clause recognizes that USAA is in the business of
providing insurance services to customers, the purpose of the
clause is to set out the services Defendant CCC agreed to provide
USAA and how USAA can use those services. Any benefit the Plaintiff
receives from this arrangement is merely incidental. When
considering the contract as a whole -- especially in light of the
express disclaimer in Section 18.18 -- the Judge finds that it is
evident Section 2.1 on its own is not sufficiently clear to
establish that Plaintiff is an intended third-party beneficiary. He
awards Defendant CCC judgment on the pleadings for this claim.

III. The Class Claims Cannot Continue.

In the event his individual claims failed, Plaintiff Niemis argues
the class claims should nevertheless survive under a line of cases
dealing with Rule 68 offers of judgment. Rule 68 allows a defendant
to make an "offer of judgment" at any point up to two weeks before
trial. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, class claims do not
necessarily become moot when a named plaintiff accepts a Rule 68
offer of judgment. The relation-back doctrine allows a named
plaintiff whose individual claims are moot to represent class
members if that plaintiff will adequately present the class claims.
Thus, even if the individual claims are deemed moot through a Rule
68 offer of judgment, the class claims may remain live and the
named plaintiff may retain the ability to pursue them. Plaintiff
Niemis argues his class claims should similarly remain live even
though his individual claims do not.

Judge Jung rejects Plaintiff Niemis' analogy. He says, in cases
involving Rule 68, the intervening settlement offer resolves the
controversy at issue. But in the case, there was no controversy to
begin with; there are no set of facts that would entitle the
Plaintiff to relief for the tortious interference claim or the
third-party beneficiary claim. This is not a situation where the
defendant "picked off" the putative class members with settlement
offers. It is a situation where the plaintiff did not have a claim
to begin with. Therefore, the Judge holds that the Rule 68 cases
are inapposite to the present case, and Plaintiff Niemis' class
claims are moot.

IV. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Attorney's Fees.

Finally, Judge Jung holds that Plaintiff Niemis is not entitled to
attorney's fees. Under Florida law, an insured is entitled to
attorney's fees when: (1) the insurer denies benefits under the
policy, and (2) this denial is ultimately shown to be incorrect.
There is no incorrect denial of benefits -- and the insured is
therefore not entitled to fees -- when the insured "races to the
courthouse" without giving the insurer a chance to complete the
claims adjusting process. In the event the insurance policy
provides for an appraisal process to settle disagreements about
loss amounts, an insured is entitled to fees only if the insurer
refused to pay the appraisal award.

Conclusion

Judge Jung grants Defendant CCC's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. The clerk is directed to enter judgment against the
Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant CCC. The Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Discovery Responses is denied as moot. The clerk is directed
to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52n6b6y3 from Leagle.com.


CERIDA INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galvan Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
AURORA GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CERIDA INVESTMENT CORP., and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV30165 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 13, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Galvan was employed by the Defendants as telephone
operator.

Cerida Investment Corp. was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes providing various business services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com
                  kevin@hbklawyers.com

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Court Stays Discovery in Oakley Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLA OAKLEY, Plaintiff v. COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC.,
PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORP., and PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.
Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:21-00021 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge David
A. Faber of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, Bluefield, granted the Defendants' motion for a stay
of discovery pending resolution of their dispositive motions.

The case is a putative class action alleging deceptive debt
collection practices by the Defendants in violation of West
Virginia law. The Plaintiff says that the Defendants sent her
collection letters that misrepresented the amount and status of a
debt. The Defendants have filed three motions to dismiss on various
grounds, including preemption and lack of personal jurisdiction.

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion for a stay of
discovery pending resolution of their dispositive motions.

Judge Faber holds that motions to stay discovery are generally
disfavored, and the burden on the moving party is relatively heavy.
The pendency of a dispositive motion is emphatically not, by
itself, sufficient cause to stay discovery. Boilerplate, too, is
insufficient; the moving party must articulate why "the benefits of
a stay outweigh the cost of delay" with specificity.

Along with the foregoing principles, six factors and a catch-all
factor, collectively derived from Hatchette Distrib., Inc. v.
Hudson Cnty. News Co., Inc., 136 F.R.D. 356, 358 (E.D.N.Y. 1991),
guide Judge Faber's analysis of the motion: (1) the type of
[dispositive] motion and whether it is a challenge as a matter of
law or to the sufficiency of the allegations; (2) the nature and
complexity of the action; (3) whether counterclaims and/or
cross-claims have been interposed; (4) whether some or all of the
defendants join in the request for a stay; (5) the posture or stage
of the litigation; (6) the expected extent of discovery in light of
the number of parties and complexity of the issues in the case; and
(7) any other relevant circumstances.

Judge Faber opines that no single factor is dispositive. These
factors are simply a framework to assist the court as it seeks to
avoid the vices of unnecessary expense and unnecessary delay
without being able to see into the future regarding the pending
motions to dismiss.

While it is close, Judge Faber holds that the scales tip in favor
of a stay in the case. He says, the motions raise pure legal
arguments which will be dispositive if accepted. It is true that
the Defendants' motions to dismiss do not implicate the federal
policy favoring arbitration. Neither do the Defendants advance an
absolute or qualified immunity defense, which would implicate the
interest in avoiding unmerited discovery disruptive to government
officials in the performance of their duties. One Defendant does,
however, argue personal jurisdiction, which challenges the Court's
judicial power over that entity. And the preemption argument does
implicate the important interest of state law yielding to federal
law when appropriate. For now, it is sufficient to note that the
Defendants raise some purely legal arguments that would be
dispositive.

The second factor, complexity, is disputed. The case appears to
present complex legal issues, but straightforward facts. The
non-complexity of the facts cuts both ways. Ordinarily, it counsels
against a stay because discovery will not be hard to coordinate. On
the other hand, the absence of a complex web of factual issues to
untangle makes discovery less urgent.

The third and fourth factors do not appear to be in dispute and
weigh in favor of a stay because there are not counterclaims or
crossclaims, and all defendants want a stay. As to the posture of
the case, which is the fifth factor, Judge Faber notes that the
case has been pending for close to seven months. He says, the
Plaintiff rightly points out that, under the court's current
scheduling order, delaying discovery much longer is inadvisable.
He, however, will enter a new scheduling order if the case is not
dismissed.

The sixth factor, extent of discovery, is in the Defendants' favor.
Judge Faber holds that it appears that the discovery, if not very
complicated in terms of disputed facts, will be burdensome. It will
be entirely unnecessary if the Court dismisses the case, and if the
Court does not, a short delay should not jeopardize the
availability of the evidence. The Judge notes no special
considerations under the seventh, catch-all factor.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Faber granted the Defendants'
motion to stay discovery. Discovery in the matter is stayed pending
resolution of the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Should the Court
not dismiss the case, responses and objections to the Plaintiff's
pending discovery requests will be due within 30 days of the
Court's order.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order to the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/smkdt3cv from
Leagle.com.


COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Jones Seeks Certification of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE JONES AND SARA J.
GAST, Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC.
401(K) PLAN, v. COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE CORPORATE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC.; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose
Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 3:20-cv-00654-FDW-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action a class action for all purposes of
      liability and relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23(b)(1)(A) or 23(b)(1)(B) and certifying the proposed
      Class;

   2. appointing them as representatives of the Class; and

   3. appointing their counsel as counsel for the Class under
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina, is the largest independent Coca-Cola bottler in the
United States. The company makes, sells and distributes Coca-Cola
products along with other beverages, distributing to a market of 65
million people in 14 states.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3De0RFe
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Plan and the Proposed Class,
are:

          Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5017
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
                  jwilliams@milberg.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
                  lrubinow@millershah.com
                  kctang@millershah.com
                  jcshah@millershah.com
                  ajberin@millershah.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  gabriellek@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

CONCHO RESOURCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Concho Resources Inc. (NYSE: CXO)
between February 21, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important September 28, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Concho class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2133.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 28,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the well spacing at the
Dominator Project ("Dominator"), consisting of 23 wells in the
Delaware Basin, part of the larger Permian Basin, was aggressive
and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to believe it
would work as intended; (2) Concho's practice of implementing
tighter well spacing was not relegated to a handful of "tests" and
therefore more widespread than the market was led to believe; (3)
it was known or recklessly disregarded that any measures to
mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent and/or impossible;
(4) these risks had manifested during the Class Period, causing
underground well interference and permanently decreasing
production, forcing Concho to scale back production targets and
adopt more conservative spacing measures in its other projects; (5)
it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts of the
widespread well spacing failure; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Concho class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2133.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CONGRESS COLLECTION: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Echols FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELINE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONGRESS COLLECTION, LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1225 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Paul D. Borman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants Defendant Congress
Collection LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

Plaintiff Echols has filed the putative class action against
Defendant Congress Collection pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff's claims arise from a debt
collection notice sent to her that allegedly contained false and
deceptive information.

On June 16, 2020, Defendant Congress Collection sent the Plaintiff
a collection letter regarding a debt that had been placed with it
for collection.

That Collection Letter sets forth the statutorily-required debt
validation notice: "Unless you notify this office within 30 days
after receiving this notice that you dispute the debt or any
portion thereof, Congress Collection will assume this debt is
valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days of
receiving this notice, Congress Collection will obtain verification
of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail a copy of such
judgment or verification. If you submit a written request to
Congress Collection within 30 days of receiving this notice,
Congress Collection will provide you with the name & address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor."

The Letter further states: "This account may be placed on your
personal credit file and thus negatively impact your credit score
if left resolved."

The Plaintiff alleges that the second statement is false and
deceptive and "overshadows" the statutorily-required validation
notice "by scaring Plaintiff into making payment immediately to
avoid negative credit reporting instead of exercising his statutory
right to dispute the debt as provided by the FDCPA." She further
asserts that this language is false and deceptive because the
Defendant has no way of knowing whether her credit score would
decrease as a result of delaying payment. The Plaintiff claims
that, as a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices, she Plaintiff has been damaged.
The Plaintiff's Complaint otherwise contains no allegations
regarding any alleged "injuries" she suffered.

On Aug. 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
against the Defendant. She asserts two claims under the FDCPA:
Count I - Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e "by creating a false
and misleading representation of the legal status of the debt in
violation of Section 1692e(10)" and "by falsely representing the
character, amount or legal status of the debt in violation of
Section 1692e(2)(A);" and Count II - Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g "by threatening negative credit reporting, which overshadows
the 'g-notice' language and coerces the consumer not to exert its
rights under the FDCPA."

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). It argues that the
Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because she has not
articulated any injury in fact traceable to the Collection Letter
sufficient to confer Article III standing. Instead, she only
speculates that the credit reporting statement in the Letter might
"coerce" someone to waive their procedural rights and promptly pay
a debt to avoid negative credit consequences. The Defendant
contends that this speculative consequence does not constitute a
concrete injury sufficient to support the Plaintiff's standing to
bring this case.

The Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to the Defendant's
motion. She argues that she has Article III standing based
exclusively on the Defendant's alleged statutory violations. She
contends that Defendant's "deception" regarding negative credit
reporting "puts Plaintiff at a materially greater risk" of causing
her to forego and overlook her validation of rights, and that "risk
of such forfeiture is enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement of Article III because seeking validation of a debt is
one of the central interests that Congress sought to protect under
the statute."

The Defendant filed a reply brief in support of its motion. It
contends that the Plaintiff "concedes she has no tangible
injuries." It argues that the Plaintiff's "blanket claim of harm
from mere receipt of a letter disclosing the possibility of credit
reporting" does not "establish a material risk of harm that her
procedural right to dispute the debt or seek validation might be
squandered." The Defendant concludes that the Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate that she has legal standing to bring a claim under
the FDCPA, and her Complaint should be dismissed.

Judge Borman concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to show that
she suffered a harm that Congress intended to prevent or that is
analogous to a harm that the common law recognizes. The Collection
Letter does not misrepresent the validity or status of the debt,
demand payment by a certain date, or misstate the Plaintiff's
dispute or validation rights, and Plaintiff's "idiosyncratic"
interpretation of that letter to the contrary is rejected. The
Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts
demonstrating that she has the requisite legal standing to bring a
claim under the FDCPA, and accordingly dismisses her Complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Borman granted Defendant Congress
Collection's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). He dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint is without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/hywy4d8v from Leagle.com.


CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Illinois Court Dismisses Park Place Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PARK PLACE HOSPITALITY, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20 C 6403 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants Continental's motion to
dismiss and dismisses Park Place's complaint without prejudice.

After suffering losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff Park
Place, doing business as Hilton Garden Inn Milwaukee Northwest
Conference Center, filed a claim with its insurer, Defendant
Continental. Continental denied the claim, and Park Place filed the
putative class action in response. Park Place brings claims for
breach of contract and related declaratory relief, as well as for
bad faith denial of coverage under Illinois and Wisconsin law.

Background

I. The Insurance Policy

Park Place owns and operates a hotel, restaurant, lounge, and
banquet and meeting facilities in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Park Place,
along with two sister properties in Illinois, obtained a commercial
property insurance policy with policy number 6057091073 from
Continental. The Policy covered the period from June 1, 2019,
through June 1, 2020.

As relevant in the case, the Policy defines "period of restoration"
as beginning on "the time and date that the physical loss or damage
that causes suspension of operations occurs." If the named insured
resumes operations "with reasonable speed," the "period of
restoration" ends on the "the date when the premises where the loss
or damage occurred could have been physically capable of resuming
the level of operations which existed prior to the loss or damage."
And if the named insured does not resume operations or fails to do
so with reasonable speed, the "period of restoration" ends on "the
date when the premises where the loss or damage occurred could have
been restored to the physical size, construction, configuration and
material specifications which existed at the time of loss or
damage."

II. Park Place's Insurance Claim

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the
COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, the Governor of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of
Health issued a series of orders aimed at stopping the spread of
COVID-19. Among other things, these orders initially limited the
capacity of restaurants and bars to "50% of seating capacity or 50
total people, whichever is less," and required "distancing of six
feet between tables, booths, bar stools, and ordering counters."

Quickly, though, the governor revised the orders to allow only
takeout and delivery. Although Park Place's hotel qualified as an
essential business, Park Place nonetheless had to reduce operations
at its restaurant, lounge, and banquet and meeting facilities to
comply with the orders. By the time Park Place filed its complaint,
it again offered some limited on-site dining in addition to
takeout. But it still could not host meetings or other large events
in its banquet and meeting facilities. In addition to the capacity
limitations, Park Place has had to perform additional cleaning and
remediation measures in its efforts to combat the spread of
COVID-19.

In light of the spread of COVID-19 and the state orders, Park Place
filed a claim with Continental in March 2020, seeking coverage for
its business losses. On June 5, 2020, Continental denied Park
Place's claim, concluding that the Policy did not provide coverage
because "there is no indication that operations were suspended by
direct physical loss of or damage to property." The suit followed.

Continental filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Analysis

I. Scope of Coverage

Continental argues that Park Place's breach of contract and
declaratory judgment claims fail because the Policy does not cover
Park Place's alleged losses. It contends that Park Place has failed
to allege the required "direct physical loss of or damage to" its
property or, alternatively, that the microbes exclusion bars
recovery for any losses caused by COVID-19. Continental urges that
"physical loss" and "physical damage" require a tangible alteration
in the property's material state, which it claims Park Place cannot
allege. Park Place disagrees, arguing that COVID-19 particles had a
physical impact on its property, essentially rendering it unusable,
and that the government closure orders prevented Park Place from
using its space and functioning as intended.

Judge Ellis opines that Park Place has failed to allege any such
actual physical loss or damage. The coronavirus does not physically
alter the appearance, shape, color, structure, or other material
dimension of the property. The Judge does not find persuasive Park
Place's analogy to cases finding that the presence of asbestos
fibers, mold, or other persistent hazards cause a physical loss.

Judge Ellis says, unlike COVID-19, which Park Place acknowledges
did not render the premises completely unusable or uninhabitable,
the cases finding coverage based on the presence of asbestos, mold,
or other hazards "generally involve persistent physical
contamination that requires repair or replacement, rather than
cleaning and disinfecting, to remediate." Additionally, the
government closure orders caused only an economic loss, not a
physical loss, and so cannot provide a basis for coverage.

Therefore, because Park Place has not alleged any physical loss of
or damage to its property, the Policy does not provide it with
coverage for the losses it has suffered due to the COVID-19
pandemic and government closure orders, requiring dismissal of its
breach of contract and declaratory relief claims.

II. Bad Faith Denial

Having found that Park Place's coverage claims fail, Judge Ellis
concludes that the bad faith denial claims under both Illinois and
Wisconsin law fail as well. Under Illinois law, Section 155
"provides an extracontractual remedy to policyholders whose
insurer's refusal to recognize liability and pay a claim under a
policy is vexatious and unreasonable." And under Wisconsin law, a
first-party bad faith claim exists where "the insured insists that
the insurer wrongfully denied benefits or intentionally mishandled
a legitimate claim for benefits." But when "an insurer denies the
claim of an insured because no coverage exists, the insurer has not
failed to honor its contractual obligations under an insurance
policy."

Accordingly, because Park Place has not sufficiently alleged claims
for coverage under the Policy, it also cannot proceed on its claims
for bad faith denial of coverage under Illinois or Wisconsin law.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ellis grants Continental's motion
to dismiss and dismisses Park Place's complaint without prejudice.
Although the Court does not see how Park Place could cure the
deficiencies in its complaint, the Judge provides it with one
opportunity to replead its claims. Therefore, she dismisses Park
Place's complaint without prejudice and orders Park Place to file
an amended complaint by Sept. 10, 2021. If Park Place does not file
an amended complaint, the dismissal will automatically convert to
one with prejudice and the Court will enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4t82sfmd from Leagle.com.


CORMEDIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ: CRMD)
between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 20, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the CorMedix class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2126.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 20,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) deficiencies existed with
respect to the manufacturing process of DefenCath, a purported
novel antibacterial and antifungal solution designed to prevent
costly and dangerous catheter-related bloodstream infections
("CRBSIs"), and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing
DefenCath; (2) in light of the foregoing deficiencies, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was unlikely to approve the
DefenCath New Drug Application ("NDA") for CRBSIs in its present
form; (3) defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies regarding DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at
the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the CorMedix class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2126.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLETTA HARWELL-PAYNE On
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. CUDAHY
PLACE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, MATTHEWS SENIOR LIVING, ENCORE MANAGEMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT, & ENCORE SENIOR LIVING, Case No. 21-CV-328 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify
her as the representative, and the Previant Law Firm S.C. as
counsel for the following opt-out class:

   "All hourly employees who worked at a Wisconsin facility
   managed by Management, LLC during the time period of January
   13, 2019 to the present who either (a) was required to
   complete a Screening Checklist or temperature check before
   they could punch in on the time clock; or (b) punched in
   after a meal break less than 30 minutes after they punched
   out for the meal break."

Cudahy Place is a senior care facility in Cudahy, Wisconsin.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfISFO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: Phone 414/271-4500
          Facsimile 414/271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem's Intentional Tort Claim Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA AKEEM, et al. v. DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et.
al., SECTION M (3), Pertains to all cases, Civil Action No.
19-13650, C/w No. 19-13673, No. 19-13705., 19-14634, 19-636,
19-14637, 20-187 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the
motion to dismiss certain claims.

The motion is brought by RH Defendants, RH East Lake, LLC, RH
Chenault Creek, LLC, RH Lakewind East, LLC, RH Copper Creek, LLC,
RH Windrun, LLC, RH New Orleans Holdings, LLC, and Dasmen
Residential Management, LLC, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background

These consolidated matters involve a putative class action brought
by current and former tenants and maintenance workers of five
apartment complexes against the current and former owners and
property managers for damages allegedly caused by hazardous
conditions. In their master amended complaint, which combines the
allegations of the six consolidated actions, the Plaintiffs allege
that the apartment complexes' current and former owners and
property managers "allowed deteriorating structural components of
buildings such as roofs, plumbing, gutters, slabs, siding,
stairwells, etc. to cause persistent water-intrusion spurring
widespread mold-infestation." The Plaintiffs also allege that
Defendants provided inadequate security, failed to properly dispose
of trash, failed to address insect, rodent, and reptile
infestations, and failed to adhere to fire and safety codes, all of
which created hazardous conditions.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as follows: All
persons who sustained damage through hazardous conditions,
including, but not limited to, exposure to water intrusion and/or
exposure to fungal substances such as mold and mold spores which
were growing on building materials and were released into the air
of the following apartment complexes in New Orleans: Hidden
Lakes/Laguna Run, Lakewind East/Laguna Reserve, Copper Creek/Laguna
Creek, Chenault Creek/Carmel Brooks and Wind Run/Carmel Springs,
and who meet any one of the following criteria:

     1. You currently and/or formerly resided and/or had an
employment relationship with (meaning reported to work at) the
apartment complexes known as Hidden Lakes/Laguna Run, Lakewind
East/Laguna Reserve, Copper Creek/Laguna Creek, Chenault
Creek/Carmel Brooks; and Wind Run/Carmel Springs, before Dec. 13,
2017, and you allege damages from hazardous conditions, including,
but not limited to, water intrusion and/or exposure to fungal
substances such as mold and mold spores which were growing on
building materials and were released into the air.

     2. You currently and/or formerly resided and/or had an
employment relationship with (meaning reported to work at) the
apartment complexes known as Hidden Lakes/Laguna Run, Lakewind
East/Laguna Reserve, Copper Creek/Laguna Creek, Chenault
Creek/Carmel Brooks, and Wind Run/Carmel Springs, after Dec. 13,
2017 to the present, and you allege damages from hazardous
conditions including, but not limited to, water intrusion and/or
exposure to fungal substances such as mold and mold spores which
were growing on building materials and were released into the air.

