/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211015.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 201

                            Headlines

ADIDAS AMERICA: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Suit Remanded to California State Court
AFFINITY WHOLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kovach Suit Claims
AGRANA FRUIT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Complete Discovery Entered

AMERICAHEALTH CARITAS: Bristow Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes
AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Quality Sea Food Sues Over Oil Spill
ANADARKO E & P: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of UP Strip Landowners

ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina, et al., Seek to Certify Class
ARGENT TRUST: Robertson Sues to Remedy ERISA Violations
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Francavillas Seek to Certify Class Action
AXEL PROTECTION: Jalil Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
BETH BERRY: ACCI Seeks Extension to File Petition for Review

BETTER MORTGAGE: Seeks Denial of Dominguez Class Status Bid
BLOOM ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hunt Securities Class Suit
BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Suit Gets Conditional Certification
CARMAX AUTO: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California
CASH ADVANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit

CHULA VISTA INC: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Sartin Suit
COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
CONDUENT BUSINESS: Carnley Class Certification Reply Due Oct. 25
CONTAINER STORE: Cervantes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Pit Row Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit Affirmed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Edwards Labor Suit Underway
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Labor Related Class Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez Settlement Awaits Court's Initial OK
COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora and Umadat Class Suits Underway

CREDIT BUREAU: Myers Seeks to Certify Class Action
CREE INC: Wedra Seeks Certification of Class Action
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Benson Sues Over Misleading Statement
DELAVAL INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses
DIRECT OFFICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Souza Suit Says

DONNA KARAN: Dahlin Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
DRESSER LLC: Court Enters Coordinated Discovery Order in Barret
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Seeks to Certify Two Classes
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Richardson Sues Over False Representation
ENERGAGE LLC: Court Enters Initial Scheduling Order in Cordes Suit

FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Continued to May 6, 2022
FIRST WATCH: Love Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Minimum Wages
FPI MANAGMENT: Morris Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Seeks Certification of Class Action
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Reloj Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages

GROCERY OUTLET: Chavis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS: Kuchar Wins Class Certification Bid
HEALTHY PAWS: Modification of Scheduling Order in Benanav Sought
HUGO BOSS: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
IRVING K MOTOR: Class Cert. Response & Brief Filing Due Oct. 18

JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Court Enters Initial Case Management Order
KEEFE GROUP: Raney Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
KRAFT HEINZ: Francione Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
KROEGER CO: Castle Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Poole Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

LACY KATZEN: Jakubowitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
LENDGINGCLUB CORPORATION: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in Loper Suit Partly OK'd
LOUISIANA: Seeks to Stay Tellis Case Pending Petition in 5th Cir.
MARK III CONSTRUCTION: Chavira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
MAVERICK FIELD: Misclassifies Manual Workers, McCaig Claims
METORPOLITAN LIFE: Stewart Files Suit in S.D. New York
MEWBOURNE OIL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 15, 2022

MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Baten Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class
MIELE INC: Alcazar Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 1
MRS BPO: Rosenberg Seeks to Certify Class of New York Residents
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Time Extension for Class Cert. Briefing Sought
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Mohammadb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

NEW DAY HOME: Faces McKinsey Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
OAKLAND, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Gaffett Class Suit
PATRICK MEYERS: Collins Files Suit in D. Colorado
PHIL LIGHTFOOT: Gomillion Files Suit in M.D. Alabama
PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Seeks Decertification of Green Class Suit

PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Amendment of Scheduling Order in Kohl Sought
PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Bid for Class Certification Due October 29
PROBUILD COMPANY: Settlement in Sengvong Suit Wins Final Nod
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp Seeks to Certify California Consumer Class
PVH CORP: Fallenstein Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to Certify Classes
SAN GABRIEL: Misclassifies Recovery Care Technicians, Forbes Says
SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaner Device Unsafe, Blank Says
STERIGENICS US: Court Junks Vallejo's First Amended Complaint
TULSA INSPECTION: Misclassifies Inspectors, Mitchell Suit Claims

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Patel Suit
VCG ENERGY: McCaig Seeks Foremen's Unpaid Overtime Wages
WESTCHESTER PARKWAY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Edgar Suit
WORKDAY INC: Juster Sues Over Unauthorized Backgrounds Checks

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Alleges MRM Improperly Disposed Asbestos


                            *********

ADIDAS AMERICA: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., an Oregon corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01686-L-LL
(S.D. Cal., Sep. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive
business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on Adidas branded outlet
merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

According to the complaint, Adidas America engages in a practice of
false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price,
and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price.
The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price
for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and
therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers
including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to
sell their goods above their true market price, added the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for
those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive
pricing scheme.

Adidas America is the American branch subsidiary of Adidas AG, a
multinational apparel company founded and headquartered in
Herzogenaurach, Germany, that designs and manufactures Adidas
branded shoes, clothing, sporting goods, apparel and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Suit Remanded to California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIAN HARVEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADVISORS
MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-01048-TWR-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson
entered an order:

   1. granting plaintiff's motion to remand;

   2. remanding  action to the Superior Court of California,
      County of San Diego; and

   3. denying as moot defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a putative class action
Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant, his
former employer, systematically violated California's Labor Laws
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

He brings this action on behalf of "all California citizens
currently or formerly employed by Defendants as nonexempt employees
in the State of California at any time between November 3, 2016 and
the date of class."

The Plaintiff brings seven causes of action for (1) failure to pay
minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide
11 periods; (4) failure to permit rest breaks; (5) failure to
provide accurate itemized 12 statements; (6) failure to pay all
wages due upon separation of employment; and (7) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL).

On June 2, 2021, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this
Court, alleging diversity subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. section 1332(a).

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YHdLMB at no extra charge.[CC]


AFFINITY WHOLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kovach Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTINE M. KOVACH, on behalf of herself and other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFINITY WHOLE HEALTH LLC,
JERRY SLOAN, and BRIAN ZEID, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01817-JG
(N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a medical
receptionist from January 1, 2020 until February 3, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that although she routinely worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay her overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate
of pay for all of the overtime she worked in excess of 40. In
addition, the Defendant failed to pay her for all the work she
performed during her final pay period, the Plaintiff added.

Affinity Whole Health LLC provides goods and services for inter
alia Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and Anti-Aging
Therapy, and Injectable Vitamins and Supplements. The Individual
Defendants are co-owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Green, Esq.
          James A. Marx, Esq.
          SHAPERO & GREEN, LLC
          Signature Square II, Suite 220
          25101 Chagrin Boulevard
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Tel: (216) 831-5100
          E-mail: bgreen@shaperolaw.com
                  jmarx@shaperolaw.com

AGRANA FRUIT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AGRANA FRUIT US, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01919 (N.D. Ohio, Oct.
11, 2021), is brought challenging policies and practices of the
Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, within the last three years, the
Defendant required the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to don sanitary clothing and other protective equipment
while at the Defendant's facility, but prior to clocking in at the
start of their shift. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not paid for this time. Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, as full-time employees, regularly
worked 40 or more hours in a workweek in the three years preceding
the filing of this Action, including donning and doffing time and
associated travel. As a result of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees not being paid for all hours worked, Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime
compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each
workweek. The Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the
above-mentioned violations of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the last three years
in its food manufacturing facility in Botkins, Ohio.

The Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells food
products throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-230-2955
          Facsimile: 330-754-1430
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
                 rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                 hans@ohlaborlaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Complete Discovery Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kronenberg v. Allstate
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06899 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Magisrtate Judge Taryn A. Merkl entered an order on motion for
extension of time to complete discovery as follows:

-- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and       January 19, 2022
   class certification motion due by

-- Deposition of Plaintiffs' class          February 28, 2022
   certification experts to be
   completed by

-- Defendants' expert disclosures and       March 14, 2022
   opposition to class certification
   due by

-- Deposition of Defendants' class          April 4, 2022
   certification experts completed by

-- Plaintiff's class certification          April 8, 2022
   reply and expert rebuttal disclosures
   due by

-- All discovery shall be completed by      May 4, 2022

-- The deadline to initiate any             April 15, 2022
   dispositive motion practice in
   accordance with the Individual Rules
   of Judge Nicolas G. Garaufis is

-- The parties' joint pretrial order        June 8, 2022
   is due by

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property --  Other
Personal Property Damage.