The ownership of the buildings changed on Dec. 13, 2017. Prior to
that date, defendants Triangle Real Estate of Gastonia, Inc.,
Southwood Realty Co., and Lakewind East Apartments, LL
(collectively, "Triangle Defendants"), which are related entities,
owned four of the apartment complexes. Specifically, Triangle owned
Carmel Brooks, Lakewind owned Laguna Reserve, and Southwood owned
Laguna Creek.9 While the Triangle Defendants owned these buildings,
Southwood served as the property management company.10 On December
13, 2017, the Triangle Defendants sold their respective properties
to Chenault Creek (Carmel Brooks), Lakewind East (Laguna Reserve),
and Copper Creek (Laguna Creek). Defendant Eastlake Development,
LLC owned Laguna Run from Dec. 11, 2012, until Dec. 14, 2017, when
it sold the property to RH East Lake. Latter & Blum Management,
Inc.was Laguna Run's property manager from April 25, 2016, through
Dec. 14, 2017. After the sales, Defendants KFK Group, LLC, KFK
Development, LLC, Dasmen, and the Lynd Co. managed the various
roperties.

The Plaintiffs' master amended complaint alleges that all the
owners and property managers knew about the water, mold, and
numerous other issues with the properties and failed to properly
fix them. They further allege that the property managers did not
provide to the maintenance workers personal protective equipment or
adequate training on mold remediation, but rather simply instructed
them to spray the affected areas with Kilz or bleach and paint over
them.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Eastlake and the Triangle
Defendants misrepresented that the properties were in good
condition and free of vices, ruin, and defects when the properties
were sold in December 2017. Moreover, they allege that all owner
Defendants breached the lease agreements in various ways, including
failing to tender apartment units that were clean, safe, and in
good working condition, and that the RH Defendants breached their
contracts with the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") to provide low-income housing that complied
with federal regulations.

The Plaintiffs assert several theories of liability including
strict liability, negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
and breach of contract as to all Plaintiffs, and intentional tort
as to the employee Plaintiffs.

The RH Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim
against them for allegedly breaching their contracts with HUD by
failing to comply with federal regulations regarding the conditions
of low-income housing because 24 C.F.R. Section 5.703(f), the
regulation relied upon by the Plaintiffs, does not confer a private
right of action. They argue that notwithstanding whether the
Plaintiffs receive a benefit or right from the implementation of
Section 5.703(f), the regulation omits any language displaying an
intent to create a private remedy.

The RH Defendants contend that the purpose of HUD regulations, such
as Section 5.703(f), is to set standards that owners must meet in
order to receive government funding for low-income housing
assistance programs, not to confer a private right of action on the
tenants. The RH Defendants further assert that even if the
regulation did confer a private right of action, the Plaintiffs
lack standing to bring their breach-of-contract claim because they
lack privity of contract and cannot show that any alleged contract
between the RH Defendants and HUD contains a stipulation pour
autrui in the Plaintiffs' favor.

Dasmen argues that the employee the Plaintiffs' intentional tort
claim should be dismissed because they do not plead sufficient
factual allegations to establish the "intentional act" exception to
the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act ("LWCA"). It maintains that
its alleged negligence was not intentional and therefore this claim
does not fall within the narrow exception to an employee's
exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Further, Dasmen asserts
that the requisite intent or intentional act is absent from the
Plaintiffs' allegations because they "cannot demonstrate that the
incident or their injuries were inevitable consequences of or
substantially certain to occur while working at the subject
apartment complexes."

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that Section 5.703 confers a
private right of action for a breach-of-contract claim in their
favor because they are third-party beneficiaries to their
landlords' agreement with HUD and the Housing Authority of New
Orleans pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 1978. They contend
that under Louisiana jurisprudence, landlords and property managers
of publicly funded housing are "contractually bound to provide
mold-free housing," and "have a duty, as a matter of Louisiana tort
law, to exercise the degree of care specified in the federal
regulations."

Further, the Plaintiffs assert that Congress intended Section 5.703
to benefit tenants and thus the Plaintiffs have standing to sue for
breach of contract. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that Dasmen
knowingly exposed employees to a dangerous work environment which
amounts to an intentional tort because Dasmen chose to disregard
the law. Therefore, the employee Plaintiffs say, their tort claim
falls under the "intentional act" exception of the LWCA and Dasmen
is not immune from civil tort liability.

Analysis

1. Breach-of-contract claim

The Plaintiffs seek redress as purported third-party beneficiaries
for the RH Defendants' alleged breach of their contract with HUD.
They contend that Section 5.703 affords them a private right of
action to assert a breach-of-contract claim.

Judge Ashe holds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that
there was a contract between the RH Defendants and HUD or that they
are parties to any such contract. Nor do they point to any specific
provision in said contract manifesting a clear intention to provide
a benefit in their favor.

As with the statutory provision at issue in Banks, the Juduge holds
that the alleged contractual requirement to abide by Section 5.703
in this case "focuses on the recipients of federal funding and on
the federal agencies -- not on the class represented by the
Plaintiffs."  If the RH Defendants failed to comply with the
regulation, they placed their federal funding in jeopardy, but they
did not confer a private remedy on the Plaintiffs. While the
Plaintiffs certainly would benefit from clean and safe housing, any
benefit they received (or were supposed to receive) was a mere
incident of the alleged contract. The Plaintiffs have not borne
their burden of demonstrating the existence of a stipulation pour
autrui for their benefit. Therefore, their breach-of-contract claim
against the RH Defendants concerning any contract between the RH
Defendants and HUD is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Employees' intentional tort claim

The employee Plaintiffs argue that their intentional tort claim
against Dasmen is not barred by the LWCA. The LWCA is the exclusive
remedy for employees in cases of injury, sickness, or disease
arising within the scope of their employment. In making their tort
claim, the Plaintiffs' rely upon the "intentional act" exception to
the exclusiveness of the LWCA remedy. The Plaintiffs claim that
Dasmen "made a choice to ignore the law" when it did not provide
the employee Plaintiffs with adequate mold abatement training or
proper safety equipment, which they liken to "sending them into a
snake-pit."

However, Judge Ashe finds that they do not allege that Dasmen
desired for them to become sick after mold exposure, so the
question is whether the allegations plausibly show that it was
"substantially certain" the Plaintiffs would become sick as a
result of Dasmen's conduct. Even if dangerous, the Judge says, the
Plaintiffs have not alleged it is certain that sickness will result
from mold exposure. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that Dasmen "knew
or should have known" that it was violating standards for mold
abatement because it is a professional in the housing field. But
allegedly breaking a law does not mean that Dasmen acted
intentionally for the purposes of the LWCA.

Furthermore, in pleading their tort claim, the Plaintiffs used the
language of negligence, perhaps even gross negligence (terms like
"should have known"), but they did not use the language of
intentional tort. Therefore, even if Dasmen allegedly "made a
choice to disregard the law" or "should have known" that sending
workers into the apartment complexes with no training or protective
equipment was dangerous, it does not amount to an intentional act
for the purposes of the exception from the LWCA.

Because the LWCA is the exclusive remedy for employers injured
while in the scope of their employment, and the Plaintiffs' tort
claim does not fall within the narrow "intentional act" exception,
Judge Ashe holds that this claim should be dismissed with
prejudice.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Ashe granted RH Defendants' motion
to dismiss the tenant the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim
premised on the RH Defendants' alleged breach of its contract with
HUD. He dismissed the claim with prejudice.

The Judge also granted Dasmen's motion to dismiss the employee
Plaintiffs' intentional. The claim is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rx75sa3n from Leagle.com.


DETROIT PROPERTY: Court Tosses James Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natalie James, et al., v.
Detroit Property Exchange, et al., Sean F. Cox, Case No.
2:18-cv-13601-SFC-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

   "persons who sought to purchase real property from any of the
   Defendants at any time from November 19, 2015 through final
   judgment, and who have signed:

   (a) any document or documents that Defendants characterize as
       a "Rent to Own" transaction, OR

   (b) two or more of the following documents drafted by or on
       behalf of Defendants: "lease," "option to purchase,"
       "real estate purchase agreement," OR

   (c) a document with the title "Land Contract.""

The Court said, "This class definition would even include persons
who enter into future contracts with the Defendants, as it states
the time period as from November 19, 2015, until the final judgment
is issued in this matter, regardless of what provisions those
documents contain and regardless of any disclosures that may be
provided by Defendants. The class definition would also include
persons like named Plaintiffs Sherrell and James/Day, who have
already had a Michigan court rule that they are land contract
vendees with respect to the transactions they entered into with
Defendants. Thus, the class definition includes persons who would
lack standing to seek a declaration that their contracts with
Defendants constitute land contracts under Michigan law. And the
Court would have no easy way of determining which members of the
proposed class have been involved in such litigation, or the status
of such cases. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' proposed
class does not meet the implied ascertainability requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3)."

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B04UTA at no extra charge.[CC]


DFINITY USA RESEARCH: Roche Freedman Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Freedman LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Aug. 16 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. Sec. 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. URL: http://rcfllp.com
[GN]

DRUMMOND COMPANY: Feist Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FEIST, On
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE
DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-00587-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
proposed Classes defined as:

   -- Drummond Property Damage Class (Property Class)

      "Any and all persons that own any residential real
      property in the Oakbridge & Grasslands Communities
      (collectively, the "Class Area") in Polk County, Florida;"

   -- Medical Monitoring Class

      "All persons who have lived in the PCA for more than three
      cumulative years."

   -- Fraud Class

      "All persons who purchased property in the Oakbridge or
      Grasslands Communities within 12-years of March 10, 2017."

The Plaintiff Feist, putative class representative for all classes,
owns property within the PCA, at 651 Grasslands Village Cir.,
Lakeland, Florida. Feist previously owned two other properties in
the PCA and lived in the PCA for over 10 years.

Drummond never disclosed that his properties had been mined for
phosphate and reclaimed. He is concerned about his family's health
from elevated radiation in his community.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y9S1EM
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Christopher L. Gadoury, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
                  alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                  chris.gadoury@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Neal O'Toole, Esq.
          LILLY, O'TOOLE & BROWN, LLP
          310 E Main St
          PO Box 50
          Bartow, FL 33831
          Telephone: 863/533-5525
          Facsimile: 863-533-0505
          E-mail: notoole@otoolepa.com

               - and -

          Steven J. German, Esq.
          Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
          GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
          19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 704-2020

               - and -

          Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
          Jonathan Nace, Esq.
          NIDEL & NACE PLLC
          One Church Streets, Suite 802
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone : (202) 780-5153

EL CHEVERE: Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Alicia Jimenez, Magali Hernandez Dominguez, Judith Tepec Suarez,
Valeria Pineda, Ignacio Jimenez Mozo, Eliana Blanco and Raquel
Perez Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. El Chevere Cuchifritos, Corp. and Juan
Armando Testa as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06785,
(S.D. N.Y., August 12, 2021), seeks to recover damages for
violations of New York State labor laws and the Fair Labor
Standards Act, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Defendants operate a restaurant where Plaintiffs were employed as
all-around staff. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per week without overtime premium, spread-of-hours premium, and
were denied accurate wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


EMIL FRANC: Calle Sues Over Failure to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SANTIAGO E. CALLE, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. EMIL FRANC, INC. d/b/a Cafe Ragazzi,
HECTOR REGLERO, and MARLENE RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-22971-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 17, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants' restaurant as a
server from approximately December 15, 2020 through July 7, 2021,
claims that he routinely worked no more than 40 hours per week
during his employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants
claimed a "tip credit" for the Plaintiff and paid him $3.02 less
than the Florida minimum wage for his hours worked. The Defendants
purportedly failed to permit the Plaintiff to retain all tips
received, and/or the use of the improper tip pool, and/or the
improper tip sharing invalidates the "tip credit" for the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated servers. In addition, the Defendants
failed to provide him with the legally required notice of the "tip
credit" provisions, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover unpaid minimum wages
from the Defendant, as well as an equal amount in double
damages/liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and
just and/or available pursuant to Federal Law.

Emil Franc, Inc. d/b/a Cafe Ragazzi is an Italian Restaurant owned
and operated by the Individual Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30th Ave., Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 503-5131
          Fax: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  asmukler@saenzanderson.com

ERIE INSURANCE: Pa. Super. Vacates Coordination Order in HTR Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, HTR RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A/ SIEBS PUB, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, 3382
BABCOCK BOULEVARD, PITTSBURGH, PA 15327, Appellee v. ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, 100 ERIE INSURANCE PLACE, ERIE, PA 16530, Appellant.
JOSEPH TAMBELLINI, INC. D/B/A JOSEPH TAMBELLINI RESTAURANT, 5701
BRYANT STREET, PITTSBURGH, PA 15206, Appellee v. ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, 100 ERIE INSURANCE PLACE, ERIE, PA 16530 Appellant, Case
Nos 902 WDA 2020, 903 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super.), Judge Victor P.
Stabile of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reverses in part and
vacates in part the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County's
order granting HTR's and Tambellini's motions for coordination, and
remands for further proceedings.

The Appellees, HTR and Tambellini, filed civil actions in Allegheny
County against the Appellant, Erie Insurance Exchange, seeking
coverage for alleged business interruption losses incurred as a
result of COVID-19-related shutdowns. HTR and Tambellini moved for
coordination of their actions under Pa.R.C.P. 213.1 with (1) other
actions against Erie on the same coverage issue pending in
Philadelphia and Lancaster Counties and (2) all other present and
future Pennsylvania actions against Erie on the same coverage
issue.

The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted HTR's and
Tambellini's motions for coordination. Erie filed timely appeals at
both of the above captions, which we have consolidated for purposes
of disposition. In addition, several other parties subject to the
consolidation order ("Munley Plaintiffs") filed a brief in this
Court objecting to coordination.

On April 17, 2020, Tambellini filed a civil complaint against Erie
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. On June 17, 2020,
HTR filed a civil complaint against Erie in the Allegheny County
court. Both Tambellini and HTR asserted claims against Erie under
their insurance policies for business interruption losses incurred
in connection with COVID-19-related shutdowns.

On June 24, 2020, pursuant to Rule 213.1, Tambellini and HTR
jointly filed a motion to coordinate requesting that the Allegheny
County court (1) coordinate Tambellini's and HTR's actions in
Allegheny County with the Lancaster County and Philadelphia County
actions and (2) coordinate any other Pennsylvania action against
Erie concerning its denial of business interruption coverage in
Allegheny County. Other plaintiffs with similar actions against
Erie in Philadelphia County (Capriccio Parkway, LLC) and Lancaster
County (Perfect Pots, LLC) joined in this motion.

On July 17, 2020, Erie filed a response in opposition to the motion
to coordinate and attached a list of all pending actions against
Erie in Pennsylvania courts. Subsequently, Tambellini and HTR
jointly filed a reply brief stating that they sent notice of the
motion to coordinate via certified mail to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in the other cases. Several plaintiffs in these cases
objected to coordination, while others agreed that the coordination
was appropriate.

On July 24, 2020, following oral argument, the Allegheny County
court entered an order granting the motion to coordinate. The order
provided:

     1. The Allegheny County Actions, Philadelphia County Action,
and the Lancaster County Action are coordinated for all pre-trial
matters, trial, and full and final resolution;

     2. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213.1(e),
the Clerk of the Court will immediately send a certified copy of
the Order to the respective courts in the actions set forth in
Paragraph 1 and a notice to all Plaintiffs and Erie of the Order
immediately upon its entry. Erie will also serve this Order on
counsel for all parties in the actions set forth in Paragraph 1 and
all other similarly situated Plaintiffs;

     3. Erie will notify the Court of any further similar actions
filed against Erie, and those actions will be transferred to the
Court and made part of the proceedings coordinated by the Order;

     4. Any party in an action identified in a notice filed with
the Court as raising common questions of fact or law can within 30
days of the Order or within 14 days after the notice is filed
(whichever is later), file an objection to being part of the
coordinated proceedings with the Court. If no objection is filed
within the 30 day period, the Clerk will send a certified copy of
the Order and the notice that the case is part of this proceeding
to the court where the action was initially filed to implement the
transfer to this Court. If a party files an objection, any party to
the coordinated proceeding may file a response to the objection
within 14 days. If the Court rules that the action should not be
part of the coordinated proceedings, the action will not be
transferred. If the Court finds that the action will be part of the
coordinated proceedings, the Clerk will send a certified copy of
the Order denying the objection to the court where the action was
initially filed to implement the transfer to this coordinated
proceeding; and

     5. All parties will bear their own costs in connection with
coordination and the litigation of the coordinated actions.

On July 28, 2020, several parties from Lackawanna County--Social
Victory Media, LLC, doing business ass Autobahn Tag & Title, Lora
Hobbs, doing business as Live With It, and Cheryl Simon d/b/a
Cheryl's Studio II ("Munley Plaintiffs"), filed objections to
coordination in the Tambellini action. In their objections, the
Munley Plaintiffs argued that they filed civil actions in
Lackawanna County against Erie relating to denial of business
interruption coverage, and that no basis existed for the Allegheny
County court to coordinate their actions against Erie with the
Tambellini and HTR actions.

On July 31, 2020, HTR and Tambellini submitted a proposed case
management order requesting the trial court to appoint their
counsel as "co-lead counsel" for the "proposed class" and to grant
them "sole authority" over: "all pleadings and motions"; "all
discovery proceedings"; "settlement negotiations and/or
settlement"; and "the allocation of fees among the various firms
doing work in the case." On the same date, Erie filed an
alternative proposed case management order.

On Aug. 3, 2020, Ian McCabe Studio, LLC filed an emergency motion
to intervene in the Tambellini and HTR actions, objecting to the
coordination order. McCabe asserted that its motion to intervene
was "as timely as possible, as the Plaintiffs' Motion to Coordinate
was not properly served on all parties with an interest in the
action. As such, McCabe was not given an opportunity to oppose
coordination prior to the Motion's approval."

McCabe subsequently filed a brief explaining that (1) its studios
are located in Washington, D.C.; (2) it filed an action against
Erie in Philadelphia County concerning denial of business
interruption coverage; (3) Allegheny County was an inconvenient
forum in which to litigate its claims; and (4) its case was
different from the cases of other parties because the law of
Washington, D.C. governed instead of Pennsylvania law.

On Aug. 20, 2020, Neighborhood Boxing Club, LLC, Chestnut Hill
Complex Corp., and Glengarry Properties, LP ("Neighborhood Boxing
Club Plaintiffs"), filed a motion to intervene in the Allegheny
County court. The Neighborhood Boxing Club plaintiffs claimed that
they filed writs of summons against Erie in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County several days after the Allegheny
County court entered its coordination order. The Neighborhood
Boxing Club plaintiffs agreed to coordination of their business
interruption coverage issues with the Tambellini and HTR actions
but objected to coordination of other breach of contract and
damages claims.

On Aug. 21, 2020, Erie filed notices of appeal to this Court from
the coordination order in the Tambellini and HTR cases. Erie filed
a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on
appeal. On November 11, 2020, the Allegheny County court filed a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion stating that it was proper to coordinate
the Tambellini and HTR actions with the Capriccio Parkway and
Perfect Pots actions. The court did not address the Munley
Plaintiffs' objection to coordination or the motions to intervene
of McCabe and the Neighborhood Boxing Club Plaintiffs.

In the Superior Court, both Erie and the Munley Plaintiffs have
filed briefs challenging the coordination order. Erie raises the
following issues in its appeal:

     1. Did the Trial Court exceed its authority and abuse its
discretion under Pa.R.Civ.P. 213.1 by divesting other courts in
other counties of jurisdiction and plaintiffs of their choice of
venue in cases where no party requested coordination?

     2. Did the Trial Court exceed its authority and abuse its
discretion under Pa.R.Civ.P. 213.1 by coordinating future actions
that were not pending at the time of its order?

     3. Did the Trial Court exceed its authority and abuse its
discretion under Pa.R.Civ.P. 213.1(c) by failing to adequately
consider whether coordination will result in injustice, prejudice,
unreasonable delay or expense, or inconvenience to any party?

     4. Does Pa.R.Civ.P. 213.1(d)(3) permit enterprising
plaintiffs' counsel to use the coordination device as a pretext to
usurp other lawyers' cases, clients, and fees?

     5. Does Pa.R.Civ.P. 213.1 permit a trial court to expand the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure governing Class Actions to
the detriment of Erie and unnamed class members by dispensing with
the Rules concerning class certification requirements in advance of
class treatment?

     6. Does Pa.R.Civ.P. 213.1 create the Pennsylvania equivalent
of a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Proceeding?

The Munley Plaintiffs raise a single issue in their brief: Whether
the trial court erred when it granted the Joint Motion to
Coordinate which coordinated the Philadelphia County Action and the
Lancaster County Action in the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas along with any further similar actions filed against Erie,
including actions not yet filed?

Discussion

Before proceeding further, Judge Stabile notes that the Court has
jurisdiction over Erie's appeal, because the Allegheny County
court's order directing coordination of actions in different
counties is an interlocutory order appealable as of right. In
addition, while the Munley Plaintiffs did not file a notice of
appeal, the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that "all parties
to the matter in the court from whose order the appeal is being
taken will be deemed parties in the appellate court." The Munley
Plaintiffs were "parties to the matter" in the trial court, because
the Rules of Civil Procedure deem any party subject to coordination
as a "party" with standing to object to coordination. Accordingly,
the Munley Plaintiffs are parties to the appeal under Pa.R.A.P.
908.

In its first issue, Erie asserts that Rule 213.1 did not entitle
Tambellini and HTR, as parties in Allegheny County actions, to seek
coordination with actions from outside Allegheny County. According
to Erie, Rule 213.1 only permits parties to actions outside of
Allegheny County to move for coordination with an Allegheny County
action.

Judge Stabile disagrees. He holds that the plain language of Rule
213.1 permits any party, including Allegheny County parties such as
Tambellini and HTR, to request coordination of their Allegheny
County actions with actions outside Allegheny County. Accordingly,
Erie's first argument fails.

Erie's second issue fares more successfully, Judge Stabile holds.
Erie contends that the court misapplied Rule 213.1 by granting
coordination not only in pending business interruption coverage
cases against Erie but in cases that have not yet been filed. The
Judge agrees. He holds that Rule 213.1 does not permit coordination
of cases that are not filed at the time of the motion for
coordination.