Allstate Insurance offers auto, home life insurances policies.[CC]

AMERICAHEALTH CARITAS: Bristow Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISABELLA BRISTOW, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIHEALTH CARITAS, Defendant, Case No.
210901884 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., September 24, 2021)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking
all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of
1968.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the position of CHC
Service Coordinator.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated CHC Service Coordinators regularly work over 40 hours per
week. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation
for hours worked over 40 per week. Specifically, the Plaintiff
estimates that she currently works 50-60 hours during a typical
week, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, pre-judgment interest,
litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

Amerihealth Caritas provides health care solutions for people who
are at a low income level and/or are chronically ill. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491

AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quackenbush, et al., v.
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-05599-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Mary Quackenbush,
Anne Pellettieri, and Marissa Feeney ask the Court to enter an
order:

   1. certifying the following classes:

      -- California New Purchaser Class:

         "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle equipped
         with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from an authorized
         Honda dealer in California;"

      -- California Used Purchaser Class:

         "All persons who purchased a used Class Vehicle
         equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from a Honda
         dealer in California, and who paid to have their VTC
         Actuator replaced by an authorized Honda dealer in
         California;"

      -- Illinois New Purchaser Class:

         "All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle equipped
         with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from an authorized
         Honda dealer in Illinois;" and

      -- Illinois Used Purchaser Class:

         "All persons who purchased a used Class Vehicle
         equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from a Honda
         dealer in Illinois, and who paid to have their VTC
         Actuator replaced by an authorized Honda dealer in
         Illinois;"

   2. appointing them as lass representatives;

   3. appointing Greenstone Law APC and Glancy Prongay & Murray
      LLP as Class Counsel; and

   4. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
      just and proper.

American Honda is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor
Company, Ltd. It was founded in 1959.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iPF12d
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  dmanning@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9156
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lara Diez, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN LANDMARK, LLC, Case No. 135525810 (Fla. 11th
Judicial, Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Sept. 29, 2021), is brought
under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act with regards to the
Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls.

The complaint alleges that to promote its rental properties, the
Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without
having secured prior express written consent as required by the
FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their
statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of their privacy. The Plaintiff never provided the
Defendant with express written consent authorizing the Defendant to
transmit telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone
number utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing
of telephone numbers. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunction and statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class
members, as defined below, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the
Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Defendant directs, markets, and provides business activities
throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 417
          Aventura, FL 333180
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com


AMPLIFY ENERGY: Quality Sea Food Sues Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------
QUALITY SEA FOOD, INC., a California Corporation; JACK BUTTLER, an
individual; LBC SEAFOOD, INC., a California Corporation; STEVE
LEGERE, an individual; individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORPORATION; BETA OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC d/b/a BETA OFFSHORE; SAN PEDRO BAY PIPELINE COMPANY;
and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 8:21-cv-01680 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 8, 2021), arises from a catastrophic oil spill occurring
off the coast of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California on or
around October 1, 2021 caused by the Defendants' oil rig/platform,
known as "Elly," and/or a rupture of its San Pedro Bay Pipeline
connected pipelines.

As a result of this breach, as much as 144,000 gallons– over
3,000 42 gallon barrels of crude oil – discharged into the
navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, quickly spreading and
washing ashore onto and into wetlands, estuaries, the Santa Ana
River, bays and beaches in heavily populated communities along the
coastline from Long Beach to Dana Point, and points south of
Newport Beach. As of the filing, an oil slick spanning
approximately 8,320 acres was created by this spill. South Orange
County and San Diego County communities are anticipated to be
impacted by the oil spill.

The oil spill has already been called a "potential ecological
disaster" and an "environmental catastrophe" by officials, severely
damaging, if not destroying, wildlife and marine ecosystems in the
immediate area and beyond, negatively impacting human health and
safety, and significantly interfering with business and economic
activities in and around the affected area. The Plaintiffs seek an
order against Defendants awarding, among other things, damages,
injunctive relief, and restitution to Plaintiffs and Class members,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Quality Sea Food, a historic seafood market operating
since 1953, is engaged in the sale and distribution of commercial
retail seafood.

Defendant Amplify Energy is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of procuring, transporting, and supplying oil and natural
gas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew C. Maclear, Esq.
          Jason R. Flanders, Esq.
          Erica A. Maharg, Esq.
          J. Thomas Brett, Esq.
          AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP
          4030 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
          Oakland, CA 94609
          Phone: 415.568.5200
          Email: mcm@atalawgroup.com

               - and -

          Paul A. Matiasic, Esq.
          THE MATIASIC FIRM, P.C.
          355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.699.2083
          Email: matiasic@mjlawoffice.com


ANADARKO E & P: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of UP Strip Landowners
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC; C C
OPEN A, LLC; and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F.
GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO LAND
CORPORATION; and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No.
1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) Class:

      "All owners of the surface of the land within the UP Strip
      (Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah) subject to a Surface Owner
      Agreement covering mineral interests once owned by Union
      Pacific Railroad Company to which Defendants Anadarko Land
      Corporation, Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, or Kerr-McGee
      Oil and Gas Onshore, LP have succeeded and on which one or
      more wellheads are located that produce oil and gas from
      the subsurface beyond the boundaries of the lands (a/k/a
      premises) covered by the Surface Owner Agreement;"

      Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Mineral Management
      Service (Indian tribes and the United States); (2)
      Defendant, its affiliates, officers and directors; (3) Any
      NYSE or NASDAQ listed company (and its subsidiaries)
      primarily engaged in oil and gas exploration, gathering,
      processing, or marketing; (4) any and all SOA holders that
      have no wellheads on their land, or who have only
      wellheads on their land that produce only from their land
      and not from beyond the boundaries of their land; and (5)
      any and all SOA holders whose payments are properly
      subject to both proportionate reduction and the deduction
      of all post-production costs;

   2. appointing them as the Class Representatives;

   3. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel; and

   4. awarding all other relief to which they and the Class
      Members are justly entitled.

The Plaintiffs are pursuing a breach-of-contract claim for a
putative class of landowners in Colorado and Wyoming, each of whom
(1) is subject to an unexpired Surface Owner Agreement ("SOA") with
Defendants, and (2) has one or more wellheads on the surface of
their land that produces gas, oil, and other valuable minerals from
outside the land subject to their SOA. Class-wide, Defendants have
underpaid all SOA Class Members by (a) reducing the stated SOA
payment; (b) deducting numerous unauthorized post-production costs
from the value of the oil and gas; or (c) both.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are landowners of surface acreage
lying along the "UP Strip," which runs through Colorado, Wyoming,
and Utah. 3 The UP Strip describes the millions of acres of
checkerboard land that the United States government granted to
Union Pacific during the mid-1800s to aid in the construction of a
transcontinental railway.

Over the years, Union Pacific sold the surface of some lands within
the UP Strip, but reserved to itself the mineral rights below the
surface of the land. Typically, Union Pacific leased the minerals
to third-party operators for oil and gas development and required
that a standard form Surface Owner Agreement (SOA) with the surface
land owner be executed before commencement of oil and gas
exploration or development, primarily to confirm the surface uses
expressly stated in the SOA.

The SOAs evolved from a standard form, whose language has undergone
modifications over the years. Whether entered by Union Pacific or
Champlin Petroleum Company or one of their successors, the payment
provision of each SOA provides for payment (usually 2.5%) to the
landowner for as long as Union Pacific or its successor-in-interest
receives oil and gas production or royalties upon oil and gas
production from the lands subject to the SOA, in exchange for
surface use and release of any claim to the minerals thereunder.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FEScwK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
          Gregory M. Bentz, Esq.
          Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  lwalsh@midwest-law.com
                  sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
                  gbentz@midwest-law.com
                  cschimmel@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Lance Astrella, Esq.
          ASTRELLA LAW, P.C.
          1801 Broadway, Suite 1600
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 292-9021
          Facsimile: (303) 296-6347
          E-mail: lance@astrellalaw.com

ANN MARIE ALLEN: Medina, et al., Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA,
JUSTIN HORTON, MADELAINE THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. THE HON. ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, and
THE HON. JEREMIAH HUMES, in their official capacities, Case No.
4:21-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a a class of defined as:

      "All people who are or will be detained in the Iron,
      Carbon, and Beaver County jails because they are unable to
      pay a secured financial condition of release;" and

   2. appointing their counsel to represent the certified class
      under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs, pretrial detainees in the Iron, Carbon, and Beaver
County jails, have filed this proposed class action challenging
Defendants' unconstitutional pretrial detention system, which jails
poor individuals without affording due process or providing counsel
as required by the Sixth Amendment.

The Defendants' post-arrest policies and practices violate
Plaintiffs' rights to pretrial liberty and against wealth-based
detention. The Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' policy and practice
of imposing and enforcing secured financial conditions of release
without affording constitutionally required inquires.

The amount of money a person must pay to secure release is
determined without any inquiry into, or finding concerning, ability
to pay, any consideration of alternative conditions of release, or
any findings concerning the necessity of pretrial detention.

The Defendants' pretrial detention scheme ensures that persons who
have been arrested but are presumptively innocent and are eligible
for release, must remain in jail cells for days, weeks, or even
months solely because they cannot make cash payments. Those who
cannot access enough money to pay the amounts required to secure
their release must remain in jail up to a week before their first
court appearances.

During that period, they have no opportunity to challenge their
detention and are not provided counsel. Defendants do not hear
arguments concerning conditions of release at Initial Appearance,
or in any context other than in response to bail reduction motions
filed by later appointed counsel. These policies and practices
cause people to languish in jail cells every night simply because
they cannot afford to pay for their release.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FE4mWD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karra J. Porter, Esq.
          Anna P. Christiansen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.
          257 East 200 South, Suite 1100
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2047
          Telephone: (801) 323-5000
          Facsimile: (801) 355-3472
          E-mail: Karra.Porter@chrisjen.com
                  Anna.Christiansen@chrisjen.com

ARGENT TRUST: Robertson Sues to Remedy ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Shana Robertson, on behalf of the Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. Argent Trust Company, Jim Coover, Kathy
Coover, Jim Pierce, and Tammy Pierce, Case No. 2:21-cv-01711-MTM
(D. Ariz., Oct. 7, 2021), is brought against Argent Trust Company,
the trustee for the Isagenix Worldwide, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan ("the ESOP" or "the Plan"), Jim and Kathy Coover,
and Jim and Tammy Pierce pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), by the Plaintiff on
behalf of a class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan
to restore losses to the Plan, obtain other equitable and remedial
relief on behalf of the Plan, and to remedy violations of ERISA
arising out of a June 14, 2018 transaction whereby the Plan
acquired shares of Isagenix Worldwide, Inc.

According to the complaint, Argent represented the Plan and its
participants as Trustee in the June 14, 2018 ESOP Transaction. It
had sole and exclusive authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP
Transaction on the Plan's behalf. Isagenix was a privately held
company and a party in interest to the Plan. Isagenix adopted the
Plan effective January 1, 2018. On June 14, 2018, Argent, in its
capacity as Trustee of the Plan, purchased 30,000 shares of
Isagenix's preferred stock for $382,500,000 (the "ESOP
Transaction"), representing a 30% ownership interest in Isagenix,
from Defendants Jim Coover, Kathy Coover, Jim Pierce and Tammy
Pierce (the "Selling Shareholder Defendants").

The ESOP Transaction allowed the Selling Shareholder Defendants to
cash out a portion of their Isagenix stock at a high price at a
time when Isagenix's business was deteriorating, and it placed
excessive debt on the Company. Argent failed to fulfill its ERISA
duties, as Trustee and fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants,
including th Plaintiff. The Plan has been injured and its
participants have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits
resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA.

The Plaintiff seeks to enforce her rights under ERISA and the Plan,
to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and/or the improper
profits realized by the Defendants resulting from their breaches of
fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions, and equitable relief,
including rescission of the ESOP Transaction and removal of
fiduciaries who have failed to protect the Plan. Plaintiff requests
that these prohibited transactions be declared void, Defendants be
required to restore any losses to the Plan arising from its ERISA
violations, Defendants be ordered to disgorge any profits and any
monies recovered for the Plan be allocated to the accounts of the
Class members.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Isagenix and participant in
the ESOP.

Argent operates as an investment management firm and offers
financial planning, trusts, and real estate management services to
families and organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 248-0088
          Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
          Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Francavillas Seek to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE J. FRANCAVILLA
and DENNIS FRANCAVILLA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, and
JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01665-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this case to proceed as a class action;

   2. granting final approval of class action settlement
      pursuant to the Parties' class settlement agreement, and
      approval of the payment of an incentive award and further
      relief to Plaintiffs as Class Representative, and for
      award of attorney's fees and costs.

Asset Acceptance is a debt buyer. Its primary business is the
purchasing of defaulted debts from lenders and subsequent
collection of those debts through normal debt collection
activities. The corporation is headquartered in Warren, Michigan.

Forster & Garbus is a New York debt collection law firm.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iUgo4m
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, are:

          Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          Three Logan Square
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2780
          E-mail: Lbartel@grsm.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant Forster, Garbus & Garbus, are:

          Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371
          Somerset, NJ 08873
          Telephone: (732) 328-9480
          E-mail: mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com

AXEL PROTECTION: Jalil Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED ABDUL JALIL, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. AXEL PROTECTION SYSYTEMS INC. AND GEORGE
LARSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-05388 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law due to various willfully
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.

The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, adequate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each work week; failed to
provide spread-of-hours pay; failed to maintain adequate and
accurate written payroll records; and failed to provide wage notice
and wage statements.

Plaintiff Mohammed Abdul Jalil was employed by the Defendants to
work as a security guard from 2016 until March 2020.

Axel Protection System Inc. offers private security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
          GEHI & ASSOCIATES
          173-29 Jamaica Ave.
          Jamaica, NY 11432
          Telephone: (718) 764-6911
          E-mail: court@gehilaw.com

BETH BERRY: ACCI Seeks Extension to File Petition for Review
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BETH BERRY, et al.
The case is styled as American Campus Communities, Inc.; American
Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P.; ACC (Outpost San
Antonio), L.P.; ACC OP (West Campus), LLC; ACC OP (Uta Blvd.), LLC,
ACC OP (Vistas San Marcos), LLC; ACC (Outpost San Marcos), L.P.;
Campus Investors Hrse-SC, LLC; ACC OP (Callaway Villas), L.P.; ACC
(Aggie Station), L.P.; ACC OP (Marion Pugh), LLC; ACC OP (South
College Avenue), LLC; Campus Investors Baylor, LLC; & ACC OP
(Speight Avenue), LLC; ACC (Raiders Pass), L.P.; Lubbock Two
Associates, LLC; Lubbock Main Street Associates, LLC; ACC OP
(Overton Park), LLC; ACC OP (Tract 6), LLC; ACC OP (West Abram),
LLC; ACC OP (The Block), LLC; 22 1/2 Street Partners, L.P., Campus
Investors Austin, LLC; Campus Investors Austin, LLC; ACC OP (Pearl
Street), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm Land),
LLC; Sycamore Avenue Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Tracts 32 and 33),
LLC, ACC OP (Denton-Fry), LLC; SHP-The Callaway House, L.P.; ACC OP
(Sanctuary Lofts), LLC; ACC OP (Vistas San Marcos), LLC; ACC
(Outpost San Marcos), L.P.; Campus Investors Hrse-SC, LLC; Campus
Investors Austin, LLC; ACC OP (Pearl Street), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat
Sm), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm Land), LLC; ACC OP (Sanctuary Lofts),
LLC; American Campus (PVAMU) Ltd.; American Campus (PVAMU IV) Ltd.;
ACC OP (PVAMU VI), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VII), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU
VIII), LLC,; American Campus (Laredo), Ltd.; American Campus (U of
H), Ltd.; ACC OP (West Abra); ACC OP (26 West), LLC; GMH/GF Denton
Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Cityparc), L.P.; Apkshv Lubbock, L.P.;
Petitioners v. Beth Berry, Brooke Berry, Yael Spirer, and Hailey
Hoppenstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Respondents, Case No. 21-0874 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Oct. 8,
2021).

The case type is stated as "Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f)."[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Spencer D. Hamilton, Esq.
          Leanna M. Anderson, Esq.

The Respondents are represented by:

          Michael J. Hindman, Esq.
          Ted B. Lyon Jr., Esq.
          Rebecca E. Bell, Esq.
          N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.


BETTER MORTGAGE: Seeks Denial of Dominguez Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO DOMINGUEZ,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No.
8:20-cv-01784-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order: denying class certification on the ground that the
vast majority of individuals covered by Plaintiff's definition of
the putative class have entered into binding, individual
arbitration agreements that include class and collective action
waivers, and/or have entered into binding release agreements that
release their state law claims in this action.

The Plaintiff cannot satisfy the typicality, adequacy, commonality,
predominance or superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, the Defendant contends.

The Plaintiff Dominguez asserts that Defendant Better Mortgage
Corporation (misclassified their mortgage underwriters under 4 both
Federal and California law and, on the basis of his California
state law claims, seeks to represent a class of underwriters
employed by Defendants in California from September 17, 2016 to the
present.

Better is a home mortgage originator that is licensed to provide
home loans to Americans in 46 states and the District of Columbia.

At least 481 current and former Batter underwriters have signed
valid, binding, mutual arbitration agreements, all of which contain
a class and collective action 22 and require these individuals to
arbitrate any employment-related claims they may have against
Better on an individual basis.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FBlgoS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

           Adak J. Karr, Esq.
           Allan W. Gustin, Esq.
           Susannah K. Howard, Esq.
           Racquel B. Martin, Esq.
           O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
           400 South Hope Street
           Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
           Telephone: (213) 430-6000
           Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
           E-mail: akarr@omm.com
                   e-agustin@omm.com
                   showard@omm.com
                   rmartin@omm.com

BLOOM ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hunt Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES EVERETT HUNT, et al., Plaintiffs v. BLOOM ENERGY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gillia, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California issued an Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part the Section 11
      Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend as to
      the Plaintiffs' claims based on accounting errors, fuel
      cell life, emissions, and internal controls; and denying
      otherwise the motion;

   b. granting Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP ("PwC")'s motion to
      dismiss with leave to amend; and

   c. granting the Section 10(b) Defendants' motion to dismiss
      with leave to amend.

Background

In his second amended complaint, Lead Plaintiff James Everett Hunt
and additional plaintiffs assert violations of the federal
securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Defendants Bloom and certain of
its top officials.

Plaintiff Elissa M. Roberts initially filed the securities class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Bloom common stock during Bloom's July 25, 2018 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The original complaint
asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On
Sept. 3, 2019, the Court appointed James Everett Hunt as the lead
plaintiff in the action. As part of the motion granting the
appointment, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff Hunt leave to file an
amended complaint.