Erie's third issue, as well as the lone argument in the Munley
Plaintiffs' brief, both claim that the coordination order rests
upon a flawed balancing of the six criteria within Rule 213.1(c).
Rule 213.1(a) calls for the court to address all parties'
objections to coordination (and, if it desires, hold a hearing)
before issuing its coordination order. In the case, the court
entered a coordination order before a number of litigants (the
Munley Plaintiffs, McCabe, and the Neighborhood Boxing Club
Plaintiffs) filed their objections. Subsequently, it filed a Rule
1925(a) opinion without addressing these parties' objections.

Accordingly, Judge Stabile remands the case in order for the trial
court to decide the objections to coordination by the Munley
Plaintiffs, McCabe and the Neighborhood Boxing Club Plaintiffs, and
also to decide whether these objections affect its disposition of
the objections to coordination raised by Erie.

Erie argues in its fourth issue that the trial court abused its
discretion by creating a new category of quasi-class action
procedures contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Stabile opines that Rule 213.1 does not provide any class
certification procedure -- but the trial court effectively created
a class of plaintiffs by including all present and future business
interruption cases in its coordination order. This was improper for
several reasons. Rule 213.1 requires that before the court issues a
coordination order, all parties must receive notice of the motion
for coordination and have the opportunity to object to
coordination.

For these reasons alone, the court improperly used class action
procedures in its coordination order that do not fit within the
framework of Rule 213.1. Rule 213.1 cannot function as a substitute
for class certification procedures because it does not provide, at
a minimum, the necessary protections found in our class action
rules to bind all future and unnamed litigants to a pending
coordination action.

Relatedly, Erie argues in its fifth issue that the court's
coordination order permits enterprising the Plaintiffs' counsel to
use the coordination device as a pretext to usurp other lawyers'
cases, clients, and fees.

Judge Stabile observes again that while the parties submitted
proposed case management orders to the court, the record does not
reflect any decision by the court on these proposals. The
procedures embodied in the court's coordination order, and the
counsel's request for appointment as "co-lead" counsel for all the
Plaintiffs, are improper attempts to transplant class action
certification, opt-out, and attorney selection mechanisms into Rule
213.1. Simply stated, Rule 213.1 is not a class action rule.

Erie's sixth and last issue asserts that the trial court improperly
devised a procedure that resembles federal multidistrict litigation
not authorized under Pennsylvania law. Erie notes that a federal
act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, created a panel of federal judges from
throughout the country that decides how to coordinate
multi-district federal litigation among the various federal
district courts. Pennsylvania, Erie complains, has no such
specialized panel to govern which cases within the 67 Pennsylvania
counties are proper for coordination and transfer to another
county.

Judge Stabile finds Erie correct that Pennsylvania law does not
have any equivalent to federal law governing multi-district
litigation. However, Rule 213.1 does authorize a single judge (as
opposed to a panel of judges) to decide coordination issues within
the constraints of Rule 213.1.

Accordingly, the Judge reverses the coordination order to the
extent it calls for coordination of actions that were not filed on
the date of Tambellini's and HTR's motion for coordination. He
vacates the coordination order and remands for the trial court to
decide the objections to coordination by the Munley Plaintiffs,
McCabe, and the Neighborhood Boxing Club Plaintiffs, and also to
decide whether these objections affect its disposition of the
objections to coordination raised by Erie.

Jurisdiction relinquished. Judge Pellegrini joins the opinion.
Judge Kunselman files a concurring opinion. Judgment is entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/rb6845yb from Leagle.com.


ERNIE'S TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hill Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN HILL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ERNIE'S TIRE AND AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, and ERNEST PENA,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00970-O (N.D. Tex., August 17, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
its alleged illegal policy or practice of failing to pay overtime
wages to its employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tire technician.

The Plaintiff claims that he frequently worked 5 to 6 consecutive
days during a week and often worked approximately 51 hours or more
during his employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants
did not properly pay him 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. Instead, he was only paid straight time pay for
all hours he worked, the Plaintiff says.

Ernie's Tire and Automotive, LLC operates an automotive repair and
maintenance company owned by Ernest Pena. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          Duffy Randolph "Randy" Reagan, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          1360 Post Oak Blvd. St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 425-7100
          Fax: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  kcaminati@bchlaw.com
                  rreagan@bchlaw.com

ETOH MONITORING: Meade Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAKEEM MEADE and MARSHALL
SOOKRAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ETOH MONITORING, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01455-CJB-DMD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "Every individual who, since January 1, 2017, has been
      ordered, steered, or permitted by Judge Paul A. Bonin to
      contract for or otherwise receive or pay for ankle
      monitoring services from ETOH Monitoring, LLC;"

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appointing the Institute for Justice and Most & Associates
      as class counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated August 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UJPfbC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Most, Esq.
          MOST & ASSOCIATES
          201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114, # 101
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 509-5023
          E-mail: williammost@gmail.com

               - and -

          William R. Maurer, Esq.
          Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          600 University Street, Suite 1730
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 957-1300
          E-mail: wmaurer@ij.org
                  jtsitsuashvili@ij.org

FEDEX GROUND: Hinds Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HINDS, et. al.,
v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et. al., Case No.
4:18-cv-01431-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "Even assuming Plaintiffs could establish FedEx was
a joint employer, the Court concludes that in order to determine
FedEx's liability for the alleged violations, a fact finder would
be required to consider whether a putative class member worked for
an ISP that paid overtime and provided rest and meal breaks as well
as whether the policies complied with the Wage Order. Because this
is not a misclassification case, the Court also concludes that
these issues go to the fact of liability and not merely the amount
of damages a class member might be entitled to recover. If an ISP
paid a putative class members or provided a class member with rest
and meal breaks, that class member would not have suffered harm as
a result of FedEx's failure to do so. To conclude otherwise could
lead to the conclusion that class members would be entitled to what
would amount to a windfall, i.e., recovery from FedEx based simply
on its lack of policies, even though a direct employer actually
complied with the Labor Code and with Wage Order 9. Accordingly,
the Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden on
the predominance factor. For that reason, it does not address the
issue of whether a class action would be a superior method of
resolving this dispute."

Ms. Hinds worked for Bay Rim from July 2017 to February 5, 2018.
Mr. Powell worked for Bay Rim from November 2017 to January 12,
2018.

The Defendant FedEx is a federally registered motor carrier that
provides package pick-up and delivery service, in exchange for
payment, from its customers to business and residential customers
throughout the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D81MqD at no extra charge.[CC]

FEDEX GROUND: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Oglesby Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAWANNA OGLESBY, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-346 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Walter H. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, Western Division, sustained the Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count V, and overruled as to Count
IV.

Background

Plaintiff Oglesby has filed a collective and class action Complaint
against Defendant FedEx. According to the Plaintiff's Complaint,
from approximately October 2016 through June 2020, she worked in
and around Dayton, Ohio, as a package delivery driver making
deliveries for FedEx. Although she made these deliveries for FedEx,
she was "classified" as an employee of "intermediary employers."
FedEx calls these intermediary employers "independent service
providers" ("FedEx ISPs").

The Plaintiff has filed suit against FedEx alleging, among other
things, that she and "thousands of package delivery drivers in
Ohio" have worked for FedEx under the ISPs, but have not received
overtime pay for their work beyond 40 hours per week in violation
of federal and state law. She further alleges that FedEx has
violated ERISA by denying them retirement and health benefits.

As employees of a FedEx ISP, the package delivery drivers wear a
uniform with the FedEx logo and color scheme. They also drive
delivery trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less, with the FedEx name
and logo on them. The ISP delivery drivers work out of FedEx-owned
and managed terminals where they receive their authorized routes
and assignments from managers, package handlers and other FedEx
employees who oversee and manage the delivery operations.  FedEx
controls the ISPs and has the authority to require them to
terminate the package delivery drivers.

The matter is before the Court pursuant to the Defendant's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. FedEx argues that it is entitled to
judgment on Count IV, alleging damages for injuries caused by a
criminal act pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60, and
Count V, alleging a violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq.

In its Motion, FedEx argues that it is entitled to a partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims for overtime for two
reasons. First, it contends that "during a substantial number" of
the workweeks, she was "exempt from federal and state overtime
requirements" because she drove only vehicles weighing over 10,000
pounds ("heavy" vehicles). Second, when she was operating vehicles
under 10,000 pounds and arguably eligible for overtime wages, she
was "not on duty more than 40 hours." In support of its motion,
FedEx attaches four declarations: (1) Don Lindner, Senior Manager
of the FedEx Ground's Vehicle Maintenance; (2) Robert Noth,
District Manager of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.; and (3)
Susan Kernen, Senior Paralegal.

Law and Analysis

A. Count V, Plaintiff's Claim for ERISA Benefits (On Behalf of
Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class)

Count V of the Complaint alleges that FedEx violated ERISA because
it did not provide "retirement and health benefits" to the
Plaintiff and "other similarly situated delivery drivers." The
Defendant moves for dismissal of this Count. It argues that under
the plain language of the Group Health Plan, Retirement Savings
Plan and the Pension Plan, the Plaintiff and the putative class
members are not "eligible participants" and, therefore, lack
standing to bring a claim for any benefits under the Plans.

Judge Rice agrees. He says, the Plaintiff argues that she is
entitled to benefits under the Plans as an "employee" of FedEx. In
order to file a suit for benefits under ERISA, however, an employee
status is not enough. Instead she must first show that she has
"statutory standing" as a "participant in" one or more of the
Plans. The Judge finds that although the individual Plans provide
different benefits with different requirements and definitions,
each of the Plans contains clear and unambiguous exclusions making
the Plaintiff and the putative class members ineligible for
benefits.

For these reasons, Judge Rice finds that the Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count IV is sustained.

B. Count IV, Damages Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class)

The Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that FedEx committed a
"willful violation" of the FSLA entitling her to compensatory and
punitive damages under Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60. The
Defendant argues that the "Plaintiff's state-law claim is preempted
because it is based entirely on an allegation that FedEx Ground
violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime wages." In support of
its argument, FedEx relies on Torres v. Vitale, 954 F.3d 866 (6th
Cir. 2020).

Judge Rice holds that unlike the civil RICO claim at issue in
Torres, Section 2307.60 is a statutory cause of action "for damages
resulting from any criminal act." Although 29 U.S.C. Section 216(a)
of the FLSA includes "an 'unusually elaborate' enforcement scheme"
that provides "for criminal penalties for willful violations of the
statute," the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has also pled a
violation of OMFWSA, Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.011, et seq.,
and a violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio Revised Code Section
4113.15.

Although both of these state law claims, as currently pled, rise
and fall with the Plaintiff's claim under the FLSA, dismissal of
Count IV on the basis of preemption, at this stage of the case
without the benefit of any discovery and development of additional
facts, is not warranted. The standard employed in ruling on the
Defendant's motion "simply calls for enough facts" in the Complaint
"to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of illegal conduct."

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV, Ohio
Revised Code Section 2307.60, is overruled

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in his Decision and Entry, Judge Rice
sustained the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as
to Count V, alleging the denial of benefits in violation of ERISA,
and overruled as to Count IV, alleging damages pursuant to Ohio
Revised Code Section 2307.60.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/43x6f7up from Leagle.com.


FIRST SOLAR: Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bein, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that in First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, the Delaware Superior Court held there was
no coverage for a class action brought by the individuals who opted
out of a prior class action that had been filed before the subject
policies' inception where both actions involved fundamentally
identical allegations of wrongdoing.

First Solar sought coverage for a class action lawsuit filed on
June 23, 2015 (Maverick action) under primary and excess policies
issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh and
XL Specialty Insurance Co., respectively, effective from November
16, 2013, to November 16, 2015. Both insurers denied coverage,
arguing in part that the Maverick action constituted a "related
claim" with respect to a securities class action filed against the
same defendants before the policies' inception on March 15, 2012
(Smilovits action). First Solar brought a coverage action against
both insurers, asserting claims for breach of contract and
declaratory judgment.

In its decision, the court noted that the 2012 Smilovits action was
brought in federal court in Arizona by a group of shareholders
against First Solar, its directors, and its officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws under sections 10b-5 and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders alleged,
among other things, that the defendants misrepresented that First
Solar "had a winning formula for reducing manufacturing costs so
rapidly and dramatically as to make solar power competitive with
fossil fuels"; concealed and misrepresented major manufacturing and
design defects in its solar modules; misrepresented its financials;
and artificially inflated its stock price. The class period of the
Smilovits action was April 30, 2008, to February 28, 2012.

The court noted that a number of shareholders opted out of the
Smilovits action and filed the Maverick action on June 23, 2015,
against the same defendants. The Maverick action asserted claims
for violations of sections 10b-5 and 20, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of Arizona statutes. As the court
summarized, the shareholders alleged that the defendants
misrepresented how close First Solar was to achieving grid parity
-- i.e., "the point at which solar electricity became cost
competitive with conventional methods of producing electricity
without government subsidies"; concealed defects in the solar
panels and the manufacturing process; concealed problems with its
solar modules; manipulated and falsely represented financial and
accounting metrics; and artificially inflated its stock price. The
class period of the Maverick action was May 2011 to December 2011.

The claims-made and reported policies provided that claims
"alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any facts
or Wrongful Acts that are the same as or related to" an earlier
filed claim (i.e., "related claims") would be deemed filed at the
time of the earlier filed claim. Thus, First Solar's claim for
coverage of the Maverick action, filed during the subject policy
period, turned on whether the Maverick action was "a Claim
alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any facts
or Wrongful Acts that are the same as or related to" those that
were alleged in the Smilovits action, which predated the policies'
effective date.

The court noted that under Delaware law, courts typically construe
such "related claims" language to preclude coverage only where the
claims are "fundamentally identical" and summarized Delaware law on
"related claims" determinations as follows:

Delaware courts look to the "subject" of the claims to see if they
are "the exact same" and do not merely share "thematic
similarities." When doing so, the underlying claimant's "unilateral
characterizations" of the claims need not be credited. Instead, the
Court will draw reasonable inferences from the complaint as a
whole.

The court then compared the Maverick action to the Smilovits
action, noting that the two have "substantial similarities." The
court noted that the Maverick plaintiffs were originally part of
the Smilovits action before opting out; the plaintiffs in each
action sued the same defendants; the class periods overlapped; and
both actions asserted violations of federal securities law based on
the same disclosures. The court also noted that both cases involved
the same fraudulent scheme -- artificially inflating First Solar's
stock price by misrepresenting its ability to produce solar power
at costs comparable to conventional energy production -- as well as
the same manipulation and misrepresentation of financial
information. Based on this analysis, the court found:

[T]he similarities between the Smilovits and Maverick cases
outweigh any differences and go beyond mere "thematic
similarities." Both actions are based on the same subject, have a
causal connection, and primarily rely on the same facts or
occurrences. Therefore, the Court finds that the Smilovits Action
and the Maverick Action are fundamentally identical.

As a result, the court concluded that under the policies, the
Maverick action was deemed a claim first made at the time of the
Smilovits action in 2012, before the policies' effective date. The
court thus found that the Maverick action was not covered and
granted the insurers' motion to dismiss. [GN]

G&J READY MIX: Bolivar Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Cortes Bolivar, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G&J Ready Mix & Masonry Supply,
Inc., Sunny Builders NY Corp., Green Ready Mixx LLC, Gurdial Singh
and Talwinder Singh Parmar, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04574 (E.D.
N.Y., August 13, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company in
Hollis, NY under the names "Supreme builders" and "Green Ready Mix"
where Cortes was employed as a truck driver. He claims to have
generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime pay
and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
He also claims to have never received wage statements and
appropriate minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 class
plaintiff's March 2019 motion for class certification in the
Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still pending.

Group Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC  (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs
International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.


The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.

On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.

On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019.

The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Commodities-Related Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs in
the class action suit related to alleged violations of antitrust
laws and the Commodity Exchange Act by Goldman Sachs International
(GSI) have taken an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
from the decision granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and
for reconsideration.

GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions
relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on
November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all
claims.

On April 27, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Credit Default Swap Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 and its
subsidiaries are facing a putative antitrust class action relating
to the settlement of credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

The company (Group Inc.), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and o
certain exceptions. In addition, Group Inc. has provided guarantees
to Goldman Sachs International (GSI) are among the defendants named
in a putative antitrust class action relating to the settlement of
credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.

The complaint generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law
and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the benchmark price
used to value credit default swaps for settlement.

The complaint also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under
state common law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other
damages.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender Discrimination Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by three
female former employees.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the company
Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have systematically
discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation,
promotion and performance evaluations.

The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.

The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.

On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court
granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members
who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co.
in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes.

On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order and defendants submitted conditional
objections in the event that the district judge overturns any
portion of the Magistrate Judge's order.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: VRDO-Related Suits Underway
------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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
continues to defend putative class action suits related to variable
rate demand obligations (VRDOs).

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in a
putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations
(VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On
November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the state common law
claims against GS&Co., but denying dismissal of the federal
antitrust law claims.

GS&Co. is also among the defendants named in a related putative
class action filed on June 2, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges the same conspiracy in the market for VRDOs
as that alleged in the consolidated amended complaint filed on May
31, 2019, and asserts federal antitrust law, state law and state
common law claims against the defendants.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.

On July 26, 2021, plaintiffs in the May 31, 2019 action sought
leave to file an amended complaint consolidating the two actions.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


HAIKU AT WP: Hong Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HAIKU AT WP
INC. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; and JP WHITE PLAINS
INC. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; SOONWAH LEE a/k/a
Michael Lee, Case No. 7:19-cv-05018-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
      this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing
      first and last name, last known address with apartment
      number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers,
      last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
      FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
      dates of employment and position of ALL current and former
      non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any
      time from May 31, 2016 (three years prior to the filing of
      the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the
      Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date
      when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later;

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
      any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
      website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
      members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
      of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
      affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is
      complete and from existing employment records;

   4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of  
      dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
      notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;

   6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
      may also be published to social media groups specifically
      targeting the English, Chinese-speaking American immigrant
      worker community;

   7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
      unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
      employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
      remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
      workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
      Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
      Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by
      publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
      a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
      returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
      published in English, and English, Chinese; and

   9. granting equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on
      this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of
      the Opt-in Period.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B2N2rh
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class, are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

HARRIS WATER: Pino Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDEN PINO, LESTER MONCADA,
and WALTER ULLOA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HARRIS WATER MAIN & SEWER CONTRACTORS INC., STEVEN
KOGEL, individually, and BRETT KOGEL, individually, Case No.
1:17-cv-05910-KAM-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto
entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives and
      Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP as Class Counsel;

   3. permitting Class counsel to provide the proposed notice in
      English and Spanish to potential class members;

   4. directing the parties to submit a joint proposed notice to
      the Court for review and approval in order to ensure that
      the drafting and distribution of the notice is timely,
      accurate, and informative; and

   5. directing the Defendants to disclose to the Plaintiffs the
      names, last known addresses, alternate addresses, all
      telephone numbers, positions and dates of employment of
      all members of the class by 30 days from the date of this
      Order.

Harris Water is a New York business that does construction,
installation, maintenance and repair work on residential and
commercial water mains and sewer lines in New York City. Kogel is
the Chief Executive Officer of Harris Water and Brett Kogel is the
Vice President of Harris Water.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Harris Water as non-exempt crew
members/field employees performing manual labor. On October 10,
2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against the Defendants Harris Water,
Steven Kogel, and Brett Kogel.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCCRR).

The Plaintiffs brought claims under the FLSA, and NYLL alleging
unpaid wages and unpaid overtime, and unlawful retaliation against
employees who complained about Defendants' failure to pay accurate
wages.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XQ78qq at no extra charge.[CC]


HULU LLC: Fort Scott Files Class Action Over Video Franchise Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Fort Scott recently authorized a class action lawsuit,
Fort Scott Versus Hulu and Netflix, for failing to pay a video
franchise fee under KSA12-2022, according to a contingency
agreement provided by the city. The document had no date on it, but
agrees the law firm cover the expenses of the lawsuit and will
receive 33% of any amounts recovered as their lawyer fees.

"No case has been filed, only hiring an attorney to move forward,"
said Fort Scott City Attorney Bob Farmer.

Michael Fleming, with Kapke Willerth, LLC, a law firm from Lee's
Summit, MO, and former Fort Scott City Manager Jeremy Frazier
signed the document.

Fleming is the attorney representing Fort Scott, he said in an
email interview.

Fleming responded to the following questions:
What is the purpose of this lawsuit?

"To recover money owed by Netflix and Hulu for failing to pay the
franchise fee in the past and to ensure that it is paid in the
future."

What benefit will it be to the people of Fort Scott?

"Pay for the use of public right of way and property easements
within the city, offset city operating costs, and offset additional
personal property taxes."

Is there a timeline?

"Not yet. At some point, a judge will issue a scheduling order and
pick a trial setting. Until then, the timeline remains up in the
air." [GN]

JMJ ENTERPRISES: Wade Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY WADE,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JMJ ENTERPRISES, LLC and TRACI JOHNSON MARTIN, Case No.
1:21-cv-00506-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting conditional certification of a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of this collective
action and authorization to send initial and subsequent
Court-supervised Notices to:

   "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who are
   or were employed by JMJ Enterprises, LLC and/or Traci Johnson
   Martin beginning June 21, 2018 to the present."

JMJ, a general contractor, provides all new home and renovation
needs to those looking to build or renovate their current home.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated August 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UGl5WC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNER LAW, PLLC
          602 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 17 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Koninklijke" or the
"Company") (NYSE: PHG) from February 25, 2020 through June 11, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (2) as a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP
devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (3) accordingly, the Company's sales revenues
from these products were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing also
subjected the Company to a substantial risk of a product recall, as
well as potential legal and/or regulatory action; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 14, 2021, Koninklijke issued a voluntary recall of its
Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices, as well as its mechanical
ventilators, after finding that the sound abatement foam used in
the devices could become toxic.