On April 21, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff Hunt filed a second amended
complaint. As relevant to the pending motions, the SAC alleges that
Bloom manufactures and leases solid-oxide fuel cells, called
"Energy Servers," which convert natural gas or biogas into
electricity. These Energy Servers provide customers with an
alternative to drawing energy from the electrical grid. After many
years as a private company, Bloom held its IPO on July 25, 2018.
The Registration Statement included Bloom's disclosures regarding
the nature of its business, risk factors, executive compensation,
and numerous other matters. It also included Bloom's financial
statements for the years 2016 and 2017, and for the first three
months of 2018. The Registration Statement also included PwC's
audit report on Bloom's 2016 and 2017 annual financial statements.
The Registration Statement registered over 20 million Bloom shares
of common stock for sale, and the stock sold in the IPO at $15 per
share. Bloom received net proceeds of $284.3 million from the IPO.

The Plaintiffs allege that on Sept. 17, 2019, a third-party market
analyst, Hindenburg Research, issued a critique of Bloom's
business. The Hindenburg authors projected that Bloom's business
would be massively unprofitable in the future. They calculated that
Bloom had "an estimated net $2.2 billion in undisclosed servicing
liabilities" to repair and replace the Energy Servers that Bloom
had omitted from the Registration Statement at the time of the IPO.
In reaching this conclusion, the authors reasoned that the lifespan
of Bloom's fuel cells was materially shorter, their efficiency was
lower than represented, and they therefore needed to be replaced
years earlier than represented by Bloom in the Registration
Statement.

The Plaintiffs further allege that in February 2020, Bloom restated
the financial statements that it gave to investors in the IPO. In
doing so, Bloom disclosed that (1) its net loss attributable to
common stockholders for 2017 was in fact $276.362 million, or 5.2%
worse than the loss of $262.599 million reported in its
Registration Statement; and (2) the net loss attributable to common
stockholders for the first three months in 2018 ending March 31,
2018 was $21.591 million, or 21.9% worse than the loss of $17.716
million that Bloom initially reported. The Plaintiffs also allege
that Bloom had considerable "construction delays," which impeded
Bloom's ability to install the Energy Servers.

The Plaintiffs allege that since the IPO, Bloom's stock price has
declined from $15 per share of common stock, to a 52-week low of
$2.44 per share of common stock. They bring their Securities Act
and Exchange Act claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom common
stock in Bloom's IPO and/or on the public market between July 25,
2018 and Feb. 12, 2020.

Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss the SAC.
First, the Section 11 Defendants bring a motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claims, as well as the Section 15 "controlling persons"
claims. Second, PwC, Bloom's independent auditor, brings its own
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims. Third, the Section 10(b)
Defendants bring a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims.

Discussion

A. Section 11 Motion

Under Section 11 of the Securities Act, the Plaintiffs contend that
Bloom's Registration Statement contained several untrue statements
and omissions of material facts. According to them, the challenged
statements involved (1) the existence and scale of construction
delays; (2) improper accounting under Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP") for loss contingencies and revenue relating to
the Energy Servers; (3) the life cycle of the fuel cells in the
Energy Servers; (4) weaknesses in Bloom's internal controls; and
(4) the efficiency and emissions of the Energy Servers. The Section
11 Defendants contend that even under the more lenient Rule 8(a)
standard, the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that these
statements were materially false or misleading. They ask the Court
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.

i. Accounting Errors

The Plaintiffs assert that the Section 11 Defendants failed to
follow the relevant GAAP provisions for Bloom's liabilities and
revenue in its financial statements.

First, Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
that any of the opinion statements about Bloom's contingent
liabilities were false or misleading under Omnicare. Hence, he
grants the motion to dismiss on this basis.

Next, Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
facts calling into question the Defendants' basis for concluding
that the MSAs could be treated as sales rather than capital leases.
They do not sufficiently explain how the MSAs meet any of the four
criteria in ASC 840-10-25-1. And the Plaintiffs do not allege that
the MSAs meet any of the other three criteria. The Judge therefore
grants the motion to dismiss regarding the treatment of Bloom's
MSAs.

ii. Fuel Cell Life

The Plaintiffs next challenge Bloom's representations about the
Energy Servers' fuel cell life. They assert that the statements
were materially false and misleading because in reality, "Bloom
Energy routinely replaced its fuel cells after just three years."
The Defendants again argue that the Plaintiffs are challenging
statements of opinion.

Judge Gilliam finds that none of the experts claim to have any
experience with or knowledge of Bloom's Energy Servers or their
fuel cells. To the extent the Plaintiffs rely on these other
anonymous experts, he does not find this probative of falsity. The
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged falsity
as to Bloom's average fuel cell life and grants the motion on this
basis.

iii. Efficiency and Emissions

The Plaintiffs also challenge statements that Bloom made about the
efficiency and emissions of its latest Energy Server technology.

Judge Gilliam grants the motion as it relates to statements about
Bloom's emissions, but otherwise denies the motion as to claims
based on Bloom's statements about the Energy Servers' efficiency.
He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs need only plead enough facts to
make it plausible that Bloom's statement about the Energy Servers
was false, and they have done so; and (ii) the complaint does not
explain how the "power grid in key states" compares to "U.S.
combustion power generation."

iv. Construction Delays

The Plaintiffs challenge statements in the Registration Statement
about "risks" of delay related to Bloom's construction schedule.
The Defendants first argue that "the Registration Statement plainly
did tell investors that installation delays and the difficulty in
predicting the timing of acceptances were ongoing features of its
business." They next argue that the Plaintiffs' only evidence of
preexisting construction delays is statements from CW1, and that
this is insufficient because CW1 is unreliable.

Based on the allegations and language of the Registration
Statement, Judge Gilliam finds that a factfinder could conclude
that the Defendants failed to disclose preexisting construction
delays. He further finds that the timing of CW1's departure from
Bloom does not undermine the basis for his knowledge for purposes
of the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims in the case. The Plaintiffs
have therefore established how CW1 had information about
construction delays relevant to the IPO. The Judge therefore denies
the motion on this basis.

v. Internal Control Weaknesses

Lastly, the Plaintiffs claim that Bloom misrepresented in the
Registration Statement "that there were no 'material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting at Dec. 31, 2017.'" The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs misstate Bloom's
representation about internal controls, and that in a risk
disclosure the company stated that it had not "discover[ed] any
material weaknesses" as of Dec. 31, 2017.

The Plaintiffs appear to concede that the Defendants are correct as
to the actual statement Bloom made about internal controls. They
argue, however, that they still represented to investors that they
had adequately reviewed internal controls. But the Plaintiffs do
not plead any facts to support the contention that Bloom did not
engage in the appropriate level of review. They have also failed to
plead any facts to explain why possible financial reporting
controls in 2019 or 2020 would implicate representations about
financial controls in 2017. Judge Gilliam therefore grants the
motion on this basis.

B. PwC Motion

PwC filed its own motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim that the
Plaintiffs assert against it. It argues that its audit report and
the statements contained within it are opinions subject to the
Omnicare framework. They contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently allege that the audit report was objectively and
subjectively false, and the Section 11 claim against them should
thus be dismissed.

In response, the Plaintiffs clarify that it contends PwC is liable
under Section 11 both for misstatements in the audit report and for
the GAAP errors in the 2017 financial statements related to the
treatment of the MSAs. They argue that PwC does not dispute that it
(1) certified the financial statements; or that (2) the 2017
financial statements were false. The Plaintiffs urge that PwC
therefore concedes liability for them.

Judge Gilliam is not persuaded. PwC contends that "PwC's opinion
was that there were no material errors in the 2016 and 2017
financial statements," and that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that
the 2016 and 2017 financial statements were materially misstated.
The Judge therefore considers PwC's motion to dismiss the Section
11 claim as to the alleged misstatements in the audit report and
the financial statements.

i. Omnicare

As a threshold issue, the parties disagree on whether the audit
report and the financial statements are opinions subject to
Omnicare. Neither party cites to any Ninth Circuit authority
resolving this issue. Instead, the parties note that there is a
split in authority regarding whether such material should be
considered opinion.

Judge Gilliam rejects the Plaintiffs' attempt to cast any alleged
errors in the financial statements as embedded statements of fact.
The court in Johnson v. CBD Energy Ltd. addressed this precise
argument and found it premised on a misinterpretation of Omnicare.
He finds the reasoning in Johnson persuasive and adopts it in the
case.

ii. Subjective Falsity

To plead falsity for opinion statements under a material
misstatement theory of liability, the Plaintiffs must allege "both
objective and subjective falsity." The Plaintiffs appear to concede
that they have not alleged subjective falsity as required under
Omnicare. And Judge Gilliam finds that they have failed to plead
any facts suggesting that PwC did not sincerely believe that the
"financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Company as of Dec. 31, 201." The
complaint hardly mentions PwC or its audit report at all, stating
simply that PwC "purportedly conducted an adequate and reasonable
investigation into the business, operations, financial statements,
and accounting of Bloom Energy." Judge Gilliam therefore grants
PwC's motion to dismiss.