On this news, Koninklijke's stock price fell $2.24 per share, or
3.98%, to close at $54.25 per share on June 14, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 15, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Koninklijke securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/koninklijkephilipsnv-phg-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-430/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com

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

Contact Information:

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

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Philips" or the "Company") (NYSE: PHG)
securities between February 25, 2020 and June 11, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Philips investors have until October 15, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Philips investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a recall notification for certain
devices after finding that the sound abatement foam used in the
devices can degrade and become toxic, potentially causing cancer.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.25, or 3.98%, to
close at $54.25 per share on June 14, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

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) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (2) as a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP
devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (3) accordingly, the Company's sales revenues
from the foregoing products were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing
also subjected the Company to a substantial risk of a product
recall, in addition to potential legal and/or regulatory action;
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.

If you purchased Philips securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Maston-Meadows Sues Over Defective Ventilators
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Maston-Meadows, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips Holdings USA, Inc. and Philips RS North
America, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01073 (W.D. Pa., August
12, 2021), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory,
actual, statutory, consequential, punitive and/or any other form of
damages, restitution, disgorgement and/or other equitable relief,
costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and,
where applicable, expert fees, prejudgment and post judgment
interest, award of such other and further relief resulting from
breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Philips recalled its Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure, Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure and mechanical ventilator devices
involving an estimated 3 million to 4 million devices globally.
Said products contained polyester based polyurethane foam that
degrades and can be inhaled by the users, causing health risks,
including respiratory issues and cancer.

Maston-Meadows was diagnosed with sleep apnea and purchased a
DreamStation BiPAP machine. Because of the recall, Maston-Meadows
has been forced to continue using her DreamStation as she is unable
to obtain a replacement machine and requires the assistance of a
machine to sleep safely. She is now facing the risk of possible
exposure to off-gassed or degraded polyurethane foam in the
Dreamstation device, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin Kilpela, Esq.
      Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LLP
      1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             eavery@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com

LABORATORY CORP: Peterson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Peterson v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.

On October 2, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Peterson v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, alleging claims for a failure to properly pay
service representatives compensation for all hours worked and
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as notice and
recordkeeping claims under the New York Labor Code.

On February 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
reiterating allegations of violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Code, but narrowing the scope of the
putative class to only those service representatives employed by
the Company within the State of New York.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LANDS' END: Court Junks Class Status Bid in Gilbert Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GWYNETH GILBERT, MICHAEL
MARTE, MONICA DESCRESCENTIS, RACHEL ABUKHDEIR, and STEPHANIE
ANDREWS, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, v. LANDS'
END, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01066-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
James D. Peterson entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied.

   2. The Defendant's End's motion for sanctions is denied.

   3. The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is
      denied.

   4. The Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment is
      granted.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class
of Delta employees who have experienced the bleeding of colors
and/or crocking onto their personal property from the uniforms
provided by Lands' End. In this case, the plaintiffs seek
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which applies when "the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members," and "a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Plaintiffs also suggest
that the court could certify a class under Rule 23(c)(4) with
respect to particular issues, including whether Lands' End breached
a warranty by providing defective garments. The Plaintiffs' class
definition meets the first requirement, as it is defined clearly
using objective criteria. Although Lands' End challenges
plaintiffs' plan for identifying class members, those concerns are
more appropriately addressed when considering the manageability of
the class under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs' proposed class also
satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rules 23(a), as they
submitted evidence showing that at least 358 Delta employees,
including class representatives, experienced crocking from the
Lands' End uniforms. But plaintiffs have not shown that the
proposed class meets the commonality requirements of Rule 23(a)(2).
Under that requirement, a class action must involve "questions of
law or fact common to the class." Closely related is Rule 23(b)'s
requirement that common questions predominate over questions
affecting individual class members. An issue of fact or law is
common only if it is capable of classwide resolution.
For these reasons, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the crocking
class under Rule 23 will be denied."

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Delta Air Lines,
Inc. who wore uniforms manufactured by defendant Lands' End, Inc.
Plaintiffs say that the uniforms were defective because they
transferred dye onto clothing and other property, and because they
caused health problems, including skin rashes, hair loss, and
headaches.

Lands' End is an American clothing and home decor retailer founded
in 1963 and based in Dodgeville, Wisconsin, that specializes in
casual clothing, luggage, and home furnishings.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sHsDFk at no
extra charge.[CC]


LAZY DOG: Sypherd, et al., Seek to Certify California Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATHY SYPHERD,
individually, PATRICIA BRUMMETT, individually, and KIMBERLY WATT,
individually,  and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00921-FLA-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following California Class:

   "All persons who applied for employment with Defendant in the
   State of California from December 4, 2015 through the present
   who were at least 40 years old at the time Defendant denied
   them employment of Covered Positions."

Lazy Dog retails food. The Company sells sandwiches, soups, pizza,
pasta, and deserts.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dawwan
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler J. belong, Esq.
          Mark A. Simpliciano, Esq.
          Jared M. Amory, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-4720
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5260
          E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  msimpliciano@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  jamory@hoguebelonglaw.com

LIFE LINE: Faces Sweeden Empoyment Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Line Screening
of America, LTD. The case is captioned as Kayla Sweeden vs. Life
Line Screening of America, LTD, an unknown business entity, Case
No. 34-2021-00305469-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Aug. 4, 2021),

The lawsuit is brought over employment-related claims.

The Defendants include Does 1-100 and Life Line Screening of
America, LTD.

Life Line provides health screening services.[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

LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Bond TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BOND AND NICOLE
THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE GROUP, LLC a Florida limited
liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00677-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following
Class:

   "All persons in the United States who (1) received a
   telephone call placed by the Defendant, (2) on his, her, or
   its cellular telephone, (3) from the last four years through
   the date notice is sent to the Class, (4) for the same
   purpose as Defendant placed the telephone calls to
   Plaintiffs, (5) using the same equipment that was used to
   call the Plaintiffs, and (6) for who Defendant claims it
   obtained prior express consent to place telephone calls by
   purchasing a lead containing the person’s phone number from
   either MediaAlpha or All Web Leads."

According to the complaint, this case presents a textbook class
action. Courts across the country have recognized that claims
brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) are
well-suited for class certification.

Lighthouse is a company that offers insurance products. In its zeal
to gain an advantage in this competitive space, Lighthouse turns to
telemarketing. Unfortunately, as Plaintiffs allege, such
telemarketing efforts violate the TCPA.

This lawsuit challenges telemarketing phone calls that Lighthouse
placed to Plaintiffs and the members of the alleged Class. The
Defendant allegedly used a "ViciDial" dialing system to place all
of the calls at issue in this case.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z9igfD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company (LNL) continues to defend itself against a
putative class action initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) remains a defendant in a
putative class action initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Arrested Persons
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA ASTORGA, an
individual, on behalf of herself and as class representative; HUGO
PADILLA, an individual, on behalf of himself and class
representative; RYAN MICHAEL DODSON, an individual, and KIYOKO
DODSON, an individual, on behalf of themselves and as class
representatives, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation;
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (LASD), a public entity;
SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, an individual; and Does 1 through 10, all
sued in their individual capacities, Case No. 2:20-cv-09805-AB-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying this case as a class action pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(2), with the class defined as follows:

   "All persons arrested by LASD deputies at protests on
    misdemeanor charges of Cal. Pen. Code sections 407, 408, 409
    [unlawful assembly and participation therein; failure to
    disperse] and whose items of personal property the LASD
    seized without a warrant or other judicial review, property
    the LASD continues to withhold from its owners even though
    (a) no owner has been criminally charged, (b) the owner is
    not in LASD custody, (c) the LASD has not obtained judicial
    review or authorization to justify the ongoing seizures, 11
    (d) the LASD has not provided any notice and opportunity to
    be heard by the putative class members who seek to reclaim
    their property."

The Plaintiffs are four individuals involved in recent protests
(all in 2020) with three arrested on failure to disperse / unlawful
assembly misdemeanor charges. Two (Christina Astorga and Hugo
Padilla) were arrested at a September 8, 2020 protest in South Los
Angeles; Ryan Dodson was arrested at a September 25, 2020 protest
in West Hollywood. (Although a participant in the September 25
protest, Plaintiff Kiyoko Dodson, Ryan's wife, was never arrested;
defendants though seized numerous property items belonging to Ms.
Dodson, items the LASD seized when Sheriff's deputies arrested her
husband Ryan and impounded their truck.) The arresting agency for
the arrested Plaintiffs and all putative class members was the
LASD.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38a8Jcm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Colleen Flynn, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
          Monique Alarcon, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND, ARISTEL, & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com

MARIST COLLEGE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Fedele Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MELANIE FEDELE, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARIST COLLEGE, Defendant.
NICKESHA THOMAS and NOAH ZACCO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCY COLLEGE, Defendant,
Case Nos. 20 CV 3559 (VB), 20 CV 3584 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting:

   a. Marist's motion to dismiss Fedele's amended complaint,
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ("Marist AC"); and

   b. Mercy's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect
      to the Mercy Plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("Mercy
      SAC"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

Plaintiff Fedele brings a putative class action against Defendant
Marist College, and Plaintiffs Nickesha Thomas and Noah Zacco
("Mercy Plaintiffs") bring a separate putative class action against
the Defendant, both of which allege claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, conversion, and money had and received.

On March 13, 2020, after the novel coronavirus arrived in the
United States, Pres. Donald J. Trump issued Proclamation 9994,
declaring that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States
constituted a national emergency. On March 18, 2020, New York
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.6, mandating a
statewide shutdown of non-essential businesses beginning on March
22, 2020. As a result, many colleges and universities in New York
temporarily transitioned to online classes and ceased various
in-person activities and services. A multitude of lawsuits brought
by students seeking a partial refund of their tuition and fees for
the spring 2020 semester followed, including the instant actions.

I. Marist College

Marist College is a private liberal arts college located in
Poughkeepsie, New York. Plaintiff Melanie Fedele alleges that
during the spring 2020 semester, she was an undergraduate at Marist
pursuing a bachelor's degree in business administration and fashion
merchandising. Fedele claims she paid approximately $20,860 in
tuition and fees to Marist for the spring 2020 semester.

Ms. Fedele also alleges that in exchange for tuition and fees,
Marist agreed to provide students with in-person education,
experiences, and related services, which it did for the first half
of the spring 2020 semester. However, according to Fedele, on March
16, 2020, Marist President Dennis J. Murray announced that because
of the global COVID-19 pandemic, beginning Monday, March 30, 2020
(the first day back from spring break) all classes for the
remainder of the spring 2020 semester would be held remotely.
Fedele alleges Marist has not held in person classes since before
the students left for spring break on March 13, 2020. She claims
that classes have been offered in only an online format, with no
in-person instruction.

Ms. Fedele further alleges Marist has not refunded any tuition for
the spring 2020 semester and, although Marist has offered students
the ability to apply for a refund of some fees, it neither offered
a refund of all fees, nor automatically processed all available
refunds.

II. Mercy College

Mercy College is a private college located in Dobbs Ferry, New
York. Plaintiff Thomas alleges that during the spring 2020
semester, she was an undergraduate at Mercy pursuing a bachelor's
degree in nursing. Thomas claims she paid approximately $6,907 in
tuition and fees to Mercy for the spring 2020 semester, including a
$430 General Student Fee, a $1,072 Nursing Exam Fee, and a $213
Student Activity Fee.

Plaintiff Noah Zacco alleges he was an undergraduate at Mercy for
the spring 2020 semester pursuing a bachelor's degree in criminal
justice. Zacco claims he paid approximately $5,000 in tuition and
fees to Mercy for the spring 2020 semester.

The Mercy Plaintiffs allege that in exchange for tuition and fees,
Mercy agreed to provide its students with in-person education,
experiences, and related services, which it did for the first half
of the spring 2020 semester. However, the Mercy plaintiffs allege
that on March 18, 2020, Mercy announced that classes would
transition to an online format and residential housing would close
March 29, 2020, through the end of the spring 2020 semester.
According to the Mercy plaintiffs, Mercy has not held any in-person
classes since March 10, 2020, and classes that have continued have
only been offered in an online format, with no in-person
instruction.

The Mercy Plaintiffs allege they have neither been provided a
refund of any tuition for the spring 2020 semester nor been offered
a refund for all the fees they paid for the same.

Discussion

I. Breach of Contract Claims

A. Educational Malpractice Doctrine

Marist and Mercy argue that the Plaintiffs fail plausibly to allege
a breach of contract claim. s a threshold matter, Marist and Mercy
argue the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims must be dismissed
because they run afoul of New York's bar on "educational
malpractice" claims.

Citing Amable v. New School, 2021 WL 3173739, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July
27, 2021), Judge Briccetti states that educational malpractice
claims, which ask the Court to involve itself in the subjective
professional judgments of trained educators, are not cognizable
under New York law. He says, this policy is based on the
presumption that courts should not substitute their own judgment
for academic officials who are "uniquely capable of deciding what
is appropriate and necessary for educational institutions to
function."

Some of the Plaintiffs' allegations bear a resemblance to
educational malpractice claims -- particularly those that
explicitly compare the alleged quality of in-person versus online
courses.  Despite this resemblance, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims do not "run afoul of New
York's steadfast refusal to recognize claims of 'educational
malpractice.'" Rather, their principal claims are that Marist and
Mercy breached contractual obligations set forth in course
catalogs, course bulletins, and class schedule searches to "provide
in-person educational services, experiences, opportunities, and
other related services."

B. Breach of Contract Claim Against Marist College

Judge Briccetti declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims as
barred by the educational malpractice doctrine.

The Judge also holds that Fedele fails plausibly to allege a breach
of contract claim because she identifies no specific contractual
promise by Marist to provide in-person educational instruction in
exchange for students' tuition and fees. First, the handbook does
not contain a promise that students are entitled to meet with
faculty in their offices on campus nor does Fedele allege that any
member of Marist's faculty was unavailable to meet with her during
the spring 2020 semester. Second, Fedele's allegation that the
parties' course of conduct prior to the pandemic creates an implied
contract to provide in-person classes falls short of identifying a
specific promise to provide in-person instruction needed to support
her breach of contract claim. Lastly, Fedele fails to allege a
breach of contract claim for its retention of certain fees.

Accordingly, Fedele's breach of contract claim must be dismissed.

C. Breach of Contract Claim Against Mercy College

The allegations against Mercy in the Mercy Plaintiffs' SAC are
substantially similar to those Fedele brings against Marist. And,
like Fedele, Judge Briccetti opines the Mercy Plaintiffs fail
plausibly to allege a breach of contract claim because they fail to
identify any specific contractual promise by Mercy to provide
in-person educational instruction. Among other things, he finds
that the Mercy Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the parties' prior
course of conduct do not support their claim for breach of
contract, and the Mercy Plaintiffs rely on conclusory allegations
that the fees Thomas paid were intended to support and provide
access to in-person, on-campus experiences, facilities, and events
without identifying a specific promise to provide those services in
exchange for the alleged fees.

Accordingly, the Mercy Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim must be
dismissed.

II. Unjust Enrichment Claims

In the alternative to their breach of contract claims, the
Plaintiffs in both cases bring a claim for unjust enrichment.
Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims must be
dismissed because they merely restate plaintiff's claims for breach
of contract.

Judge Briccetti agrees. He says, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims fail because they are based on the same factual allegations
underlying their breach of contract claims. It is undisputed that
an implied contract governs the relationship between the Plaintiffs
and defendants and, as in many of these tuition cases, the
Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claim aims to recover the same
payments (tuition and fees) as their contract-breach claim and is
based on the same allegedly breaching conduct."

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims must be
dismissed.

III. Conversion Claims

Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail plausibly to
allege claims of conversion.

Again, Judge Briccetti agrees. The Plaintiffs' money had and
received claims must be dismissed because such claims "merely
duplicate their defective breach of contract claims." Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' claims for money had and received must be
dismissed.

IV. Amendment

In their opposition papers, the Plaintiffs informally request that
if the Court "determines the plaintiffs' allegations are deficient
in any respect," the Court grants them leave to further amend their
respective complaints.

However, Judge Briccetti finds that the Plaintiffs have provided no
argument regarding why they should be permitted leave to amend,
they have submitted no proposed amendments, and they have not
indicated what additional facts they intend to allege. Because the
Plaintiffs have not submitted proposed amendments or set forth any
additional facts they intend to allege, they have not demonstrated
that amendment would not be futile. Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
requests for leave to amend are denied.

However, by Sept. 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs may file further amended
complaints if defendants consent or, in lieu of consent, the
Plaintiffs may file formal motions for leave to amend accompanied
by their proposed amended complaints and a redline version
comparing each respective operative complaint and proposed amended
complaint.

Conclusion

Judge Briccetti granted (i) Defendant Marist College's motion to
dismiss and (ii) Defendant Mercy College's motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

By Sept. 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs may file (i) further amended
complaints if consented to by the Defendants, or (ii) formal
motions for leave to amend, including their proposed amended
complaints and a redline version comparing each respective
operative complaint and proposed amended complaint. If the
Plaintiffs fail to do so, the Court will enter judgment and close
the respective case. No extension of this deadline will be granted.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5eeb74t2 from Leagle.com.


MDL 3005: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Belviq-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the
motion for centralization of the actions in the litigation
captioned IN RE: BELVIQ (LORCASERIN HCI) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3005 (JPMDL).

The Plaintiffs in seven actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
to centralize the litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Alternatively, moving Plaintiffs do not oppose centralization in
the Eastern District of New York, the Middle District of Florida,
or the District of New Jersey.

The litigation consists of 13 actions pending in 10 districts, as
listed on Schedule A. Additionally, the Panel has been notified of
seven potentially-related actions. Responding the Plaintiffs in all
but one of the involved actions support centralization, although
some disagree as to the preferred transferee district. The
Plaintiff in the Eastern District of New York Zottola putative
class action opposes inclusion of her action in any MDL. Defendants
Eisai, Inc. and Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. oppose the motion but,
in the event of centralization, suggest that the Eastern District
of Louisiana or the Southern District of New York would be
appropriate transferee districts.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the
Panel is not persuaded that centralization under Section 1407 would
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The 13 actions before
Panel include 12 individual personal injury actions and one
putative class action alleging that lorcaserin hydrochloride, the
active ingredient in the weight loss medication Belviq, is a
potential carcinogen. The individual Plaintiffs claim that they
developed a variety of different cancers, including breast cancer,
colorectal cancer, thyroid cancer, and cancer of the parotid gland,
as a result of taking Belviq.4 Plaintiff in the Zottola putative
class action asserts claims under state consumer protection
statutes, as well as common law claims for, inter alia, breach of
warranty and fraudulent concealment. The actions thus involve
common factual issues relating to the development, testing, and
marketing of Belviq; defendants' knowledge of health risks posed by
the drug; and the extent of defendants' disclosures as to those
risks. A number of considerations nevertheless counsel against
centralization.

First, although it has been nearly eighteen months since the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration requested that Defendant Eisai
withdraw Belviq from the market, only a limited number of actions
have been filed, many by the same Plaintiffs' counsel. Furthermore,
the Movants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that
centralization would be the most efficient path for this
litigation. Lastly, a number of factors suggest that informal
coordination would be practicable. All actions are in their early
stages.

Taking all of these factors into consideration, the Panel concludes
that centralization is not the preferable course. Therefore, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, writing for the Panel, denied the motion for
centralization of these actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ewfc8efw from Leagle.com.

Catherine D. Perry, Matthew F. Kennelly, Roger T. Benitez,
Nathaniel M. Gorton, David C. Norton, Dale A. Kimball --
dkimball@ccn-law.com.


MEDIASTRATX LLC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Fischman Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN FISCHMAN, Plaintiff v. MEDIASTRATX, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-CV-83-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Dever,
III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Northern Division, denies MediaStratX's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

Background

On Nov. 25, 2020, Fischman filed a complaint against MediaStratX,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"), and 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(d). Fischman also seeks class certification. On Jan. 29,
2021, MediaStratX answered. On March 17, 2021, MediaStratX moved
for judgment on the pleadings and filed a memorandum and document
in support. On April 7, 2021, Fischman responded in opposition to
MediaStratX's motion. On April 21, 2021, MediaStratX replied.

Mr. Fischman is a resident of Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
MediaStratX is a Nevada limited liability company headquartered in
Santa Ana, California. It runs telemarketing campaigns selling
vehicle warranties throughout the United States.

On Dec. 19, 2004, Fischman registered his personal cell phone
number on the TCPA's Do-Not-Call registry. Beginning in late 2018,
Fischman began receiving unsolicited calls to his personal cell
phone about purchasing extended vehicle warranties. The calls came
from various numbers. In late 2018, Fischman asked the callers to
cease calling him about purchasing an extended vehicle warranty.
Nonetheless, the calls continued through Jan. 30, 2019. Fischman
received over 25 calls about purchasing an extended vehicle
warranty.

Mr. Fischman repeatedly attempted to return the calls to identify
the company responsible for them but found that the majority of
numbers were no longer in service. On Jan. 10, 2019, Fischman
returned one of the calls and determined that the number was
associated with an affiliate of MediaStratX. Fischman again asked
the agent to stop calling him. Nonetheless, Fischman received at
least nine more calls between Jan. 10, 2019, and Jan. 30, 2019.

On Nov. 25, 2020, Fischman filed suit against MediaStratX alleging
violations of the TCPA and related regulations. MediaStratX now
seeks judgment on the pleadings. As part of its motion, MediaStratX
filed a declaration from Erik Rameson, a MediaStratX principal. In
his declaration, Rameson claims that MediaStratX had no records of
calling Fischman (1) before Jan. 10, 2019, (2) on Jan. 14, 2019, or
(3) from the multiple numbers Fischman listed in his complaint.
Fischman opposes MediaStratX's motion.

MediaStratX moves for judgment on the pleadings and contends that
(1) the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) Fischman's
second and third claims fail because Fischman does not have a
private right of action under 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d); and (3)
Fischman's second and third claims fail because Fischman does not
plausibly allege a violation of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d).
Fischman disagrees.

Discussion

A.

MediaStratX contends that the court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Fischman's claims. It facially attacks Fischman's
standing and argues that he has not pleaded a concrete injury.