C. Section 10(b) Motion

Under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiffs seek to
hold Defendants Bloom, Sridhar, and Furr liable for issuing false
and misleading statements either intentionally or with deliberate
recklessness to induce investors to purchase Bloom's common stock.
They acknowledge that their Section 10(b) claims are subject to a
heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). The Plaintiffs'
Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims are based on largely
overlapping statements involving (1) Bloom's financial statements,
including improper accounting as to the maintenance service
agreements and MSAs; (2) the life cycle of the fuel cells in the
Energy Servers; (3) the efficiency and emissions of the Energy
Servers; (4) construction delays; and (5) weaknesses in Bloom's
internal controls.

The Section 10(b) Defendants move to dismiss the claims against
them, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead
falsity, scienter, and economic loss. They also explicitly
incorporate by reference the arguments in their motion.

Judge Gilliam agrees that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
plead falsity as to the statements regarding accounting errors,
fuel cell life, emissions, and internal controls. He therefore
grants in part the Section 10(b) Defendants' motion on that basis.
Accordingly, he only addresses the Section 10(b) Defendants'
separate arguments that the Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter and
loss causation.

i. Scienter

Judge Gilliam first turns to the specific alleged misstatements and
the Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter as they relate to these
statements. He then makes a holistic assessment of the factual
allegations.

In sum, Judge Gilliam concludes that even when the Plaintiffs'
allegations are considered in their entirety, he finds that the
inference of scienter is weak, and certainly not as strong as the
inference that Defendants had a non-fraudulent intent. He therefore
grants the motion to dismiss on this basis.

ii. Loss Causation

Lastly, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege loss causation regarding fuel cell life. "To satisfy the
loss causation requirement, the plaintiff must show that the
revelation of that misrepresentation or omission was a substantial
factor in causing a decline in the security's price, thus creating
an actual economic loss for the plaintiff."

Because he has found that the Plaintiffs have not alleged scienter,
Judge Gilliam need not reach this issue. Nevertheless, to
streamline the amendment process and any subsequent motion to
dismiss, he addresses the parties' arguments. The Defendants
contend that the Hindenburg report did not constitute a corrective
disclosure because it is based on publicly available information.
The Plaintiffs allege that the falsity of Bloom's statements about
fuel cell life was revealed to investors on Sept. 17, 2019, when
the Hindenburg authors issued their report concluding that Bloom's
fuel cell life was less than three years. The Defendants point out,
however, that the Hindenburg report explicitly states that "all
information in the report has been obtained from public sources."

The Court has previously explained that "the mere repackaging of
already-public information by an analyst or short-seller is simply
insufficient to constitute a corrective disclosure.'" "If every
analyst or short-seller's opinion based on already-public
information could form the basis for a corrective disclosure, then
every investor who suffers a loss in the financial markets could
sue under Section 10(b) using an analyst's negative analysis of
public filings as a corrective disclosure. That cannot be -- nor is
it -- the law.'"

Judge Gilliam therefore grants the motion on this basis.
Nevertheless, he notes that that the Ninth Circuit has at least
considered the possibility that some materials may still constitute
corrective disclosures if they "provide additional or more
authoritative information that deflated the stock price." Still, at
least as currently alleged, he finds, the Plaintiffs do not explain
why the Hindenburg authors had the necessary background or
expertise to interpret or aggregate the public utility data in a
manner that added something to the factual record such that their
report could still be considered a corrective disclosure under
Apollo.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Gilliam grants in part and denies in part the
motions to dismiss. He grants in part the Section 11 Defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' claims
based on accounting errors, fuel cell life, emissions, and internal
controls. The Court otherwise DENIES the motion. He grants PwC's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend. He grants the Section 10(b)
Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended
complaint must be filed within 21 days of the date of the Order.

When preparing an amended complaint, the Plaintiffs are further
ordered to prepare a statement-by-statement chart of the
information required by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(1) and (2) that
specifically identifies: (A) each statement or action alleged to
have been false or misleading, (B) the reasons the statement or
action was false, misleading, or deceptive when made, and (C) if an
allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on
information and belief, all facts on which the belief is formed.

The chart should clearly identify which statements or omissions are
attributable to which defendants, and include a detailed statement
of the facts giving rise to a strong inference that each defendant
acted with the required state of mind. Plaintiffs should also
summarize their allegations regarding what each defendant knew with
regard to the statement or omission, and when they knew it. Such a
chart should be included within any amended complaint or attached
to any amended complaint. For guidance on the format for such a
chart, Judge Giliam directs the Plaintiffs to review In re NVIDIA
Corp. Sec. Litig., 18-cv-07669-HSG, Dkt. No. 149-2.

Judge Gilliam further sets a telephonic case management conference
on Oct. 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The parties should be prepared to
discuss how to move this case forward efficiently. All counsel will
use the following dial-in information to access the call: Dial-In:
888-808-6929; Passcode: 6064255 For call clarity, parties will not
use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and where at all
possible, parties will use landlines. The joint case management
statement is due Oct. 19, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 29, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/sfr3rdvb from Leagle.com.


BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Suit Gets Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin Binder, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. Brentlinger
Enterprises d/b/a Midwestern Auto Group, Case No.
2:21-cv-00136-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Court entered an order
grantng Plaintiffs amended motion to conditionally certify case as
a collective action on behalf of:

   "All of Defendant's current and former hourly non-exempt
   porters and technicians who worked at the Dublin, Ohio
   location and whose payroll records reflect that they worked
   40 or more hours in any workweek beginning three years
   preceding the instant Motion and continuing to the present,
   and who were subject to either of the following policies: (1)
   who were clocked out for any breaks consisting of 19 minutes
   or less in duration; and/or (2) who were clocked out for meal
   periods of 20 to 30 minutes in duration, but the employee did
   not take or which were interrupted by work duties ("216(b)
   Class" or "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs")."

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met his modest burden with
regard to the dealerships at tssue. The Court grants Plaintiffs
Motion for conditional certification. If, after discovery is
completed, the fully developed record does not support the
treatment of this action as a collective action, the Defendant may
seek to decertify the collective.

Austin Binder sues Brentlinger Enterprises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Court denied Plaintiffs first motion to
conditionally certify this case as a collective action. The
Plaintiff moves again, pursuant to section 16(b) of the FLSA, to
conditionally certify a collective action. The Defendant opposes
the Motion.

The Defendant is a general partnership formed under Ohio law that
provides retail sales of automobiles and other services including
repair, maintenance, and automobile accessories. The Defendant
employed Plaintiff as a porter from approximately November 2015
through March 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other hourly, non-exempt
employees were not paid correctly for all their hours worked.
Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has a
"company-wide policy of not compensating its employees for 'rest'
periods and/or 'meal' periods" that were interrupted by required
work duties.

Brentlinger manufactures automobile. The Company operates in the
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxFUDY at no extra charge.[CC]

CARMAX AUTO: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Jordan Miller, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., a Virginia
corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive was removed to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Sept. 27, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01632-JAK-SHK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

CarMax -- https://www.carmax.com/stores/ca -- offers low, no-haggle
prices and a great selection of vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Victor Feghali, Esq.
          Enzo Dalgat Nabiev, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: (213) 232-3128
          Fax: (213) 232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                 allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
                 enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Lindsay Katz, Esq.
          Gina M. Tetorakis, Esq.
          Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: jennifer.katz@ogletree.com
                 gina.tetorakis@ogletree.com
                 jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com


CASH ADVANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Stanton Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMISHA STANTON v. CASH
ADVANCE CENTERS, INC, , Case No. 21-CV-00285-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. Motion to amend pleadings:

      Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or
      before November 12, 2021.

   2. Motion to join additional parties:

      Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or
      before November 12, 2021.

   3. Discovery:

      a. Discovery deadline

         All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules
         of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before
         April 1, 2022. (Closure Date).

      b. Discovery motions

         The Court will not entertain any discovery motion
         absent full compliance with Local Rule 37.1.

      c. Expert designation deadlines

         Each plaintiff shall designate any expert witnesses it
         intends to call at trial on or before February 11,
         2022. Each defendant shall designate any expert
         witnesses it intends to call at trial on or before
         March 11, 2022.

   4. Dispositive motion deadline:

      All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(h)(2)
      or (3), shall be filed on or before May 2, 2022. All
      dispositive motions shall have a separate section wherein
      each statement of fact is individually numbered so that
      any party opposing such motion may refer specifically to a
      genuine issue of material fact.

   5. Daubert motion deadline:

      All motions to strike expert designations or preclude
      expert testimony premised on Daubert v. Merrill Dow
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), shall be filed
      on or before May 2, 2022.