Judge Dever construes MediaStratX's motion as one to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Construing
the pleadings in a light most favorable to Fischman, he finds that
Fischman has alleged a concrete injury. In 2004, Fischman
registered his cell phone number with the Do-Not-Call registry.
Since 2018, Fischman has received over 25 unsolicited telemarketing
calls from multiple numbers about purchasing an extended warranty
for his vehicle. On Jan. 10, 2019, Fischman again received an
unsolicited call about purchasing an extended vehicle warranty,
which he returned and determined that the number was associated
with MediaStratX. Even considering evidence outside the pleadings,
Fischman has plausibly alleged that he received unwanted calls from
MediaStratX on multiple occasions despite having placed his number
on the Do-Not-Call registry. Thus, Fischman has plausibly alleged a
cognizable constitutional injury sufficient to support Article DI
standing. Accordingly, the Judge denies MediaStratX's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

B.

MediaStratX seeks judgment on the pleadings on Fischman's second
and third claims and argues that there is no private right of
action for alleged violations of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d).
Congress must create "private rights of action, explicit or
implicit, to enforce federal laws." If Congress does not create a
private right of action, "a cause of action does not exist and
courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as
a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute." Moreover,
"the express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive
rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others."

After considering divergent views, Judge Dever agrees with the
other courts' holding that the FCC promulgated the relevant
provisions of section 64.1200(d) under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c). He
says, the plain text of the procedures described in section
64.1200(d) corresponds with 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)'s requirements
that the FCC promulgate rules to protect residential telephone
subscribers' privacy rights. Thus, the text of 47 U.S.C. Sections
227(c)(1)(E) and (d) supports the conclusion that the FCC
promulgated 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d) under 47 U.S.C. Section
227(c)(1)(E), not section 227(d).

As for the reasoning of the other courts with contrary holdings,
section 227(d)'s title indicates that it provides for "procedural
standards," and the standards prescribed by 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(d) are procedural. Several of section 64.1200(d)'s other
procedural standards, including those relevant in the case,
directly relate to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)'s plain text requiring
the FCC to promulgate rules protecting residential telephone
subscribers' privacy rights, indicating that the FCC also adopted
those requirements in section 64.1200(d).

Thus, Judge Dever holds that the FCC promulgated the relevant
provisions of section 64.1200(d) under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c),
Accordingly, Congress explicitly provided a private cause of action
for Fischman's second and third claims, and the Judge denies
MediaStratX's motion for a judgment on the pleadings.

C.

Alternatively, MediaStratX argues that Fischman has failed to
plausibly allege violations of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d). Under
Rule 12(b)(6), Fischman's allegations "must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face." A court need not accept as true a
complaint's legal conclusions, "unwarranted inferences,
unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Rather, a plaintiff's
allegations must "nudge his claims," beyond the realm of "mere
possibility" into "plausibility."

Construing the pleadings in a light most favorable to Fischman,
Fischman told MediaStratX to stop calling him in late 2018, but
MediaStratX continued to call him through Jan. 30, 2019. Fischman
also alleges that he received over 25 calls during this time
period. In his second and third claims, Fischman argues that these
facts demonstrate that MediaStratX violated 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(d) by failing to institute procedures meeting the rule's
"minimum standards." Essentially, Fischman contends that because he
received numerous calls from MediaStratX more than 30 days after he
told MediaStratX that he no longer wished to receive calls,
MediaStratX failed to implement procedures.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Fischman's favor, Judge Dever
holds that Fischman plausibly contends that MediaStratX's repeated
attempts to call him indicate that MediaStratX did not implement
the procedures outlined in 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d), including
maintaining an internal do-not-call list. Specifically, had
MediaStratX had a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call
list, trained its personnel in using the do-not-call list, or
actually maintained an internal do-not-call list, Fischman would
not have continued to receive numerous calls from MediaStratX more
than 30 days after he requested that MediaStratX cease calling him.
Accordingly, Fischman has plausibly alleged a violation of section
64.1200(d), and the Judge denies MediaStratX's motion for judgment
on the pleadings.

Conclusion

Judge Dever denies MediaStratX's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3bb2x2sm from Leagle.com.


MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: McCarthy Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
James McCarthy, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Medicus Healthcare Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00668 (D. N.H., August 12, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Medicus Healthcare Solutions, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Medicus provides nationwide physician recruitment, medical staffing
solutions and staffing. McCarthy was a physician recruiter for
Medicus. As a recruiter, his primary duties included calling,
emailing and reaching out to physicians and giving them the
opportunity to work additional shifts on their off time at
hospitals that were short staffed.

McCarthy would screen applicants and refer them to hiring
hospitals' representatives who would ultimately decide whether to
hire the physician. He regularly worked seven days per week
typically working roughly twelve-hour days, all without overtime
pay, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather M. Burns, Esq.
      Russell F. Hilliard, Esq.
      Brooke Lovett Shilo, Esq.
      10 Centre Street
      Concord, NH 03301
      Tel: (603) 224-7791
      Email: hburns@uptonhatfield.com
             rhilliard@uptonhatfield.com
             bshilo@uptonhatfield.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Butela Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BUTELA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01612-WSS (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff Butela asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certify a class;

   2. appointing him as class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

MCM is a market leader in portfolio purchasing and recovery in the
United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gpvXzK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

NETFLIX INC: NJ Municipalities Seek to Recover Unpaid Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Borough of Longport and Township of Irvington, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Netflix,
Inc. and Hulu, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-15303, (D. N.J.,
August 13, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid fees as required by New
Jersey's Cable Television Act.

Defendants provide online streaming services, using wireline
facilities located at least in part in public rights-of-way. Its
services, which offer subscribers a catalog of television shows,
movies and other programming, are comparable to that provided by
traditional cable companies and television-broadcast stations and
are available to customers throughout the state of New Jersey.

New Jersey's Cable Television Act governs entities that provide
video programming and cable television service to subscribers and
imposes certain franchise and fee obligations on these entities and
are thus required to pay New Jersey municipalities franchise fees
equivalent to a percentage of their gross revenue, derived in each
municipality.

Borough of Longport and the Township of Irvington are lawfully
existing New Jersey municipality located in Essex County, New
Jersey. They claim that Netflix and Hulu failed to pay the said
necessary fees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Fax: (973) 994-1744
      Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
             kcooper@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Darren Check, Esq.
      Melissa Troutner, Esq.
      Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
      Lauren M. McGinley, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             dcheck@ktmc.com
             mtroutner@ktmc.com
             ebarlieb@ktmc.com
             lmcginley@ktmc.com


NEW YORK SHAKESPEARE: Brown Hits Discrimination, Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darnell Brown, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New York Shakespeare Festival,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06859 (S.D. N.Y., August 13, 2021), seeks
damages and equitable relief arising from violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor laws, frequency of payment for manual workers and wage
statement mandates of New York labor laws and claims for
discrimination and unlawful termination on the basis of race under
the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New York State Human Rights
Law.

The New York Shakespeare Festival owns and operates several theatre
locations around New York City, including but not limited to, Free
Shakespeare in the Park at The Delacorte Theatre in Central Park.
Brown was employed as an Operation Assistant from September 2014
until his termination on August 2, 2021.

Brown claims to be uncompensated for the mandatory meal breaks that
he did not avail of but worked through them instead, including
hours in excess of 40 per work week. He also alleges that he was
not given wage statements.
Brown said that he was paid less than similarly situated employees
due to his race and eventually his position was replaced with a
Hispanic employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amit Kumar, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 583-7400
      Email: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com


NEW YORK, NY: Queensbridge Houses' Tenants File Suit v. NYCHA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Moro, writing for QNS, reports that tenants of the New York
City Housing Authority (NYCHA) at the Queensbridge Houses campus
announced on Tuesday, Aug. 17, a class-action lawsuit against NYCHA
for lagging in necessary repairs.

The Justice for All Coalition organized support and sought legal
representation from Queens Legal Services, who filed the lawsuit on
the tenants' behalf. Residents have complained about vermin
infestations, asbestos, lead paint and other harmful living
conditions for years.

One plaintiff, 72-year-old Pamela Wheeler, resides in Queensbridge
North building and has complained to NYCHA about an incessant mice
infestation in her apartment.

According to Wheeler, NYCHA has not addressed that issue or any
other complaints she has filed. Wheeler also said her kitchen sink
does not work and frequently loses heat in the winter, causing body
aches due to the cold temperatures.

"I decided to sue NYCHA because I am tired of living with mice,
roaches, water bugs, lack of heat, holes in my walls and sink,
waterlogged and rotting cabinets, and many more repair issues that
are a threat to my health and safety and an affront to my dignity,"
Wheeler said. "NYCHA never repairs anything when I file a ticket,
and it is so frustrating trying to get any repairs in my
apartment."

Robert Sanderman, a senior staff attorney at Queens Legal Services
representing the tenants, said when NYCHA eventually does do
repairs, it's "shoddy work."

"Many tenants in Queensbridge are senior citizens and have
disabilities. They spend all this time and energy just to get
ignored," Sanderman said. "This is unacceptable, especially for
tenants with serious conditions in their apartments which may
exacerbate health concerns. This collective, which includes other
NYCHA houses in Queens, is forcing us as a society to decide
whether we believe in every person's dignity of a clean, safe and
sanitary home. This should not be a sole right for the privileged,
but be extended to communities of color."

The lawsuit coalition hopes to get the courts to force NYCHA to
make necessary repairs and award damages to the plaintiffs. The
lawsuit also asks the court to determine that NYCHA has committed
illegal harassment by failing to make legally required repairs and
provide essential services.

Many tenants spoke about their fears of facing retaliation from
NYCHA and losing their homes as they came forward. Catherine
Bladykas, another Queensbridge resident, wept as she said she has
nowhere else to go.

Bladykas, a mother of three, said she has been dealing with
asbestos and vermin infestations.

"I do my best to manage the infestations on my own. I have to spend
my own money on traps regularly with no help from NYCHA," Bladykas
said. "I had to move my twins into one bedroom because of the
extensive black mold exposure in one of the bedrooms. The smell of
the mold is getting worse and worse."

Bladykas said she often worries about her family's health and has
tried to contact NYCHA to make her apartment livable.

A NYCHA apartment. (Photo courtesy of a NYCHA tenant)
"Home is supposed to be your sanctuary," Bladykas said as she held
back tears. "I should be able to look forward to coming home. It's
stressful. This is especially problematic during a deadly pandemic:
It's not safe outside and it's not safe inside my house."

A spokesperson for NYCHA told QNS that the authority had not been
served with this lawsuit, and they do not comment on pending
litigation. [GN]

NEW YORK: Bagley, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BAGLEY; SHARAN
HARPER; GARY MILLINE; HAMILTON SMITH; MARCELLA URBAN and other
similarly situated individuals, v. THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH; HOWARD ZUCKER, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, in his official capacity; and VISITING NURSE
ASSOCIATION HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a VNA of STATEN ISLAND,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04845-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure granting their motion for class certification in
its entirety.

The New York State Department of Health is the department of the
New York state government responsible for public health. It is
headed by Health Commissioner Howard Zucker, who was appointed by
Governor Cuomo and confirmed by the Senate on May 5, 2015.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AXdSky
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Michelle Bagley, Gary Milline, Hamilton Smith,
Marcella Urban, Sharan Harper, and other similarly situated
individuals, are:

          Michael F. Buchanan, Esq.
          Melissa Ginsberg, Esq.
          Sofia Syed, Esq.
          Henry Wainhouse, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB &
          TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000

               - and -

          Kevin M. Cremin, Esq.
          Orier Okumakpeyi, Esq.
          Daniel A. Ross, Esq.
          MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC.
          100 Williams Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 417-3700

NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY: Miner Loses Bid for Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY MINER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00694-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J.
Philip Calabrese entered an order denying the Plaintiff's request
for conditional certification.

The Court said, "Without making a merits determination or weighing
credibility of the evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
claims and the claims of the other hourly employees requires an
individualized analysis to determine whether a particular FLSA
violation took place. Further, the Plaintiff has not shown that she
and other hourly employees "suffer from a single, FLSA-violating
policy" with respect to the alleged unpaid work employees
performed. At this stage, Plaintiff's only proof of such a policy
is the nearly identical declarations of two other employees with
different job titles stating that "as a result of Newman
Technology's practices and policies, I was not compensated for all
of the time I worked, including all of the overtime hours I worked
over 40 each workweek. These conclusory statements are not
sufficient evidence of a company-wide policy of requiring employees
to perform unpaid work. The Plaintiff has not carried her burden,
light though it may be, of establishing that the plaintiffs are
similarly situated."

The Plaintiff Miner brings this suit as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action under Rule 23.

The Defendant Newman is a manufacturer of automotive exhaust
systems, frames, and trim products with operations in Mansfield,
Ohio, South Carolina, and Mexico. Newman employs 687 individuals at
its Mansfield, Ohio plant, 632 of whom are hourly, non-exempt
employees.

The Plaintiff Miner worked as a press operator in Newman's
Mansfield facility from October 2013 to December 2020. She alleges
that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in several
ways. First, Plaintiff claims she and other similarly situated
employees were not paid for the time during which they were
required to don "protective sleeves, special
gloves, boots, safety glasses, and required shirts and pant
uniforms." She maintains that the time it took to don these items
was an "integral and indispensable part of their principal
activities." Second, Plaintiff claims that after employees donned
their personal protective equipment, they were required to walk to
the production floor.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ydxkHU at no
extra charge.[CC]


NEXTFOODS INC: Andrade-Heymsfield Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Drinks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EVLYN ANDRADE-HEYMSFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTFOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01446-BTM-MSB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2021) alleges that
the Defendant deceptively markets the GoodBelly Probiotic
JuiceDrinks (the "JuiceDrinks") as promoting digestive health, as
well as "overall" health and wellness.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represents on the labels
that the JuiceDrinks promote "overall health," "overall wellness,"
and "digestive health." These and the other representations and
omissions of material facts are, however, false and misleading in
light of the JuiceDrinks' high sugar content, since consuming fruit
juices like the JuiceDrinks increases the risk of metabolic
disease, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver
disease, and is further associated with increased all-cause
mortality, says the suit.

The Plaintiff would not have purchased the JuiceDrinks if she knew
that the labeling claims were false and misleading in that the
products were not as healthy as represented, the suit added.

NextFoods, Inc. produces and distributes dairy-free, soy-free, and
vegan products. The Company offers fruit drinks such as mango,
blueberry, strawberry, cranberry, watermelon, and black currant
berry drinks. NextFoods operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, California 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

NOOM INC: Court Allows $100MM Fraud Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice for the consumers nationwide who were affected by deceptive
billing practices by Noom, Inc. -- the provider of a
subscription-based app for tracking food intake and exercise habits
-- moved closer to trial when the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York sustained 274 class action counts
against the popular startup. The class-action lawsuit is valued at
more than $100 million.

Judge Lorna Schofield denied Noom's multiple requests for dismissal
and allowed the lawsuit -- filed by Armonk, New York, based law
firm Wittels McInturff Palikovic (WMP) to proceed. The lawsuit
alleges that Noom's app-based dieting platform engaged in an
automatic renewal scheme that duped vast numbers of customers
nationwide. In the ruling, Judge Schofield upheld WMP's argument
that "at a minimum, each plaintiff went through Noom's 58-step
sign-up flow and relied on information in that process to form a
reasonable belief that they were signing up only for a trial period
and not recurring charges."

"This suit will prove that Noom engaged in one of the largest
auto-renewal scams in American history," said Steven Wittels,
partner with WMP. "Consumers were led to believe that they were
enjoying a free trial period but instead were charged for an entire
year's worth of service. To make matters worse, Noom failed to
provide any reasonable way to cancel or get a refund."

The suit further alleges that consumers were unaware that they
would be charged nonrefundable fees as high as $199 for a
multi-month diet program they never wanted or used.

Noom recently received $560 million in venture funding from a who's
who of VCs, including Sequoia Capital, Silver Lake, and WTA star
Serena Williams. Despite the outpouring of complaints by consumers
and employees about the company's shady business practices, Noom is
barreling forward with a planned IPO led by Goldman Sachs scheduled
for early next year.

"Sequoia, Serena, Silver Lake, and Godman Sachs are supposed to be
the adults in the room," said, said Burkett McInturff, partner with
WMP. "Instead, they are fostering Noom's deceptive billing
practices, enabling them to prey upon massive numbers of vulnerable
Americans who trusted Noom's supposedly different approach to
weight loss and better health."

The lawsuit details how Noom's growth tactics involve a fraudulent
sign-up process that deploys a web of underhanded tricks to dupe
consumers into inadvertently incurring charges.

A copy of Judge Schofield's ruling and the Class Action Complaint
can be obtained by contacting kevin@propheta.com.

                About Wittels McInturff Palikovic

Steven L. Wittels, named a "Super Lawyer" nine years running
(2013-2021) for his class-action litigation success, is a
nationally recognized class-action attorney who concentrates on
consumer fraud, civil rights, and general public interest cases.
The firm represents victims of consumer fraud, employment
discrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending,
whistleblower retaliation, mass torts, and other wrongdoing. Mr.
Wittels was a lead trial counsel in the largest employment class
action ever tried to verdict in New York, which resulted in a $253
million jury award against Novartis. Co-counsel Tiasha Palikovic
and J. Burkett McInturff are both rising stars in the class action
arena, having obtained settlements for victims of consumer fraud
and employment discrimination totaling more than $100 million in
the past four years. [GN]

NORTH DAKOTA UNIVERSITY: Order Dismissing Berndsen Suit Flipped
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Breanna Berndsen; Kristen Elizabeth Joyce Campbell;
Charly Dahlquist; Taylor Flaherty; Ryleigh Houston; Anna Kilponen;
Rebekah Kolstad; Sarah LeCavalier; Alyssa MacMillan; Annelise Rice;
Abigail Stanley Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. North Dakota University
System Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-2517 (8th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district
court's order granting the University's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

After the University of North Dakota cut its women's ice hockey
team -- but not its men's ice hockey team -- the former players
sued the university system for violating Title IX, the ban on sex
discrimination at federally-funded institutions. In their putative
class action on behalf of current, prospective, and future female
athletes, the athletes alleged that statewide, North Dakotans favor
ice hockey over all other sports. High school and club teams across
the state and region reflect that popularity as young women play
ice hockey and want to keep playing in college.

Seventy-three years after the University started the men's team, it
started the women's team. For women, ice hockey was the "most
prominent and most popular" sport on campus, with eight Olympians
on its roster at one point. The team played against seven other
teams in "the strongest and most competitive women's ice hockey
league" in the country. It did so at the "most competitive"
collegiate level (National Collegiate Athletic Association Division
I), alongside 34 other teams. And at its end, the team ranked
sixth, nationally.

When the University cut their program, the athletes relied on an
implementing regulation and an agency interpretation of that
regulation to allege a Title IX claim. The athletes' legal theory,
however, clashed with the district court's understanding of how a
Title IX claim should be pled, and the district court dismissed the
complaint.

Analysis

Since 1972, under Title IX, "no person in the United States shall,
on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance." Because that 37-word statute does "not specifically
address its application to athletics," Congress directed an agency
head to "prepare and publish proposed regulations which will
include with respect to intercollegiate athletic activities
reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular
sports."

Under the implementing regulation, effective since 1975, "no person
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in any
athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient will provide any
athletics separately."  Nearly four-and-a-half years after
publishing the regulation, the agency issued a policy
interpretation of that regulation.

Section VII of the 1979 Interpretation delineates three overarching
compliance subsections. For the case, the Eighth Circuit only
examines the third, Section VII.C: "Effective Accommodation of
Student Interests and Abilities." Section VII.C's six distinct
provisions address Section 106.41(c)(1)'s mandate "to accommodate
effectively the interests and abilities of students to the extent
necessary to provide equal opportunity in the selection of sports
and levels of competition available to members of both sexes."

In Section VII.C.2, the agency explains that it "will assess
compliance with the interests and abilities section of the
regulation" by examining three separate issues: (a) "determination
of athletic interests and abilities of students"; (b) "selection of
sports offered"; and (c) "levels of competition available including
the opportunity for team competition." Then, to correspond to those
three issues, the agency sets forth three separate "Application of
the Policy" provisions: (1) Section VII.C.3 ("Determination of
Athletic Interests and Abilities" provision); (2) Section VII.C.4
("Selection of Sports" provision); and (3) Section VII.C.5 ("Levels
of Competition" provision). Each of those separate provisions
addresses different ways the agency will assess compliance.

In the case, the athletes alleged that the University violated a
specific provision under the Selection of Sports provision
(VII.C.4.a). The University moved to dismiss the athletes'
complaint, relying on one of two compliance tests from a different
provision—the Levels of Competition provision (VII.C.5).

That provision addresses two issues: "the opportunity for
individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate
competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team
schedules, which equally reflect their abilities." Each issue then
receives its own compliance provision. Section VII.C.5.a -- which
the University invoked and the district court relied on -- gives
three ways to assess participation-opportunity compliance through
what is known as the "three-part test."  Section VII.C.5.b sets out
two ways to assess competitive-schedule compliance.

Given this regulatory structure and its textual content, the Eighth
Circuit disagrees with the district court's reasons for dismissing
the complaint. When applying the 1979 Interpretation, the district
court improperly relied on a compliance test from the Levels of
Competition provision (VII.C.5) as the only way to analyze a claim
under the separate, unrelated Selection of Sports provision
(VII.C.4).

Additionally, the Eighth Circuit disagrees with the district
court's conclusion that the Contact Sports Clause (VII.C.4.a) is
"inconsistent" with the regulation's Separate Teams Provision
(Section 106.41(b)). It does not treat regulatory provisions as
meaningless surplusage. And in analyzing whether the Contact Sports
Clause and the Separate Teams Provision are "inconsistent," it
examines whether the former is logically consistent with the
latter.

The Eighth Circuit finds that the plain text of the regulation --
which it must give controlling weight -- requires institutions to
operate single-sex contact sports equally. Because the regulation
does not explain what operating equally means, it looks to the 1979
Interpretation -- which it also must give controlling deference --
to fill any gaps.

Within the 1979 Interpretation, the Contact Sports Clause squarely
answers the question of how separate contact sports teams
effectively accommodate students. That clause's use of the
mandatory term "must" unambiguously requires an institution
sponsoring a single-sex contact sports team (e.g., men's ice
hockey) to sponsor a team for the other sex (e.g., women's ice
hockey) if: (1) "opportunities for members of the excluded sex have
historically been limited"; and (2) "there is sufficient interest
and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a
viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate
competition for that team." The 1979 Interpretation's Contact
Sports Clause's plain text is not inconsistent with the
regulation's Separate Teams Provision. By disregarding the plain
text, the district court erred in its analysis.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit concludes that the district court's
primary reasons for dismissing the complaint rested on an incorrect
view of the law. It appears that the district court saw the
Contact-Sports-Clause claim as futile, not novel. As such, no set
of facts could have convinced the district court to give the
athletes a second look. But given a level playing field, or in the
case, a properly smoothed ice rink, the athletes may be able to
state an actionable Title IX claim.

On remand, the Eighth Circuit leaves it to the district court to
apply the law to the athletes' complaint in the first instance.

For these reasons, it reverses and remands the case to the district
court for further consideration in light of its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/u6vmsmcc from Leagle.com.


OATLY GROUP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ: OTLY) investors
that acquired shares between between May 20, 2021 and July 15,
2021. Investors have until September 24, 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.

Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report
on July 14, 2021, accusing Oatly of various potential accounting
improprieties and misrepresenting its sustainability practices. The
Spruce Point report highlights "signs of revenue overstatement,"
asserts that a key Oatly U.S manager had verified such revenue
overstatement, and points to an alleged divergence between accounts
receivable growth and sales growth that suggests "a pull forward of
revenue recognition," among other things. In order to investigate
such matters, Spruce Point called for Oatly's board of directors to
hire an independent forensic accountant.

On July 16, 2021, Oatly's stock price fell $1.85 per share, or
8.76%, on this news, over the following three trading sessions to
close at $19.28 per share.

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
24, 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]

PARADIES SHOPS: Court OKs Settlement Agreement in Bailey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEMONI BAILEY, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. THE PARADIES SHOPS,
LLC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02610-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order:

   a. granting the joint motion for settlement approval;

   b. approving the settlement agreement and dismissing the
      case;

   c. approving and authorizing the distribution of the notice
      of settlement and claim form and release; and

   d. denying as moot the motion for conditional class
      certification.

The Court said, "All of the relevant factors weigh in favor of
approving this settlement. The Court finds the settlement reflects
a reasonable compromise over issues and therefore is fair and
reasonable. See Gentrup v. Renovo Servs., LLC, No. 1:07CV430, 2011
WL 2532922, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2011) ("If a settlement in an
employee FLSA suit reflects 'a reasonable compromise issues', such
as FLSA coverage and/or computation of back wages that are
'actually in dispute,' the Court may approve the settlement 'in
order to promote the policy of encouraging
settlement of litigation.'") (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v.
United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982)). Accordingly,
the Court approves the settlement agreement."

Plaintiff Bailey filed this action for unpaid overtime wages
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA); and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act (OPPA). The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant The Paradies Shops
failed to pay him and others like him for meal breaks that were
either never taken or that were interrupted. The Plaintiff alleged
that the failure to pay for these meals resulted in unpaid overtime
in violation of both the FLSA and Ohio law. The Plaintiff brought
the FLSA claim action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) and the state law claims as a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23 class action.

On July 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to engage in
mediation for the following group of employees ("Eligible
Settlement Participants"):

   "All current and former full-time hourly employees, including
   hourly managers, of The Paradies Shops, LLC, Paradies-
   Atlanta, LLC, Paradies-Atlanta II, LLC, Paradies-Columbus,
   LLC, Paradies-DFW 2015 (F&B), LLC, Paradies Shops, L.L.C.,
   Paradies-DTW, LLC, Paradies-Metro Ventures, LLC, Paradies-
   Hartford, LLC f/k/a Paradies-Hartford, Inc., Paradies-TPA
   2014, LLC who worked during the period of May 22, 2017 to
   August 6, 2020 at the following airports (not including
   locations of Hojeij Branded Foods, LLC and its affiliates and
   Taste, Inc. d/b/a Vino Volo and its affiliates): John Glenn
   Columbus International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson
   International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
   Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Tampa
   International Airport, Austin-Bergstrom International
   Airport, Bradley International Airport, and Asheville
   Regional Airport."

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z954Yp at no extra charge.[CC]

PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL: Williams' Class Settlement Has. Prelim Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL, LLC; MP
BRIDGES AT SOUTHPOINT, LLC d/b/a BRIDGES AT SOUTHPOINT, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18CV1030 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted
the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement, Certifying Classes for Purpose of Settlement,
Directing Notice to the Classes, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing.

The matter before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certifying Classes for Purpose
of Settlement, Directing Notice to the Classes, and Scheduling
Fairness Hearing filed by the Plaintiff.

The Parties have reached a Settlement Agreement resolving the
action. The Settlement Agreement sets forth the terms and
conditions of a proposed class action settlement and the Plaintiff
has moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 23(g), for an
Order seeking preliminary approval of a class action settlement,
certifying the settlement class, appointing settlement class
counsel and settlement class representative, approving class
notice, and scheduling a fairness hearing.

Judge Biggs, having reviewed the Settlement Agreement, Proposed
Order, and Declaration by the Plaintiff's counsel, finds that the
Settlement Agreement and defined class are appropriate for
preliminary approval and certification. The proposed Settlement
Agreement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and a
hearing on the matter should be held, after notice to the Class
Members, to confirm that it meets this standard prior to a
determination of whether a Final Order and Judgment should be
entered in the Lawsuit.

Judge Biggs granted the Motion. The proposed Settlement Agreement
submitted with the Motion is preliminarily approved, pending the
notice and formal approval process set forth in the Order.

Accordingly, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Judge provisionally certified the Classes
defined as:

     a. Collection Letter Class: All natural persons who (a) at any
point between November 6, 2014 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in
any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by
Defendants and (c) received a Collection Letter. There are
approximately 8,778 potential Collection Letter Class members.

     b. Eviction Fee Class: All natural persons who (a) at any
point between November 6, 2014 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in
any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by
Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) paid Eviction Fees. There
are approximately 792 potential Eviction Fee Class members.

Finding that the factors of Rule 23(g) have been satisfied, Judge
Biggs appointed Edward H. Maginnis and Karl S. Gwaltney of Maginnis
Law, PLLC, and Scott C. Harris and Patrick M. Wallace of Whitfield
Bryson LLP as the Class Counsel; and Plaintiff Valerie Williams as
the representative of the Classes.

The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Nov. 30,
2021, at 9:30 a.m.

The Notice Period must commence within 14 calendar days after the
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order and should be substantially
complete no later than 45 days after the entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order via electronic mail, first-class mail, an Internet
website, and a toll-free number as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Defendants will provide the notification required under 28
U.S.C. Section 1715 to each Appropriate Federal Official and to
each Appropriate State Official.

Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the proposed
settlement must send a written request for exclusion to the Claims
Administrator, in care of the post office box rented for that
purpose, no later than 30 days following the last day of the Notice
Plan.

Any member of a Class who wishes to object to any aspect of the
settlement must deliver to the Class Counsel and the Defendants'
Counsel, and file with the Court, no later than 15 days following
the last day of the Notice Plan or as the Court may otherwise
direct, a written statement of his/her objection(s).

If the attorney intends to seek fees and expenses from anyone other
than the objectors he or she represents, the attorney will also
file with the Court and serve on Class Counsel and Defense Counsel
not later than 15 days before the Final Fairness Hearing or as the
Court may otherwise direct a document containing the following: (1)
the amount of fees sought by the attorney for representing the
objector and the factual and legal justification for the fees being
sought; (2) a statement regarding whether the fees being sought
were calculated on the basis of a lodestar, contingency, or other
method; (3) the number of hours already spent by the attorney and
an estimate of the hours to be spent in the future; and (4) the
attorney's hourly rate.

Judge Biggs authorized CPT Group to administer certain aspects of
the settlement. CPT Group will also serve as the Claims
Administrator.

The following deadlines will apply unless modified by further order
of the Court:

     a. Notices in the form of the Exhibits to the Settlement
Agreement will be sent to Class Members via first class mail and
electronic mail, as provided in the Settlement, within 14 days
after entry of the Order, by Aug. 30, 2021.

     b. The Notices will be made available through the Settlement
Website no later than the date the first Class Notice is sent by
e-mail.

     c. The notice period will run until Sept. 30, 2021, within 45
days after entry of the Order.

     d. Any Claim Forms will be filled out and submitted by Oct.
15, 2021, within 60 days after entry of the Order.

     e. Any notices to appear at the Final Approval hearing will be
filed on or before Oct. 22, 2021, within 67 days after entry of the
Order.

     f. Any exclusions and objections to the Settlement will be
submitted by Oct. 15, 2021, within 60 days after entry of the
Order.

     g. The Fairness Hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Nov. 30,
2021, in Courtroom No. 4 of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.

     h. The parties will file and serve papers in support of final
approval of the settlement, including any responses to proper and
timely objections filed thereto, by Oct. 25, 2021, within 70 days
of the Order.

     i. The Class Counsel will file with the Court their petition
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and
request for incentive awards to the Plaintiff no later than on Oct.
25, 2021, within 70 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r4pt2e5 from
Leagle.com.


PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ:PLL) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Mar. 16, 2018 - July 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 21, 2021

Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PLL

Contact An Attorney Now:PLL@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

Piedmont Lithium Inc. (PLL) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
material information concerning Piedmont's progress toward
obtaining necessary permits and zoning variances to build a large
lithium mine in Gaston County, North Carolina.

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that Piedmont: (1) has
not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure
all proper and necessary permits, (2) did not inform relevant
government authorities of its actual plans, (3) did not file proper
applications with state and local authorities, and (4) did not have
"strong local government support."

On July 20, 2021, investors began to learn the truth when Reuters
reported that (1) Piedmont had not even applied for the necessary
mining permit or zoning variances, (2) five of the seven members of
the Gaston County's board of commissioners, who control zoning
changes, say they may block or delay the project because Piedmont
has not told them what levels of dust, noise and vibrations will
occur, nor how water and air quality would be affected, and (3) the
relationship between the company and county officials is
increasingly strained.

These events sent the price of Piedmont American Depository Shares
sharply lower.

Most recently, on Aug. 6, 2021, Reuters reported the Gaston County
Commissioners unanimously approved a 60-day mining moratorium and
said the company "cannot be trusted" to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of citizens. Reuters also reported an outside adviser
to the Commissioners informed them that a mine of this size was
never anticipated in the development regulations.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Piedmont concealed
known building permit and zoning risks posed by the Gaston County
mine," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you invested in Piedmont Lithium and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here
to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Piedmont Lithium should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email PLL@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]

PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Piedmont Lithium, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL)
investors that acquired shares between March 16, 2018 and July 19,
2021. Investors have until September 21, 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.

Reuters reported on July 20, 2021 that a majority of county
officials in Gaston County, North Carolina say they may delay or
block Piedmont's plan to build the largest lithium mine in the
U.S., as a result of Piedmont failing to inform them of any
potential environmental impacts, including effects on noise, dust,
vibrations, water and air quality.

Piedmont has repeatedly delayed the process, despite promising
investors as early as 2018 that it would obtain permits by 2019.
Piedmont cancelled a planned meeting with county commissioners in
March 2021, with three days' notice, leading one commissioner to
say, "This has been the worst rollout of a project from a company
I've ever seen." Piedmont has previously told investors it was "not
aware" of any potential roadblocks to receiving permitting, despite
the fact that they had not yet presented any information to the
county government.

In 2020, Piedmont signed a deal with Tesla, causing its stock to
skyrocket, with its proposed mine on track to be the largest
lithium mine in the US.

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
21, 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]

PIZZA HUT: Faces Mini-TCPA Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that little known fact
- I love Pizza Hut. Not as much as Papa Johns - they're a client,
so they are the MOST loved pizza in the Czar's house - but Pizza
Hut is very tasty as well.

So, anyway, Pizza Hut just got hit with a Mini-TCPA suit in
Florida, and that just disappoints me.

As with other Florida mini-TCPA suits we've covered, this suit
against Pizza Hut relates to promotional text messages.

Plaintiff Javae Patton claims he never consented to receive offer
texts from Pizza Hut and that he received a string of them starting
July 9, 2021 - just 8 days after the Mini TCPA went into effect.

Plaintiff contends Pizza Hut used a dialer that "automatically
selected and dialed Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephone
numbers."

The case seeks to represent a class of "[a]ll persons in Florida
who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's
goods and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of
equipment utilized to call Plaintiff."

Remains to be seen if claims have any merit. [GN]

PIZZAROTTI LLC: Gil Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDY GIL, and RAFAEL
HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, v. PIZZAROTTI, LLC, ATLANTIC CONTRACTING OF YONKERS,
INC., JOEL ACEVEDO, IGNAZIO CAMPOCCIA, GIACOMO DI'NOLA a/k/a
GIACOMO DI NOLA, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, and RICHARD ROES 1-10,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03497-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims
      as a Rule 23 class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all individuals paid by
      Atlantic Contracting of Yonkers, Inc. to perform
      construction work at Pizzarotti's Jardim Project,
      located at 527 West 27th Street in Manhattan, during any
      part of the period March 2018 through March 2019 (the
      "Class Period"), excluding any immediate family member of
      the individual defendants (Joel Acevedo, Ignazio
      Campoccia, Giacomo Di'nola);

   2. certifying this case as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      Collective;

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs Andy Gil and Rafael
      Hernandez as representatives of the Class;

   4. appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel, David Harrison and
      Julie Salwen of Harrison Harrison & Associates, Ltd., as
      Class Counsel;

   5. approving the proposed Notice of this NYLL class action
      and authorize dissemination of the proposed Notice to
      Class Members via posting on a website and targeted
      Facebook ads and text messages to individual Class
      Members;

   6. directing the PZ Defendants to pay the cost of the
      Facebook ads; and

   7. granting such other, further or different relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

Pizzarotti is a leading construction company founded in Italy, with
a solid international presence and strong US focus.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j6fNgq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          Julie Salwen, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON &
          ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Ho, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          277 Park Avenue, 20TH Floor
          New York, NY 10172
          Telephone: (212) 883-4927
          E-mail:jho@cozen.com

PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Claims in Hayden Securities Suit Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL HAYDEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. PORTOLA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00367-VC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Background

Investors in Portola Pharmaceuticals bring the suit alleging that
the company made misleading statements in violation of the Exchange
Act by repeatedly overstating its 2018 revenue. Because Portola
made a public stock offering that incorporated those revenue
statements, the Plaintiffs also allege that Portola and the
companies that underwrote the public offering violated the
Securities Act.

Discussion

I. Exchange Act Claims

To state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act, the Plaintiffs must allege a false statement (meaning a
material misrepresentation or omission), scienter, and a causal
relationship between the Plaintiffs' economic loss and the false
statement. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, both
the false statement and scienter must be pled with particularity.
Both sides treat the alleged false statements as statements of
opinion.

The Plaintiffs pursue an omission theory, alleging primarily that
Portola's statements of its estimated revenues for prior periods
were misleading because the Defendants omitted material facts that,
if disclosed, would have caused investors to seriously doubt the
validity of those estimates.

To understand the omission these Plaintiffs are alleging, it is
first necessary to understand both Portola's business model and its
financial reporting obligations as a publicly traded company. Prior
to being purchased by Alexion (which is now owned by AstraZeneca),
Portola was a small pharmaceutical start-up company.

In 2018 the FDA approved Portola's second-ever product, a coagulant
called Andexxa. Andexxa is used to stop emergency bleeding in
patients who are being treated with certain kinds of blood
thinners. Because there was no drug already approved to treat these
rare but life-threatening bleeds, the FDA approved Andexxa through
an expedited process as an "orphan drug." That meant Portola did
not need to produce proof that the drug actually worked in sick
patients; only that it was safe and caused a chemical change in the
blood of healthy volunteers. Although Andexxa remains the only
FDA-approved drug for treating this class of bleeds, another drug
called Kcentra has long been used as an off-label treatment.

Portola began selling a limited supply of Andexxa in May 2018.
According to the complaint, Portola faced two major challenges in
achieving widespread use of Andexxa. The first challenge was the
price tag. During the relevant period Portola was charging between
$24,750 and $49,500 per dose. By comparison, Kcentra was available
for less than $10,000 per dose. At least one former Andexxa
salesperson allegedly told the Plaintiffs' attorneys that the price
was a "shock" to hospitals considering stocking the drug, and
several others reported similar difficulties in convincing
hospitals to make such a big-ticket purchase.

The second challenge was the inherently unpredictable nature of the
condition Andexxa is designed to treat. As the complaint describes
it, these kinds of bleeds are "outlier" emergencies that only occur
in a small percentage of patients who are taking a particular class
of blood thinners. That reality further complicated the financial
decision facing hospitals, because hospitals only recoup the cost
of a drug when it gets used to treat a patient.

Presumably because of these challenges, Portola offered customers a
very generous return policy for Andexxa. This return policy had
important ramifications for Portola's financial reporting
obligations. In many situations, a company's expected revenue from
the sale of a given product is something less than the listed sales
price for that product. Speaking more technically, and as relevant
to the allegations in the complaint, a company can only report
revenue from sales when it is able to conclude that it is not
likely to suffer a significant reversal.

It was not until Feb. 28, 2020, that Portola disclosed the dollar
amount of return reserves it had taken for product sold in 2018.
This disclosure came in the company's annual report for 2019. That
document included a table showing return reserves taken for Andexxa
in 2018 as well as "payments and customer credits issued" for
returns actually made as of Dec. 31, 2018. That table shows that in
2018, the dollar amount Portola actually reserved for product
returns was $2.611 million.

The same table reported a second significant fact, also disclosed
for the first time in the Form 10-K 2019 that was filed on Feb. 28,
2020. The table shows that as of Dec. 31, 2018, Portola had already
paid customers $2.312 million for returned product. That is, of the
$2.611 million Portola expected to pay back for returns by
mid-2020, the company had paid back all but $299 thousand before
the first day of 2019. With well over a year left in the return
window, nearly 90% of the reserve had already been depleted.

Portola's omission of this key fact -- that only $299 thousand of
its $2.611 million in return reserves for 2018 remained by the end
of 2018 -- forms the core of the Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims.
The theory of misrepresentation by omission goes as follows:
Portola repeatedly stated net revenue for 2018 and claimed that its
revenue statement complied with GAAP. That revenue statement was an
estimate and therefore an opinion subject to Align and Omnicare.
Because the revenue stated was net of a reserve for expected
returns, the amount of reserve taken and the amount remaining after
accounting for returns already made are material bases for the
company's estimate of the amount for 2018 revenue it would
ultimately get to keep.

Perhaps the company was not required to disclose these numbers if
reserves were depleting at the rate the company expected, but in
this case the omission was material because no reasonable investor
would have expected the $23.995 million in revenue to hold when
$2.312 million had already been paid in returns and only $299
thousand remained to cover returns that would be made in 2019 and
2020. In light of Andexxa's twin challenges regarding price and
unpredictable use, and given the company's carte-blanche return
policy, this theory of a material omission is highly plausible.

The fact that Portola's reserves for 2018 product were almost
depleted by the start of 2019 plainly contradicts the company's
statement that as of March 1, 2019 it could expect to keep $23.995
million in revenue from 2018 sales of Andexxa. Portola had
originally predicted that about 10% of its gross revenue from
Andexxa ($2.611 million of at least $26.606 million in sales) would
get returned over the course of the following 18 months. In fact,
about 9% got returned within just a few months. In the face of
those facts, a stated expectation that not much more than 1% of
product -- the remaining $299 thousand -- would be returned during
well over a year of remaining eligibility crosses the line from
irrationally hopeful to grossly inaccurate.

In their briefs and at the hearing on this motion, the Defendants
repeatedly made two arguments to support the proposition that
failing to disclose the depleted reserve did not constitute a
material omission. First, they contended that the presence of a
positive amount left in the reserve account by the end of 2018
actually indicates that the company over-reserved for returns.
Second, they posited that the small amount left at the end of 2018
does not support an inference that Portola knew when it made its
original reserve estimate that it was under-reserved.

Judge Chhabria finds that the current complaint fails to allege
that the revelation of the previously omitted reserve numbers
caused the plaintiffs any economic loss. As a practical matter, it
appears that when the Plaintiffs shifted the focus of their lawsuit
from more general statements about demand and future growth to the
reserve depletion issue, they forgot to update the section on loss
causation from the prior version of the complaint. All of the
substantive allegations related to loss causation focus on the
company's announcements on Jan. 9, 2020 and Feb. 26, 2020 of
lower-than-expected 2019 sales, flat demand, and lower
utilization.

Although the January announcement included the news that Portola
took a $5 million charge to add to its return reserves for both
"catch up" and to account for expected future returns (which
perhaps could be characterized as a partial revelation), Judge
Chhabria finds that nothing in the announcement ties that charge
directly to product sold in 2018 or would give an investor cause to
specifically question the company's prior statements regarding its
2018 revenue. Moreover, the same section alleges that investors'
concerns over those two announcements caused Portola's stock to
drop; it does not state that any further drop was caused by the
more specific revelation of the depleted reserve for returns of
2018 product. Nor could it, because as noted above, the depleted
reserve was first revealed on Feb. 28, 2020 -- two days after the
end of the proposed class period on Feb. 26, 2020.

In sum, although the earlier announcements are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' new theory (particularly the part about the $5 million
"catch up" charge), Judge Chhabria concludes that overall, the
complaint does not present a coherent narrative on loss causation
stemming from the failure to disclose throughout 2019 how depleted
the reserve had become for product sold in 2018.