   6. Motions for class certification:

      All motions for class certification under Rule 23 and/or
      conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. section 201, et.
      seq. shall be filed on or before June 1, 2022. If the
      Court grants a motion for class certification under Rule
      23 and/or conditional certification under 29 U.S.C.
      section 201, et. seq., any remaining deadlines under this
      Scheduling and Trial Order shall be vacated, and, within
      15 days of any such order, Counsel are directed to meet
      and confer and submit a revised, proposed Scheduling and
      Trial Order for a Jury Trial.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxAWaa at no extra charge.[CC]

CHULA VISTA INC: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Sartin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sartin, et al., v. Chula
Vista Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01890 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting the parties'
joint motion to extend deadlines:

   -- All discovery to be completed by October 29, 2021;

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
      dispositive motions, and any motions under Daubert or
      otherwise challenging an expert due by November 12, 2021;

   -- Responses to motion for class certification, sispositive
      motions, and any motions under Daubert or otherwise
      challenging an expert Due December 20, 2021; and

   -- Replies in support of motion for class certification,
      dispositive motions, and any motions under Daubert or
      otherwise challenging an expert Due January 14, 2022.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property --
diversity-fraud.

Chula Vista provides hospitality services. The company offers
facilities for stay, restaurants, and bars, as well as hosts venue
for events and meetings.[CC]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Underwood, Louis Oberlander, and Zeneyda Patin, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COINBASE
GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08353 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2021), is
brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, sold,
or otherwise transacted in securities on the online trading
platform owned and operated by Defendant Coinbase Global, Inc.
during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Coinbase operates two digital asset trading platforms: Coinbase and
Coinbase Pro (the "Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms") that each and
together meet the definition of an "exchange" under federal
securities laws. The Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms, at the
agreement of its users (1) bring together the orders for digital
assets that are investment contracts, and therefore securities
("Digital Asset Securities"), of multiple buyers and sellers; and
(2) use established, non-discretionary methods under which Coinbase
Digital Asset Platforms users' orders interact with each other.

Despite the fact that the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms, as
operated by Defendant Coinbase, meet the definition of an
"exchange" under federal securities laws, Coinbase has not
registered the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms as national
securities exchanges, nor does Coinbase operate the Coinbase
Digital Asset Platforms pursuant to an exemption from registration.
Coinbase's failure to so register is therefore a violation of the
Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated now seek, pursuant the Exchange Act, to recover
the consideration paid for Digital Asset Securities and the
transaction fees paid to Defendant Coinbase in connection with
their purchases of the Digital Asset Securities, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs engaged in Digital Asset Securities transactions on
the Coinbase Digital Asset Platforms.

Coinbase operates an internet-based trading platform service that
facilitates buying and selling certain digital assets in the
secondary markets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
                 sbloch@sgtlaw.com


CONDUENT BUSINESS: Carnley Class Certification Reply Due Oct. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carnley, et al., v.
Conduent Business Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01075
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order
granting motion to extend scheduling order as follows:

  -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file      October 25, 2021
     their reply for class certification

  -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file      October 25, 2021
     their opposition to Defendants' motion
     for summary judgment

  -- The deadline for Defendants to file      November 11, 2021
     their reply in further support of
     summary judgment

  -- The page limitation applicable to
     Plaintiffs' opposition to summary
     judgment is 35 pages

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Banks and Banking --
Electronic Fund Transfers.

Conduent provides business process services.[CC]

CONTAINER STORE: Cervantes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., a Texas
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-01791-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2021), is brought to
secure redress against the Defendants for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because Defendant's website,
https://www.containerstore.com/welcome.htm, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant's website provides consumers with access to a
collection of home goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@whilshirelawfirm.com
                 jamine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Pit Row Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pit Row Inc. et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00738 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order:

   1. granting unopposed motion for leave to file the third
      amended complaint; and

   2. granting the motion to modify the scheduling order as
      follows:

      -- the Defendant's answer is Due October 19, 2021;

      -- Plaintiff's expert rebuttal reports remain due October
         12, 2021;

      -- The motion for class certification is due November 18,
         2021;

      -- Any response is due January 25, 2022;

      -- Any reply is due February 15, 2022;

      -- Discovery shall close on April 1, 2022; and

      -- Dispositive motion deadline shall be 90 days after the
         Court's decision on class certification.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
personal property damage.

Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.[CC]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6,
2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the "Johnson-Chen Consolidated
suit.

The Company and its CEO and CFO were defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018.

Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov.
5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed
Dec. 11, 2018).

The complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019.

On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to
file a further amended complaint.

A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court
dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020.

On July 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Edwards Labor Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6,
2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Edwards v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.).

In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against
the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding
payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements,
reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated
employees, and for unfair business practices.

Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D.
Cal.).

In May 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted with leave to amend.

In June 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss later that month.

The court granted the motion in part in July 2021 with leave to
amend.

In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and
filed a separate representative action under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) asserting the same Labor Code claims and seeking
civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

The Company has filed an answer to the second amended class action
complaint denying the material allegations.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Labor Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6,
2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the company
is facing a class action suit entitled, Dimas v. Costco Wholesale
Corp.

In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class
action against the Company and a staffing company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages,
meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and
final wages, and for unfair business practices.

Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024;
San Joaquin Superior Court).

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez Settlement Awaits Court's Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6,
2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that preliminary
approval hearing of the settlement in Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale
Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.), is scheduled for October
2021.

In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices.

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D.
Cal.).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class
certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their
Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the
action to state court.

The remand was appealed; the appeal is in abeyance due to a pending
settlement for an immaterial amount that was agreed upon in
February 2021.

The preliminary approval hearing of the settlement is scheduled for
October 2021.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora and Umadat Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 6,
2021, for the fiscal year ended August 29, 2021, that the company
continues to defend collective and class claims suits entitled,
Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067;
E.D.N.Y.) and Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:21-cv-4814; E.D.N.Y.), respectively.  

In December 2020, a former employee filed suit against the Company
asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law
for failure to pay for all hours worked on a weekly basis and
failure to provide proper wage statements and notices.

The plaintiff also asserts individual retaliation claims. Cappadora
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067; E.D.N.Y.).

An amended complaint was filed, and the Company has denied the
material allegations of the amended complaint.

In August 2021, a former employee filed a similar suit, asserting
collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under
the FLSA and New York law. Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case
No. 2:21-cv-4814; E.D.N.Y.).

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


CREDIT BUREAU: Myers Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MYERS, bankruptcy
trust for DONNA J. LUNSFORD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC. and C.J. TIGHE,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action defined as:

      -- Class One

         "(i) all Nebraska residents to whom CBS sent a letter,
         (ii) which was not returned as undelivered, (iii) in an
         attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal,
         family, or household purposes as shown by Defendants or
         the creditors' records, (iv) allegedly due for a
         medical obligation;" and

      -- Class Two

         "(i) all Nebraska residents to whom CBS sent a letter,
         (ii) which was not returned as undelivered, (iii) in an
         attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal,
         family, or household purposes as shown by Defendants or
         the creditors' records, (iv) allegedly due for a
         medical obligation, (v) who had not been first sent a
         letter by CBS on the same account;"

         The time period for violations of the Fair Debt
         Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1692 et
         seq. (FDCPA) is one year prior to the filing of this
         litigation, i.e. -- April 13, 2019, through the date of
         class certification. The time period for violations of
         the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), Neb. Rev.
         Stat. Section 59-1601 et seq. is four years prior to
         the filing of this litigation, i.e. -- April 13, 2016,
         through the date of certification;

   2. appointing him class representative; and

   3. appointing O. Randolph Bragg, Pamela A. Car, and William
      L. Reinbrecht as class counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iP4Cbw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 S. 72 nd Street, Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
          25 East Washington St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

CREE INC: Wedra Seeks Certification of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE WEDRA,
individually on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CREE, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-03162-VB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)
      (3);

   3. appointing her as representative for the members of the
      Class; and

   4. appointing The Sultzer Law Group P.C., Pearson, Simon &
      Warshaw LLP, Audet & Partners LLP, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca
      LLP and Levin, Sedrin & Berman LLP as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Cree Inc. develops and produces semiconductors made from silicon
carbide.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YGYpHN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Mindy Dolgoff, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  dolgoffm@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  awarren@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Benson Sues Over Misleading Statement
----------------------------------------------------------
James Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM
SIRKETI, HANZADE VASFIYE DOGAN BOYNER, MEHMET MURAT EMIRDAG, HALIL
KORHAN OZ, ERMAN KALKANDELEN, MEHMET EROL ÇAMUR, CEMAL AHMET
BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN SABANCI, MUSTAFA AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALIARE,
COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, TURKCOMMERCE B.V., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA
SECURITIES, INC. and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 655701/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Sept. 28, 2021), is brought on behalf of
all purchasers of D-Market ADRs pursuant or traceable to D-Market's
July 1, 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 with regards to
materially false and misleading registration statement.

According to the complaint, on July 1, 2021, following the
conclusion of D-Market's second quarter 2021 ("2Q21"), Defendants
conducted the IPO, selling 62.251 million D Market ADRs at $12 per
ADR and reaping more than $783 million in gross offering proceeds.
This included $283 million in proceeds received by the Selling
Stockholder Defendant. The registration statement and prospectus
for the IPO were materially false and misleading and failed to
comply with SEC rules and regulations governing the preparation of
such documents.

Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that
D-Market had suffered deeply disappointing financial results in
2Q21 – before the IPO – and instead represented that the
Company was experiencing tremendous revenue and sales growth at the
time of the offering. In fact, the growth trends highlighted in the
Registration Statement had dramatically decelerated in the lead up
to the IPO as Turkey reopened following previously imposed COVID-19
related shutdowns. For example, the Registration Statement stated
that D Market's "business ha[d] experienced a long history of
strong growth as a result of [its] commitment to meticulous
execution" and highlighted D-Market's "66%" revenue increase "to
TRY 1.4 billion in the three months ended March 31, 2021" and
"145%" revenue increase "to TRY 6.4 billion in 2020." Similarly,
the Registration Statement stated that D-Market had achieved gross
merchandise volume ("GMV") growth of 95% and 111% in 1Q21 and
fiscal 2020, respectively. The Registration Statement further
stated that these impressive results were being "fueled by
increasing purchase frequency, greater customer loyalty and an
expanding pool of Active Customers of 9 million in 2020, up from
6.5 million in 2019 and 4.8 million in 2018, with a compound annual
growth rate ("CAGR") of 38% from 2018 to 2020."

In truth and in fact, however, during D-Market's already completed
2Q21, the Company generated revenue of just 1.75 billion TRY, a
mere increase of just 5% year-over-year. Likewise, D-Market's 2Q21
GMV was only 5.9 billion TRY, a paltry increase of just 38% year
over year – less than half the 95% GMV growth reported in the
1Q21. In a highly unusual move so close to an initial public
offering, D-Market also announced that day a sizable executive
leadership shakeup. Effective September 1, 2021, Murat Buyumez,
D-Market's Chief Strategy ("CSO") and Chief Business Officer
("CBO"), would assume the role of Chief Commercial Officer ("CCO")
in charge of category management and commercial operations, and
Mutlu Erturan, D-Market's then-current CCO, would become the
Company's CBO, heading up new ventures, growth initiatives, and
strategic opportunities. The role of CSO would remain vacant
indefinitely. Subsequent to the IPO, the price of D-Market ADRs
have traded as low as $6.35 each, a nearly 50% decline from the
price at which D-Market ADRs were sold to investors in the IPO less
than three months previously, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased D-Market ADRs pursuant to the IPO.

D-Market is an online e-commerce company in Turkey where it is
colloquially known as the "Amazon of Turkey."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                 mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212/292-5690
          Fax: 212/292-5680
          Email: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com


DELAVAL INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY BISHOP, DVM; RODNEY,
JANEEN, CHAD, and AARON NAEDLER, and NAEDLER FARMS II; DANIEL and
ERIN RICHARDS; BERNARD and DENISE ROBILLARD, and ROBILLARD FLATS
FARM, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,  v. DELAVAL INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-06129-SRB (W.D. MO.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying the Rule 23 class and subclasses defined as;

      -- Class

         "All persons who purchased, financed, leased, or rented
         ("purchased") a classic voluntary milking system
         ("VMS") (1) directly from a DeLaval-owned dealer or (2)
         from another entity in one of the following 10 states:
         Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa,
         Illinois, Ohio, Vermont, Connecticut, and Tennessee;"

      -- Direct Purchaser subclass

         "All persons who purchased a VMS in the state of
         Missouri or directly from a DeLaval-owned dealer;"

      -- Multi-state subclass

         "All persons who purchased a VMS from a non-DeLaval-
         owned dealership in one of the following eight states:
         Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Vermont,
         Connecticut, and Tennessee;" and

      -- Wisconsin subclass

         "All persons who purchased a VMS from a non-DeLaval
         owned dealership in the state of Wisconsin;"

   b. appointing Plaintiffs Terry Bishop, DVM; Rodney, Janeen,
      Chad, and Aaron Naedler, and Naedler Farms II; Daniel and
      Erin Richards; Bernard and Denise Robillard and Robillard
      Flats Farms, Inc., as representatives of Rule 23 Class;

      1. Appointing Richards as the representative of the Direct
         Purchaser subclass;

      2. Appointing Bishop and Robillards as representatives of
         the Multi-state subclass; and

      3. Appointing Naedlers as the representative of the
         Wisconsin subclass;

   c. Appointing Patrick J. Stueve, Bradley T. Wilders, Jillian
      R. Dent, K. Ross Merrill, Tanner J. Edwards and Brandi
      Spates of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; Arend Tensen of
      Cullenberg & Tensen, PLLC; and, Daniel C. Perrone of
      Perrone Law PLLC as class counsel for the class; and

   d. Granting such further relief as the Court deems
      appropriate.

DeLaval is a producer of dairy and farming machinery, with a head
office in Tumba, Sweden, and is part of the Tetra Laval group.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWfZCh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Counsel, are:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          Jillian R. Dent, Esq.
          K. Ross Merrill, Esq.
          Tanner J. Edwards, Esq.
          Brandi Spates, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Rd Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64113
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com
                  dent@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Arend R. Tensen, Esq.
          CULLENBERG & TENSEN, PLLC
          199 Heater Road, Suite 2
          Lebanon, NH 03766
          Telephone: (603) 448-7100
          E-mail: tensen@nhvt-injurylaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Charles Perrone, Esq.
          PERRONE LAW PLLC
          2136 Victory Blvd.
          Staten Island, NY 10314
          Telephone: (646) 470-9244
          E-mail: dcb@theperronefirm.com

DIRECT OFFICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Souza Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flavia Z. Souza, and all others similarly situated, and MONSTER
CONSULTING GROUP LLC v. DIRECT OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., and RONALD
R. BOEHM, Case No. 0:21-cv-62116-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2021),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages.

Specifically, the Defendants recruit and retain professionals to
sell the company's inventory, as well as the products of other
manufacturers, to customers. The Defendants classified the sales
professionals as independent contractors. However, Souza contends
the Defendants misclassified her and other professionals as
independent contractors when, in fact, they were employees of DOS.
As a result, Souza claims that, as employees, she and other
professionals were underpaid when the Defendants did not provide
Souza and others overtime wages as required by the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Souza was a DOS employee.

DOS is a business office furniture store in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Buckner, Esq.
          5224 NW 96th Drive
          Coral Springs, FL 33076-2487
          Office: +1-954-347-0112
          Facsimile: +1-954-513-4796
          Email: michaelbucknerlaw@gmail.com


DONNA KARAN: Dahlin Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
-------------------------------------------------------
MATILDA DAHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY STORE LLC, a New York limited
liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-07711 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious
reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on DKNY
branded outlet merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

According to the complaint, DKNY engages in a practice of false
reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price, and
then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price. The
alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price for
the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and
therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers
including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to
sell their goods above their true market price, added the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for
those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive
pricing scheme.

Donna Karan Company Store LLC operates DKNY outlet stores in
California and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells
clothing, apparel, cosmetics and lifestyle products in California
and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

DRESSER LLC: Court Enters Coordinated Discovery Order in Barret
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY BARRET, ET AL., v.
DRESSER, L.L.C., ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes entered a coordinated
discovery order as follows:

   1. Filing of Order

      This Coordinated Discovery Order shall be filed in all
      Related Cases, and in any Related Case subsequently filed
      in, removed to, or transferred to this Court.

   2. Pre-Certification Order

      Some provisions of the Pre-Certification Order are
      restated or otherwise adopted herein. Any remaining and
      unexpired provisions of the Pre-Certification Order are
      superseded by this Coordinated Discovery Order.

   3. Coordinated Discovery

      a. Scope

         Discovery regarding the issue of liability is
         prohibited at this point, pending further orders from
         the Court.

      b. Form

         The parties may employ any discovery device allowed
         under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or required
         by this Coordinated Discovery Order.

      c. Duration

         Discovery under this Coordinated Discovery Order will
         be completed within 180 days of the entry of this
         Order.

      d. Coordination

         Counsel in all Related Cases will coordinate and
         consolidate their discovery requests.

      e. Stipulations

         The parties may -- and are strongly encouraged to --
         voluntarily disclose information and to stipulate
         regarding any factual, procedural, or legal issues if
         the stipulation is not inconsistent with the Court’s
         orders. The parties will not use "boilerplate" or
         artful language in the discovery process.

      f. Conferral

         The parties will confer regularly, and verbally,
         regarding any coordinated discovery issues.

      g. Settlement

         Once Coordinated Discovery is complete, the Court will
         consider procedures to facilitate settlement efforts in
         Related Cases.

   4. Plaintiff Information Sheet

      Each Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this
      Order to complete and serve upon Defendants a verified
      "Plaintiff Information Sheet" using the form provided by
      the Court for this purpose.

   5. Discovery Requests and Responses

      Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), discovery requests and
      responses will not be filed with the Court except when
      specifically ordered by the Court or to the extent offered
      in connection with a motion.

   6. Expedited Discovery

      On expedited motion and for good cause shown, expedited
      discovery of plaintiffs, and/or health care providers,
      will be allowed when: (1) the plaintiff or a plaintiff’s
      immediate family member is terminally ill; (2) there is an
      urgent need to record and preserve testimony, and; (3)
      that plaintiff has completed the Plaintiff Information
      Sheet and any required authorizations.

   7. Motions

      The parties may file any motion related to discovery
      allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   8. Other Discovery

      Until further order by the Court, no other discovery shall
      be conducted in the Related Cases, except on motion and
      for good cause shown.