II. Securities Act Claims

To state a claim for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act, a plaintiff must allege a material
misrepresentation or omission in a registration statement or
prospectus filed in connection with a public stock offering. Unlike
Exchange Act claims, the Securities Act claims do not require a
plaintiff to allege scienter or loss causation.

Portola undertook a public stock offering in August 2019, between
the time it had announced its 2018 revenues and when it revealed
its depleted return reserve in February 2020. The offering was
underwritten by defendants Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Cowen, William
Blair, and Oppenheimer. The registration statement and prospectus
filed by Portola in connection with the public offering
incorporated by reference several prior filings that stated 2018
revenue without any accompanying disclosure of the depleted return
reserves. This included the company's Form 10-K 2018. The
registration statement therefore contained a materially misleading
statement by means of omission, and the motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims is denied.

Conclusion

Accepting as true the well-pled allegations in the complaint, Judge
Chhabria concludes that the Plaintiffs have articulated a highly
plausible theory of securities fraud. Nonetheless, the motion to
dismiss must be granted as to the Exchange Act claims, because the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged loss causation. The motion
to dismiss is denied as to the Securities Act claims. Dismissal of
the Exchange Act claims is with leave to amend, and any amended
complaint is due within 21 days of the Order. Because the decision
relies only on allegations and arguments raised in the complaint
and opposition brief, the Defendants' motion for leave to file a
sur-reply is denied.

Because the Plaintiffs have successfully stated a Securities Act
claim, and because they will almost certainly be able to fix the
loss causation allegations for their Exchange Act claim, Judge
Chhabria holds that the case will begin to move forward. A case
management conference is scheduled for Sept. 1, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. A
joint case management statement is due August 25, and it should
include a proposed schedule for litigating the case to trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tk58ebnv from Leagle.com.


PULSES LLC: Family Health Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HEALTH PHYSICAL MEDICINE, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. PULSES, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company, and PULSES, INC., a Maryland
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02095-SAG (D. Md., August
17, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a fax to the
Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine on or August 13, 2020 in an
attempt to advertise their business. The Plaintiff asserts that it
did not provide the Defendants with its "prior express invitation
or permission" to send the FAX ads. Moreover, the Defendant
purportedly faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles
advertisements without first receiving the recipients' prior
express invitation or permission, and without the required opt-out
language, says the suit.

The Defendants' unsolicited fax ads have allegedly caused harm to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in the form
of invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, nuisance, and
others. Thus, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover actual
monetary loss from the Defendants, attorneys' fees, enjoin the
Defendants from additional violations, pre-judgment interest,
costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants offer a "Visualization & Reporting
platform that risk-bearing entities need to master the intertwined
worlds of Risk Adjustment and Quality Metrics for all government
programs: ACA Commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Managed
Medicaid." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen H. Ring, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN H. RING, P.C.
          401 North Washington St., Suite 500
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Tel: (301) 563-9249
          Fax: (301) 563-9639
          E-mail: shr@ringlaw.us

                - and –

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algongquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Tel: (847) 368-1500
          Fax: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

                - and –

          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Tel: (513) 241-4722
          Fax: (513) 786-9227
          E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bumpus Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BUMPUS, DAVID GRITZ,
MICHELINE PEKER, and CHERYL ROWAN, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, v. REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.;
REALOGY INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS LLC; REALOGY GROUP LLC; REALOGY
SERVICES GROUP LLC; REALOGY BROKERAGE GROUP LLC (f/k/a NRT LLC);
and MOJO DIALING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03309-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the NDNCR Class and appointing the Plaintiff
      Sarah Bumpus as the class representative;

      "All persons in the United States who received two or more
      calls made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent using a
      Mojo, PhoneBurner, and/or Storm dialer in any 12-month
      period on a residential landline or cell phone number that
      appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least
      31 days for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to
      present;"

   2. certifying the Internal DNC Class and appointing
      Plaintiff Sarah Bumpus as the class representative;

      "All persons in the United States who received, in any 12-
      month period, two or more calls promoting Coldwell
      Banker's services and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated
      Agent to their residential landline or cell phone number,
      for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present.

  3. certifying the NDNCR Class and certifying the Prerecorded
      Message Class, and appointing Plaintiffs Cheryl Rowan and
      Micheline Peker as the class representatives:

      "All persons in the United States who received a call on
      their residential telephone line or cell phone number with
      an artificial or prerecorded message, as indicated by the
      following call disposition codes: (1) "Drop Message" (if
      using the Mojo dialer); (2) "ATTENDED_TRANSFER" (if using
      the Storm dialer); and (3) "VOICEMAIL" (if using a
      PhoneBurner dialer) in the call records listed in Appendix
      A and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent for the
      time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present;"

   4. certifying the Prerecorded Message Mojo Subclass and
      appointing Plaintiff Micheline Peker as the class
      representative thereof:

      "All persons in the United States who received a call on
      their residential telephone line or cell phone number with
      an artificial or prerecorded message, as indicated by the
      call disposition code "Drop Message" in the call records
      and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent using a
      Mojo dialer for the time period beginning June 11, 2015,
      to present;" and

   5. appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Reese LLP, and Kaufman
      P.A. as class counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B4uNS5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Sarah Bumpus, David Gritz, Micheline
Peker, and Cheryl Rowan, and the Proposed Classes, are:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Mark Clifford, Esq.
          Allison Parr, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  mclifford@tzlegal.com
                  aparr@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          rachel@kaufmanpa.com
          400 Northwest 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881

                - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 393-0070
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
                  mreese@reesellp.com

RING LLC: Jack Class Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California remands the case, BRANDON JACK, et
al., Plaintiffs v. RING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00544-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Francisco.

The Plaintiffs initially filed the putative class action against
the Defendant on Nov. 19, 2020, in San Francisco Superior Court.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Ring
video doorbells and Ring security cameras. Both the doorbell and
security camera integrate with a smartphone "app," allowing users
to view real-time and video recordings.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to disclose that in
order to record, play back, and view snapshots from the doorbell
and security camera, users have to pay an additional $3 fee per
month (or a yearly fee of $30). They assert that these functions
are "fundamental" to the products, and that without them, the
doorbell and security camera "lose much of their usefulness and
effectiveness." Although the boxes for the doorbell and security
camera identified their key features, the Plaintiffs allege that
they did not disclose the monthly or yearly fees. They further
allege that the Defendant's webpages also fail to disclose these
fees.

Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs bring causes of action for
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Sections 1750, et seq.; California's False Advertising Law, Cal.
Bus. & Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq.; and California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq.

The Plaintiffs also seek to represent several classes of California
consumers who purchased the Ring Video Doorbell 2 and the Ring
Floodlight Cam, both in store and on Defendant's website. They
request that the Court orders the Defendant to provide them with
the ability to use the recording, playback, and snapshot functions
without charge for the life of their devices.

Additionally, and as relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiffs
also ask that the Court enters a public injunction requiring the
Defendant to prominently disclose on the outside of the boxes of
its Ring video doorbell and security camera products, and on the
Ring website product pages for the products, that the video
recording, playback and snapshot features of the products will not
function unless the purchaser also buys the Protect Plan from Ring
for an additional fee of $3 per month or $30 per year, per device.

On Jan. 22, 2021, the Defendant removed the action to federal
court, claiming that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). In
the alternative, it also stated that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The
Plaintiffs now move to remand the action to San Francisco Superior
Court, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
under either CAFA or traditional diversity jurisdiction.

Discussion

A. CAFA Jurisdiction

Under CAFA, a class action may be removed if the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, the proposed class consists of more
than 100 members, and "any member of a class of plaintiffs is a
citizen of a State different from any defendant." Because just a
single plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from any
single defendant, CAFA "abandons the complete diversity rule for
covered class actions" in exchange for a minimal diversity
standard.

In the case, the parties dispute whether the Defendant can
establish minimum diversity. They appear to agree that the named
Plaintiffs and putative class members are all citizens of
California. However, the parties disagree about how to determine
the Defendant's citizenship.

The Defendant, a limited liability company, has its principal place
of business in California; is organized under the laws of Delaware;
and its member is a citizen of both Washington and Delaware. The
Plaintiffs contend that under CAFA, an LLC is an "unincorporated
association," whose citizenship should be determined by its
principal place of business -- in the case, California. Under this
interpretation, the Defendant could not meet even minimum
diversity.

The Defendant responds that CAFA did not alter the longstanding
rule under traditional diversity jurisdiction that an LLC's
citizenship is determined based on the citizenship of its members
-- in the case, Washington and Delaware.

Judge Gilliam holds that applying the traditional diversity rule --
considering an LLC a citizen of every state of which its members
are citizens -- would likely undermine this intent. He finds this
reasoning persuasive and adopts it in the case.

The Defendant cites several district court cases that determined an
LLC's citizenship based on the citizenship of its members, even
under CAFA. However, the Judge finds that none of these cases
grapple with the language of Section 1332(d)(10). Rather, they
appear to assume -- without discussion -- that CAFA did not change
how courts evaluate an LLC's citizenship. It is not even clear if
the parties raised this argument in any of these cases. But, judges
in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits have suggested that CAFA did
intend to change the traditional diversity rule for LLCs.

The Judge therefore finds that the Defendant's citizenship is based
on its principal place of business. And because there is no dispute
that its principal place of business is California, the Defendant
cannot establish minimum diversity under CAFA.

B. Traditional Diversity Jurisdiction

The Defendant's inability to establish CAFA jurisdiction does not,
on its own, preclude federal jurisdiction, as "federal diversity
jurisdiction still exists for other class actions that satisfy the
general diversity jurisdiction provision of Section 1332(a)." Judge
Gilliam therefore considers the Defendant's alternative argument
that the Court has jurisdiction under traditional diversity.

The Plaintiffs argue that their individual monetary claims for
relief are minimal.  They further argue that the Defendant may not
aggregate Plaintiffs' individual damages to reach the $75,000
amount in controversy.

The Defendant contends that the non-aggregation rule does not apply
to the Plaintiffs' requested public injunctive relief. It appears
to suggest that each Plaintiff seeks public injunctive relief
without regard to the class, such that the Court may consider the
entire cost to Defendant of complying with the injunction.

Judge Gilliam holds that the Court recognized that "in suits
involving equitable relief, the dollar value of the object in
controversy may be minimal to the plaintiff, but costly to the
defendant." Nevertheless, it reasoned that "where the equitable
relief sought is but a means through which the individual claims
may be satisfied, the ban on aggregation applies with equal force
to the equitable as well as the monetary relief."

The Ninth Circuit concluded that "the right asserted by plaintiffs
is the right of individual future consumers to be protected from
Ford's allegedly deceptive advertising which is said to injure them
in the amount of $11 each," an amount below the amount in
controversy threshold. In short, the Ninth Circuit precluded
district courts from considering the entire cost to defendant of
complying with any requested injunctive relief.

Yet that is precisely what the Defendant is asking the Court to do
in the case: Consider the total cost to the Defendant of changing
all its packaging in future. Judge Gilliam rejects the Defendant's
attempt to circumvent the Ninth Circuit's opinion in now v. Ford
Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1977), and finds that it has
not established that the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement
for traditional diversity jurisdiction is met in the case.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Gilliam grants the motion and remands the case
to San Francisco Superior Court. The Clerk is directed to remand
the case and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/254uuwah from Leagle.com.


SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Bid Class Certification Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DURHAM, et al., v.
SACHS ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04506-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted in
      part and denied in part. The action is certified for the
      Rule 23(b)(3) Class and Subclasses as to wage and hour
      claims brought pursuant to the Cal. Labor Code and the
      UCL.

   2. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B),

      a. The Unpaid Wages Class (Security Time) is defined as
         "all non-exempt employees of or worked for Sachs
         Electric Company who worked on the construction of the
         California Flats Solar Project at any time within the
         period from July 25, 2014 through the date of class
         certification who did not ride the bus and were not
         paid for all time waiting in line to go through and
         going through the mandatory exit security process."

      b. The Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Travel Time) is
         defined as "all non-exempt persons who were employees
         of or worked for Sachs Electric Company on the
         construction of the California Flats Solar Project at
         any time within the period from July 25, 2014 through
         the date of class certification who did not ride the
         bus and were not paid for all time traveling from the
         badging-in location at the security gate to when they
         began to be paid and from when they stopped being paid
         to when they arrived back at badging-out location at
         the security gate."

      c. The Unpaid Wages Class (Paragraph 5(A) Travel Time) is  
         defined as "all non-exempt persons who were employees  
         of or worked for Sachs Electric Company on the  
         construction of the California Flats Solar Project at  
         any time within the period from July 25, 2014 through  
         the date of class certification who did not ride the  
         bus and were not paid for all time traveling from the  
         badging-in location at the security gate to when they  
         began to be paid and from when they stopped being paid  
         to when they arrived back at badging-out location at  
         the security gate."

      d. The Termination Pay Subclass is defined as "all member  
         of Class 1, 2, or 3 whose employment with Sachs
         Electric Company terminated within the period beginning
         July 25,  2015 to the date of class certification."

      e. The Wage Statement Subclass is defined as "all member
         of Class 1, 2, or 3 whose received wage statements from
         Sachs Electric Company during the period beginning July
         25, 2017 to the date of class certification."

   3. The class issues are (1) Whether any of the exit Security  
      Time constituted compensable "hours worked" under
      California law; (2) Whether the Travel Time between the
      Security Gate and the parking lots constituted compensable
      "hours worked" under California law; and (3) Whether the
      Security Gate was the "first location where the employee's
      presence is required" for purposes of Paragraph 5(A) of
      Wage Order 16.

   4. The Court appoints William Durham as the class
      representative.

   5. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court appoints the Dion-Kindem
      Law Firm and the Blanchard Law Group, APC as co-class
      counsel.

   6. Counsel are directed to meet and confer concerning the
      manner, form and content of notice to be provided to the
      absent class members, and to submit a proposal concerning
      the same to the Court in writing no later than September
      15, 2021.

The Court said, "The Court concludes there is sufficient
numerosity. There are approximately 450 class members who worked as
Sachs employees at the California Flats Solar during the class
period. The Court also finds that Durham has satisfied the
commonality requirement. Durham’s claims satisfy the low
threshold of Rule 23(a)(2). The Court is satisfied that neither
Durham nor Durham's counsel has any conflicts of interest and that
each will act vigorously on behalf of the class. There is also
sufficient evidence that carpoolers were subject to the
restrictions of the Access Road. In sum, the Court finds that the
common security and drive time policies evinced by Durham properly
encompass carpoolers. The alternative to class action would likely
mean an abandonment of claims by most class members since the
amount of individual recovery is relatively small. As such, the
Court finds the superiority requirement met."

This wage and hour class and PAGA action arises out of Plaintiff
Durham and the proposed class members' employment by the Defendant
Sachs at the California Flats Solar Project. Durham seeks to
certify five California classes (three classes and two subclasses)
under Rule 23(b)(3). For each class, Durham seeks to bring the
following claims: (1) failure to pay wages for hours worked; (2)
wage statement and record-keeping violations; and (3) failure to
pay waiting time wages.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B11zUe at no extra charge.[CC]


SELECTQUOTE INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of October 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Aug. 17 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York captioned Hartel v.
SelectQuote, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-06903) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
SelectQuote, Inc. ("SelectQuote" or "the Company") (NYSE: SLQT)
securities between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until October 15, 2021
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

On May 11, 2021, SelectQuote held a conference call in connection
with its third quarter 2021 financial results during which it
disclosed that its fourth quarter results would be impacted by a
"negative cohort and tail adjustment" due to "lower second-term
persistency for the 2019 cohort."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.50, or 20%, to
close at $21.90 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that SelectQuote's
2019 cohort was underperforming; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased SelectQuote securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than October 15, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
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. If you purchased SelectQuote securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact 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]


SELECTQUOTE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Selectquote, Inc. ("Selectquote") (NYSE: SLQT)
between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/selectquote-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18637&wire=5

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

Selectquote, Inc. NEWS - SLQT NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) SelectQuote's
2019 cohort was underperforming; (2) as a result, the Company's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Selectquote securities between
February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/selectquote-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18637&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

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

SMALLCAKES STEELE: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRANDA HATHAWAY, by and
through biological mother, natural guardian, next friend and
guardian ad litem ANGELA HATHAWAY, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. SMALLCAKES STEELE CREEK, LLC,
SMALLCAKES BALLANTYNE, LLC, IAN BOWLEG and AYANNA BOWLEG, Case No.
3:21-cv-290 (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      ("FLSA") Collective Action and Facilitate Notice Pursuant
      to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. authorizing then to send initial and subsequent Court-
      supervised Notices to:

      "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who
      are or were employed by Smallcakes Steele Creek, LLC,
      Smallcakes Ballantyne, LLC, Ian Bowleg and/or Ayanna
      Bowleg beginning June 16, 2018 to the present;" and

   3. approving their proposed Notice of Collective Action
      Lawsuit and the corresponding Consent to Become
      Party Plaintiff form.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants regularly retained all
credit card tips earned by her and all others similarly situated
("Potential Plaintiffs"), in violation of the FLSA and federal
regulations.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mt7iyl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNER LAW, PLLC
          602 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE BAG TAVERN, LLC, CROSSTOWN PUB AND GRILL INC., TOLON LLC, JL
HOLDINGS INC., ONE LOUDER, LLC, JPM HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, and SAC
CORP., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, Case No. 2:21-cv-00916-JPS (E.D. Wis., Aug.
4, 2021) is class action against the Defendant for refusing to
provide Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority,
Contamination or Sue and Labor coverage for losses caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant executive orders by state and
local governments that have required the suspension of business.

The Plaintiffs are small business owners that operate restaurants,
bars, and other establishments that rely on the ability to provide
indoor service to customers. To protect their businesses in the
event that they suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons
outside of their control, the Plaintiffs purchased all-risk
insurance policies from Society, including "Business Income"
coverage, as set forth in Society's Businessowner's Special
Property Coverage Form (Form TBP2 05-15) ("Special Property
Coverage Form").

Society markets itself as offering broad "best-in-class" coverage
to businesses in the hospitality industry, and insurance brokers
selling policies to potential Society policyholders touted Society
as offering broader coverage than its competitors. Indeed, unlike
many policies that provide Business Income (also referred to as
"business interruption") coverage, Society's Special Property
Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any
exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases,
says the suit.

Since March 2020, Plaintiffs' ordinary business operations have
been interrupted by the spread of the novel coronavirus, the
ensuing COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting public health orders
announced by state and local governments. These interruptions
present an existential threat to these small businesses.

Despite Society's express promise in its policies to cover
Plaintiffs' Business Income losses when they lose the use of their
property for ordinary business operations due to conditions beyond
their control, Society has not done so. Instead, Society looked at
its potential exposure and made an internal decision, before
coronavirus was widely detected in the United States, that it would
refuse to pay any claim that it could link to the pandemic that
public health officials feared was coming, the suit added.

As a result of Society's alleged wrongful denial of coverage,
Plaintiffs file this Class Action Complaint for a declaratory
judgment establishing that they are entitled to receive the benefit
of the insurance coverage they purchased, for indemnification of
the business income losses they have sustained, for breach of
contract, and for bad faith claims handling under the laws of the
jurisdictions in which Plaintiffs operate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 286-2302
          E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street, #3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com

STATE FARM: Class Status Partly Granted in Elegant 'Insurance' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a
LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v.STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Raymond A. Jackson entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      motion for class certification;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a declaratory
      Judgment Class;

   3. certifying the following class:

      "All persons or entities in the Commonwealth of Virginia
      with a Businessowners insurance policy issued by State
      Farm on Form CMP-4100, including a Loss of Income and
      Extra Expense endorsement on Form CMP 4705.1 or CMP
      4705.2, or with the same or substantially similar terms,
      in effect at any time between March 23, 2020 through June
      30, 2020, and who submitted claims for business income
      losses and/or extra expenses incurred as a result of
      social distancing, closure and/or stay-at-home orders
      issued from March 2020 forward, which Defendants denied."

   4. directing the Defendants to provide to Plaintiff's counsel
      the names, last known addresses, home and mobile phone
      numbers, and email addresses of all potential members of
      the certified class within 15 days of the date of this
      Order; and

   5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel shall circulate notices
      of pendency and consent to joinder to all potential
      members of the certified class upon the Court's approval
      of the form of notice;

On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit. On June 21,
2020, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In its amended
complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Elegant has owned and
operated Light Stream Spa since 2016, which provides therapeutic
massages in Virginia Beach, Virginia. On July 22, 2019, State Farm
sold an insurance policy to Plaintiff. The Policy issued to
Plaintiff is an "all risk" commercial property policy, which covers
loss or damage to the covered premises resulting from all risks
other than those expressly excluded. The Policy was effective
through July 22, 2020 and Plaintiff paid an annual premium of
$475.00.

The Policy includes coverage of "Loss of Income and Extra Expense."
The standard form for Loss of Income and Extra Expense Coverage is
identified as CMP-4705.1. Under the provision, the policy provides
for the loss of business income sustained as a result of the
suspension of business operations which includes action of a civil
authority that prohibits access to the Plaintiff's business
property. The Policy also states that it does not cover Exclusions
for "Fungi, Virus or Bacteria," "Ordinance or Law," "Acts or
Decisions," or "Consequential Loss."

On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued a National
Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
Outbreak. On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
issued guidance recommending the implementation of "social
distancing" policies to prevent the spread of the a novel strain of
coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 ("COVID-19"). On March 20, 2020, Governor
Northam and the Virginia State Health Commissioner declared a
public health emergency and restricted the number of patrons
permitted in restaurants, fitness centers and theaters to ten or
less. On March 23, 2020, Governor Northam issued Executive Order
No. 53, which ordered the closure of "recreational and
entertainment businesses," including "spas" and "massage parlors."
On March 23, 2020, Governor Northam issued Proclamation No. 9994,
85 Fed. Reg. 15337 (March 18, 2020). "Declaring a National
Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
Outbreak." ("Presidential COVID-19 Proclamation").

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mEbDyP at no extra charge.[CC]

STEMILT AG: Garcia Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA, as
an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, and JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as an individual and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Salvador Mendoza, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification;

   2. certifying the following class "FLCA Subclass," under Rule
      23(b)(3):

      "All Mexican nationals employed at Stemilt Ag Services,
      LLC in Washington, pursuant to both the 2017 H-2A contract
      from January 16, 2017 through August 11, 2017 and the H-2A
      contract from August 14, 2017 through November 15, 2017;"

      for the purposes of litigating class members claims under
      Wash. Rev. Code section 19.30.110(7) only.

   3. appointing Columbia Legal Services and Keller Rohrback
      L.L.P. as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and

   4. designating the Plaintiffs Gilberto Gomez Garcia and
      Jonathan Gómez Rivera as class representatives.

   5. expediting the Defendant 10 days from service of the
      proposed Notice and notice plan to serve and file any
      objections; and

   6. expediting the Plaintiffs 5 days from service of any
      objection to serve and file a reply.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WcO7gZ at no extra charge.[CC]

SUPERCUTS INC: Delamarter Seeks Certification of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DELAMARTER,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUPERCUTS, INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-03158-DSD-TNL (D. Minn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action, specifically
      under Rule 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing the Plaintiff Delamarter as class
      representative;

   3. appointing the law firms of Carlson Lynch, LLP, Chestnut
      Cambronne PA, and Rogers Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC
      as class counsel; and

   4. directing the parties to meet and confer and submit
      proposals regarding the notice required under Rule 23(c)
      (2).

The class Plaintiff proposes to certify is as follows:

   "All persons who, on or after November 19, 2017, were
   provided a receipt at the point of sale or transaction from a
   Supercuts-branded salon displaying more than the last five
   digits of the person’s credit card or debit card number."

Supercuts is a hair salon franchise with more than 2,400 locations
across the United States. The company was founded in the San
Francisco Bay Area in 1975, by Geoffrey M. Rappaport and Frank E.
Emmett. The company's first location was in Albany, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UFnd0K
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5 th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-322-9243

               - and -

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
          Christopher R. Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South - Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300

               - and -

          T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          T.A.C. Hargrove, II, Esq.
          ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK &
          BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Approve Gibson's Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRI GIBSON, and all other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiffs v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00318-ODW (SPx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement.

Plaintiff Gibson brings the diversity action against Defendants
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Services, LLC (together, "Swift") under California's Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). With her sole cause of action under
PAGA, Gibson alleges that Swift violated labor laws regarding meal
and rest periods, overtime wages, accurate wage statements, and
waiting time penalties.

Ms. Gibson initially filed the lawsuit as a putative class or
collective action, but she currently asserts only a single cause of
action for violations of PAGA. She alleges that Swift violated
California Labor Code sections 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, and 1194
by failing to provide (1) compliant meal and rest periods, (2)
premium pay for non-compliant meal and rest periods, (3) overtime
wages, (4) accurate wage statements, and (5) waiting time
penalties. Gibson brings her PAGA claim as a proxy for the State of
California and on behalf of other similarly aggrieved employees.

The motion is Gibson's second motion to approve the Settlement. In
the first motion, Gibson maintained that Swift was liable for a
total of $3,702,972 in PAGA violations, but the parties stipulated
to settling for $288,4201, inclusive of attorneys' fees, costs, a
service award, a settlement administrator fee, and payments to the
Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and the aggrieved
employees.

The Court denied the motion, principally because there was no
evidence that the parties had provided the LWDA with a copy of the
motion. It also noted the paucity of evidence supporting the
proposed settlement award.

The Proposed Settlement Gibson filed in connection with the Renewed
Motion appears to be the same one submitted with the initial
motion. The Settlement identifies a set of aggrieved employees
defined as "all persons who have been, or currently are, employed
by Defendants or any related corporate entity in California during
the Relevant Period and who hold or held, job positions which
Defendants classify as hourly and/or non-exempt non-driver
positions." There are "approximately 232" aggrieved employees, and
the "Relevant Period" spans from Feb. 18, 2019, to April 30, 2021,
a total of just over 25 months.

Under the Settlement terms, Gibson "may apply for up to one-third
of the Settlement Consideration as reasonably attorneys' fees" and
"may also apply to recover actual litigation costs from the
Settlement Consideration." She would receive a service award of
$7,500, and the fee to be paid to a settlement administrator is
estimated to be no greater than $10,000, with any unused fluids
reverting to the PAGA penalty fluid. Then, 75% of the remaining
Settlement Consideration would be paid to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA"), and 25% would be distributed pro-rata
among the allegedly aggrieved employees. Gibson represents that
this would result in an average recovery of $179.71 per aggrieved
employee, which she claims "is a relatively significant amount in a
PAGA case."

Presently, Gibson moves for approval of the Settlement, as follows:
$96,140 in attorneys' fees (one-third of the Settlement
Consideration); $15,000 in litigation costs; $7,500 service award
to Gibson; $3,000 settlement administrator costs to a third-party,
Phoenix Class Action Settlement Administrators; $125,085 in PAGA
penalties (75% of the remaining funds), paid to the LWDA; and
$41,695 in PAGA penalties (25% of the remaining fluids),
distributed pro rata among the allegedly aggrieved employees.

Analysis

As a preliminary matter, Judge Wright holds that Gibson has cured
the prior LWDA notice deficiency by providing evidence that her
counsel uploaded the settlement documents to the LWDA's website the
same day the motion was filed. The remaining issue is whether the
record supports the conclusion that the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

Judge Wright again finds that there is insufficient evidence to
support a finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable. There
are crucial logical and informational gaps that render the Court
incapable of making an informed determination that the settlement
is fair.

The first gap concerns the alleged overtime pay violations. Gibson
contends that Swift failed to properly calculate overtime pay by
failing to include employees' non-discretionary bonuses in the
calculation of employees' regular rate of pay. This caused Gibson's
regular rate of pay to be artificially deflated, which, M. turn,
caused Gibson and other Swift employees to receive less overtime
pay than that to which they were statutorily entitled.

The next logical gap concerns the parties' calculation of the rest
break violation penalties. Gibson explains that the parties
calculated the 76.2% violation rate for the meal (not rest) break
violations by using Swift's timecard data to calculate what
percentage of employee timesheets suggested that a meal break was
not given at the proper time or for the proper amount of time.
There is nothing facially objectionable about this approach for the
meal break calculations. However, the concern with the rest break
violations is that there is no basis for applying this 76.2%
figure, which was calculated for meal break violations, to the rest
break calculations.

Judge Wright holds that Gibson has not presented an equivalent
timesheet analysis for the rest break violations, and he will not
assume without any evidence or justification that the meal break
violation rate and the rest break violation rate are the same. For
the motion to be granted, he says, Gibson must provide the Court
with a reasonable basis for the parties' calculation of rest break
penalties, and in the case, using meal break violation rates as a
proxy for rest break violation rates is not reasonable.

Finally, and more generally, Gibson has omitted key figures,
assumptions, and calculations from the moving papers. Even
accepting Gibson's figures, the calculations do not yield $572,553.
The parties are using other figures or assumptions. In the case, so
that the Court may determine if the settlement is fair and
reasonable, Gibson should provide all operative data points and
assumptions and should describe the calculations that yield the
given exposure values based on 232 aggrieved employees, 9,614 pay
periods, and a 59.6% violation rate.

The motion is denied without prejudice. Judge Wright reiterates
that the proposed settlement may very well be reasonable. But he
will not make this finding until the basis for the calculations is
clear and capable of meaningful analysis. In filing their second
renewed settlement approval motion, the parties should ensure that
all relevant figures, assumptions, and calculations are included,
so that the Court can follow those same steps with its own
calculator and arrive at the same amounts set forth in the moving
papers. Additionally, because the case is settling, the Judge
vacates all pretrial and trial dates in the matter.

Accordingly, the Renewed Motion is denied without prejudice.
Gibson's Second Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is
due by Oct. 11, 2021. All pretrial and trial dates in the matter
are vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yubrurj7 from Leagle.com.


TENNESSEE: Class Suit Filing Over Federal Unemployment Benefits Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Case, writing for FOX 17 News reports that new developments
in the federal class-action lawsuit against Governor Bill Lee and
the Tennessee Labor Commissioner for ending federal unemployment
benefits early.

At a case management hearing on Aug. 17 FOX 17 News learned state
attorneys have until Sept. 2 to file motions.

FOX 17 News was first to report last month that Tennessee would be
the seventh state sued over ending federal unemployment early.

The state is expected to challenge the lawsuit being filed in
federal court, but class-action attorney Gary Blackburn says he
could still file the case in chancery court.

"You cannot sue a state for money damages in federal court,"
Blackburn said. "So, what we've done is sued state officials for
injunctive relief. In other words an order demanding that the
governor not interfere with this money being paid to our clients
and other people similarly situated. In other words, we're seeking
to enjoin him from preventing the money from coming. It's probably
at least $400 million."

People in Indiana and Maryland have sued and won to get their
federal unemployment benefits reinstated.

Governor Lee has said ending the federal supplement would
incentivize people to get back to work. [GN]

TI GROUP: Faces Brady Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY BRADY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TI GROUP AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-11905-AJT-CI (E.D. Mich., August 17,
2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant
as a result of its alleged unlawful pay policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between approximately
November 2020 and July 2021 as an hourly-paid and non-exempt
manufacturing employee to perform a floating machine runner duty.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate him
and other similarly situated manufacturing employees for all hours
they performed work for the Defendant, specifically for the they
spent performing duties between their scheduled start and stop
times which were integral and indispensable to their principal
activities. As a result, despite frequently working more than 40
hours per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees did not receive their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and
preserve records of the unpaid work that its manufacturing
employees performed before and after their scheduled times, the
Plaintiff asserts.

Ti Group Automotive Systems, L.L.C. manufactures automotive fluid
systems and operates manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
          Tel: (248) 542-6300
          Fax: (248) 542-6301
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and –

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com

TIVA HEALTHCARE: Verbal Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY DAWN VERBAL v. TIVA
HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 20-60695-CIV-ALTMAN (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order:

   1. granting Verbal's motion for class certification;

   2. defining the class as follows:

      "All Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists who
      contracted with Defendants, nationwide, and who: (1) were
      contractually guaranteed a certain number of weekly hours,
      weekly shifts of a specified duration, or certain specific
      dates of shifts for a particular number of hours on each
      date; (2) had contracts containing a written notice period
      before either party could cancel; and (3) had their
      contracts and/or assignments canceled or terminated
      between March and June 2020, without the contractual
      notice period elapsing between written notice and
      cancellation/termination;"

   3. appointing Kelly Dawn Verbal as the Class Representative;
      and

   4. appointing the Counsel for the Plaintiff, C. Ryan Morgan
      and Angeli Murthy of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as Class
      Counsel.

Kelly Dawn Verbal worked as a Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetist (CRNA) for Envision Physician Services -- one of three
related corporations that provide clinicians for healthcare systems
throughout the country. Her employment contract required Envision
to give her notice before canceling her work assignments. But, in
March 2020 -- just as the Covid-19 pandemic was pushing the nation
into quarantine -- Envision unilaterally canceled Verbal’s work
assignment without prior notice and informed her that she wouldn't
be receiving the guaranteed hourly compensation she was promised.
So, Verbal sued Envision and its two related corporations -- TIVA
Healthcare and Sheridan Healthcare -- for violating her employment
contract by failing to provide her with the notice (she says) she
was due.

As it turns out, Verbal wasn’t alone. At least 60 other CRNAs
have had their assignments similarly canceled -- all (allegedly)
without the notice their contracts with the Defendants required.
Now, seeking to consolidate the CRNAs’ claims, Verbal has filed a
motion for class certification -- which the Defendants
unsurprisingly oppose. In the Defendants' view, class certification
would be improper because (they say) Verbal's claims aren’t
typical of the other CRNAs' claims, because the CRNAs' claims don't
turn on common questions of law or fact and because class-wide
issues don't predominate. We disagree and granting Verbal's motion
for class certification, the Court said.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B93Cpd at no extra charge.[CC]

TRIPLE CANOPY: Butterfield Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
De'Sean L. Butterfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Triple Canopy, Inc. and
Constellis Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03610, (E.D.
Pa., August 13, 2021), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968
and the Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance.

Defendants own and operate several security and military
contracting companies, performing related security services through
a unified operation with common labor relations, personnel and
facilities, for a common business purpose. Butterfield has been
employed as a Security Guard at the Naval Support Activity
Philadelphia. Butterfield performed in excess of 40 hours of
compensable work and was uncompensated for approximately 27-30
minutes of pre and post shift work each working day, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Goodley, Esq.
      Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
      GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
      1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 394-0541
      Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com
             ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

             - and -

      Franklin J. Rooks, Jr., Esq.
      MORGAN ROOKS, PC
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 104
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 874-8999
      Email: fjrooks@morganrooks.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Omega Hospital Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMEGA HOSPITAL, LLC, v.
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., AND UNITED HEALTHCARE OF
LOUISIANA, INC. MAG. JUDGE ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, Case No.
3:16-cv-00560-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the instant lawsuit as a class action pursuant
      to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following
      class:

      "All healthcare providers in the State of Louisiana who,
      from 10 years prior to the filing date of this action to
      its final termination, provided or will provide out-of
      network healthcare services or supplies to patients
      covered under healthcare plans governed by Employee
      Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and insured
      or administered by United, and who, after receiving
      reimbursement pursuant to an assignment from a United plan
      member, were subject either to United’s unilateral
      recovery of all or a part of such payment by cross-plan
      offset or offset against other funds belonging or owed to
      the healthcare provider;"

   2. appointing them as representatives for the class:

   3. appointing Paul A. Lea, Jr., Stephen B. Murray, Jr. and
      Arthur M. Murray to serve as class counsel.

Omega Hospital is a specialty surgical hospital serving Greater New
Orleans and Gulf South.

United Healthcare Services was founded in 1974. The company's line
of business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WeqLba
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          701 Poydras Street, No. 4250
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul A. Lea, Jr., Esq.
          PAUL LEA
          724 E. Boston Street
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: 985-292-2300
          Facsimile: 985-249-6006
          E-mail paul@paullea.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Errol J. King, Jr., Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          II City Plaza 400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 376-0207
          Facsimile: (225) 381-9197
          E-mail: errol.king@phelps.com

               - and -

          Kevin D. Feder, Esq.
          Amanda L. Genovese, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: Agenovese@omm.com
                  kfeder@omm.com

VOLUNTEER HOME: Underpays Home Healthcare Workers, Johnson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VENITHER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOLUNTEER HOME CARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01118 (W.D. Tenn., August 17, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and travel time compensation pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since 2020 as a
home healthcare worker, who provides support to the Defendant's
clients.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint alleging the Defendant of
failing to pay her and other similarly situated home healthcare
worker all of their overtime compensation. The Defendant
purportedly underpaid the Plaintiff for the period from July 16,
2021 to July 31, 2021. Also, the Defendant did not include the time
spent traveling between the Defendant's clients in the calculation
of overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated home healthcare workers, the Plaintiff says.

Volunteer Home Care, Inc. provides in-home healthcare services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Tel: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: mfoster@marknfoster.com

                - and –

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Settlement in Bitzko Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTY BITZKO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS
CO., LPA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00458 (BKS/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.),
Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York granted the Parties' motion for final approval
of the Class Settlement Agreement and Release between Plaintiff
Bitzko, individually and as representative of the class, and
Defendant WWR, and motion for attorney fees.

Background

Following summary judgment, two claims remained in the case: (1)
Plaintiff Bitzko's individual claim that Defendant Weltman,
Weinberg & Reis ("WWR" or "Defendant"), violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
sending her a debt collection letter on law firm letterhead even
though WWR attorneys were not meaningfully involved in its
creation; and (2) the Class Action claim that the Defendant failed
to provide a complete notice of the "amount of debt" owed, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g. The Plaintiff has notified
the Court that she has settled her individual claim under Section
1692e. Further, on April 16, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved
settlement of the "amount of debt" Class Action claim and ordered
notice to class members.

Presently before the Court are the Parties' (1) motion for final
approval of the Class Settlement Agreement and Release between
Plaintiff Bitzko, individually and as representative of the class,
and Defendant WWR; and (2) motion for attorney fees.  Judge Sannes
held a telephonic fairness hearing on Aug. 10, 2021.

Discussion

A. Settlement Class

The Plaintiffs previously sought and received class certification
under Rule 23. The Court determined that the proposed settlement
class satisfies Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and at
least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). The Court further
appointed the Plaintiff's counsel as the Class Counsel and the
named Plaintiff as the Class Representative. As of the date of the
Order, no facts have been presented to indicate that the
preliminary determination was incorrect or erroneous. Thus, for the
reasons set forth in the Court's prior certification orders, Judge
Sannes granted final certification of the Settlement Class.

B. Procedural Fairness

The case's history demonstrates that the parties reached the
Settlement only after engaging in thorough investigation and
discovery, permitting each side to assess the potential risks of
continued litigation, and lengthy settlement discussions. Further,
the Settlement was reached as a result of arm's-length negotiations
between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful exchange of
information and discovery. Accordingly, the Judge concludes a
finding or procedural fairness is warranted.

C. Substantive Fairness

1. Grinnell Factors

In evaluating a class action settlement, courts in the Second
Circuit generally consider the nine factors set forth in City of
Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). The
Grinnell factors are (1) the complexity, expense, and likely
duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the
settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5)
the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the
class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendant to
withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of
the settlement fund in light of the best possible recover; and (9)
the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible
recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.

Judge Sannes finds that all of the Grinnell and Rule 23(e)(2)
factors weigh in favor of granting final approval of the Settlement
Agreement. First, litigation through trial would delay the
resolution of the case. Second, the response to the settlement has
been positive. Third, discovery has progressed sufficiently to
permit the parties to recommend settlement; as discussed, the only
discovery remaining concerns an updated financial disclosure by the
Defendant. Fourth, in weighing the risks of establishing liability,
class treatment, and damages, the court "must only weigh the
likelihood of success by the Plaintiff class against the relief
offered by the settlement." Seventh, the amount of the Settlement,
$80,000, weighs strongly in favor of final approval. The eighth and
ninth Grinnell factors favor final approval. Accordingly, the
Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness.

2. Rule 23(e)(2) Requirements

Judge Sannes concludes that the Rule 23(e)(2) requirements also
favor approval. First the Class Representative and the Class have,
at all times, been adequately represented. Second, the settlement
negotiations were done fairly at arm's length. Finally, the
settlement amount and proposed distribution of funds provides
equitable relief to each class member. Accordingly, the Judge finds
that all of the Rule 23(e)(2) factors and Grinnell factors have
been satisfied.

D. Award of Fees and Costs to Class Counsel and Service Awards to
Class Representatives

The Class Counsel seek $60,000 for attorney fees and costs,
separate from the Class Recovery of $80,000 and a $1,000 service
award to the Plaintiff.

Judge Sannes finds that the amount of fees requested is fair and
reasonable. She awards the Class Counsel $60,000 for attorneys'
fees and costs. And because of the size of the Class, the amount of
recovery made available by the Settlement, and the Plaintiff's
efforts, the Plaintiff, as the Class Representative, merits an
award of $1,000.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Sannes granted the Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement and the Joint Motion for Attorney
Fees. She dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice and the
Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment. The terms of the
Settlement Agreement are incorporated into the Order and that Court
retains exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and the Settlement
Class members to enforce the terms and provisions of the Agreement
and the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Final Settlement
Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9nphs8ym from
Leagle.com.

Craig B. Sanders -- csanders@sanderslaw.group -- Barshay Sanders,
PLLC, in Garden City, New York, for Plaintiff and Class.

Glenn M. Fjermedal -- gfjermedal@davidsonfink.com -- Davidson Fink,
LLP, in Rochester, New York, for Defendant.


[*] Canada Courts Approve LIB Settlement Funds Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP, Sotos LLP, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman and
Belleau Lapointe, s.e.n.c.r.l. on Aug. 17 announced court approval
of a protocol for the distribution of settlement funds in the
Canadian lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) price-fixing class action.
The class action alleges price-fixing in the market for LIBs and
certain products containing LIBs (LIB Products). The class action
was commenced in 2013.

Settlements totalling $21.3 million have been reached with seven
defendant groups. The settled defendants do not admit any
wrongdoing or liability. The Ontario and Quebec courts approved the
settlements and a protocol for distribution of settlement funds.  

"The settlements represent significant recovery for Canadian
consumers and businesses," said Linda J. Visser of Siskinds LLP in
London. "We encourage affected Canadians to apply for settlement
benefits to recover money they should never have been charged in
the first place. We have designed a claims process that is easy to
use -- particularly for consumers."

Anyone who purchased LIBs or LIB Products in Canada between January
1, 2000 and January 1, 2012 is eligible to claim settlement
benefits. Individuals can claim for undocumented purchases. Subject
to further court order, undocumented claims will be paid $20.
Claims can be filed online at https://batteriessettlement.ca/ on or
before December 17, 2021. More information about the settlements,
the distribution of settlement funds and the claims process can be
found online at https://batteriessettlement.ca/ or by calling the
claims administrator at 1-866-726-4080.

                        About Class Counsel

Siskinds LLP is a pioneer in class action lawsuits and has been
recognized as a top-tier Canadian firm by the Chambers and
Partners, a global legal review organization, in their 2021 guide.
The class actions team, comprised of 25 lawyers in Ontario and
Quebec, act exclusively for plaintiffs. Learn more about Siskinds
at www.siskinds.com.

CFM is a boutique law firm based in Vancouver specializing in class
actions, aviation accident litigation and product liability
litigation, on behalf of plaintiffs. Learn more about CFM at
www.cfmlawyers.ca.

Belleau Lapointe is a boutique law firm based in Montréal
specializing in class actions on behalf of plaintiffs and in
commercial litigation. Learn more about Belleau Lapointe at
www.belleaulapointe.com.

Sotos Class Actions is a recognized leader in class action
litigation in Canada. Sotos Class Actions' team take on complex and
challenging class actions across all industries and prosecute them
to conclusion. Learn more about Sotos LLP at
https://sotosclassactions.com/cases. [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 ***