   9. Status Conferences

      The Court will host status conferences at regular
      intervals. The parties may raise discovery disputes, and
      must be prepared to provide case updates, during these
      status conferences. A Status Conference is set for
      Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. before the
      undersigned via video conference.

Dresser designs, manufactures, and markets energy infrastructure
products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FE2ZHh at no extra charge.[CC]

DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD J. MIGYANKO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE CORPORATION d/b/a DUNHAM'S SPORTS, Case No.
2:19-cv-00514-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      and seeking certification of the classes defined below as
      follows:

      -- Nationwide Class

         "All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who
         have attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior
         of any store owned or operated by Defendant within the
         United States and have, or will have, experienced
         access barriers in interior paths of travel;" and

      -- Pennsylvania Sub-class

         "All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who
         have attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior
         of any store owned or operated by Defendant within
         Pennsylvania and have, or will have, experienced access
         barrier in interior paths of travel;"

   2. appointing Ronald J. Migyanko as class representative; and

   3. appointing Carlson Lynch, LLP as Class Counsel.

Dunham's Athleisure corporation operates a sporting good chain. The
Company offers sporting goods, atheltic equipment, active sports
gear, and leisure apparel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dtclns
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Robin A. Bolea, Esq.
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  eavery@carlsonlynch.com
                  ncolella@carlsonlynch.com
                  rbolea@carlsonlynch.com

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Richardson Sues Over False Representation
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherise Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No.
7:21-cv-08275 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021), is brought on behalf of
purchasers of Hawaiian Tropic Reef Friendly Sunscreen (the
"Sunscreen Products") which contained deceptive and false
representations as a result of the Defendant marketing and selling
the Sunscreen Products as "Reef Friendly."

Coral reefs are among the most diverse ecosystems in the world. In
fact, thousands of species of corals have been discovered; some
live in warm, shallow, tropical seas and others in the cold, dark
depths of the ocean. However, coral reef ecosystems are threatened
by pollution. Relevant to this matter, certain chemicals found in
sunscreen lead to the "bleaching" of coral reefs, resulting in
death and damage. In response to reef damage and death, consumers
have turned to sunscreen products that are labeled and marketed as
"Reef Friendly," which purportedly will not cause damage to coral
reef ecosystems.

However, contrary to the Defendant's representation that its
products are "Reef Friendly," the Sunscreen Products at issue are
not actually "Reef Friendly." In fact, the Sunscreen Products
contain harmful chemicals known to harm and/or kill coral reefs,
such as avobenzone, homosalate, and octocrylene. As such, the
Defendant has engaged in widespread false and deceptive conduct by
designing, marketing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling its
Sunscreen Products as "Reef Friendly" (the "Reef Friendly Claims").
Every package of the Sunscreen Products falsely and misleadingly
represents that the products are "Reef Friendly."

The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased the Sunscreen Products,
which are designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold
by the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff and Class Members relied
to their detriment on the Defendant's representation that the
Sunscreen Products were purportedly "Reef Friendly," when they are
not. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have paid to
purchase the Defendant's Sunscreen Products--or would not have paid
as much as they did to purchase them--had they known that they were
not in fact "Reef Friendly." The Plaintiff and Class Members thus
suffered monetary damages as a result of the Defendant's deceptive
and false representations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Hawaiian Tropic Reef Friendly Sunscreen
from the Defendant.

Edgewell manufactures, sells, and/or distributes Hawaiian
Tropic-brand products, and is responsible for the advertising,
marketing, trade dress, and packaging of the Sunscreen
Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 bscott@bursor.com


ENERGAGE LLC: Court Enters Initial Scheduling Order in Cordes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CORDES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENERGAGE, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02641-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M.
Rufe entered an initial scheduling order as follows:

   1. A joint motion for conditional certification of the Fair
      Labor Standard Act (FLSA) Class shall be submitted on or
      before October 22, 2021.

   2. Fact discovery shall be completed on or before June 20,
      2022.

   3. The Plaintiff's motion for FLSA class certification and
      Defendant's motion to decertify FLSA class shall be filed
      on or before July 20, 2022.

   4. The Defendant's opposition to class certification and
      Plaintiff's opposition to class decertification shall be
      filed on or before August 19, 2022.

   5. Replies to motions for class certification and class
      decertification shall be filed on or before September 9,
      2022.

   6. Judge Rufe's policies and procedures for summary judgment
      will not apply in this case and the parties should instead
      follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Energage provides human resource technology platform. The Company
serves customers in the State of Pennsylvania.

dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3BAMRE3 at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Continued to May 6, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CUELLAR,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated and
similarly aggrieved employees, v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., an active
Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
8:20-cv-01075-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb
entered an order to continue class certification briefing and
hearing dates as follows:

   1. Plaintiff's class certification motion filing deadline,
      currently set for October 8, 2021, is continued to May 6,
      2022;

   2. The Defendant's opposition filing deadline, currently set
      for November 24, 2021, is continued to June 24, 2022;

   3. Plaintiff's reply filing deadline, currently set for
      December 23, 2021, is continued to July 22, 2022; and

   4. Hearing on the class certification motion, currently set
      for January 21, 2022, is continued to August 19, 2022, at
      9:00 a.m.

First Transit is an American transportation company. Headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit operates over 300 locations,
carrying more than 350 million passengers annually throughout the
United States in 39 states, Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four
Canadian provinces.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBdYPq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff Frank Cuellar, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated and similarly aggrieved employees, are:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW, APC
          24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 487-1998
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                  haik@mooradianlaw.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant First Transit, Inc.

          David J. Fow, Esq.
          Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
          Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: ddow@littler.com
                  blmcarthy@littler.com
                  jhannah@littler.com

FIRST WATCH: Love Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Love, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. First Watch Restaurants, Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-00413-RCC (D. Ariz., Oct. 11, 2021), is brought implicating
the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's and
the Arizona Minimum Wage Act's tip credit and subsequent
underpayment of its employees at the federally and state mandated
minimum wage rate for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and all similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages.

The Defendant pays its tipped employees, including servers and
bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the
tip-credit provisions of the FLSA and, in Arizona, under the AMWA.
Under the tip-credit provisions, an employer of tipped employees
may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the
minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the employer's
minimum wage obligations from the tips received from customers.
Therefore, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated workers the applicable federal or Arizona
minimum wage. As a result of these violations, the Defendant has
lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must
compensate the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the
full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all
hours worked. In other words, the Defendant must account for the
difference between the wages paid to the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at the First Watch location
in Tucson, Arizona as a waitress.

The Defendant operates a nationwide chain of restaurants under the
trade name "First Watch" throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          Texas Bar No. 24050022
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com


FPI MANAGMENT: Morris Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA MORRIS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00128-TOR (E.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
their unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary
approval of class settlement.

FPI Management provides real estate services.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bwq9x4 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 413-1494
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

               - and -

          Shayne Sutherland, Esq.
          CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 315-4507
          E-mail: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com

GEICO CASUALTY: Desai Seeks Certification of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILIND DESAI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GEICO CASUALTY
CO., Case No. 1:19-cv-02327-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action under Rule 23(a),
      (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the "Class" or "Class
      members" defined as:

      "All individuals who: (a) on or after September 6, 2011;
      (b) are or were covered by a Geico Casualty Compamy Ohio
      personal automobile insurance policy; (c) made a claim
      under the Collision or Comprehensive coverages of that
      policy for damage or loss to a covered vehicle which Geico
      accepted and treated as a total loss claim; and (d) GEICO
      paid the claim on a cash settlement basis;"

      The class period will be from September 6, 2011, to the
      date of class certification;

   2. appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel under
      Rule 23(g); and

   3. appointing Desai as Class Representative.

Geico Casualty operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AwG3X0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2833 Crockett St., Suite 135
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (214) 253-8300
          E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
          MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS
          & KLANG, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com
                  edjerse@merrimanlegal.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  khill@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, Florida 33606
          Telephone (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com
                  maria@rothburdpa.com

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.comaq

               - and -

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Reloj Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Reloj, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Case No.
3:21-cv-01751-L-AGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2021), is brought seeking
full compensation for all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
noncompliant meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, and
premium pay and seeking to recover for the Defendant's violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, applicable California
Labor Code provisions; applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders; the Unfair Business Practices Act; and California
Business and Professions Code.

This is a collective and class action complaint against GEICO to
challenge its policies and practices of: failing to pay non-exempt,
hourly employees who work as Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjusters for
all hours worked; failing to pay required minimum wage; failing to
pay required overtime wages; failing to authorize, permit, and/or
make meal and rest periods available, and failing to pay premium
pay for these missed breaks; failing to provide accurate, itemized
wage statements; and failing to pay all wages after termination of
employment. The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff for all hours
worked, including minimum wage and overtime. Ultimately, the time
that the Defendant requires the Plaintiff to work without
compensation deprives them of substantial amounts of pay to which
they are entitled under federal law and the laws of California,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, hourly employee who worked as
an Auto Damage Adjuster for GEICO in San Diego, California.

The Defendant furnishes car insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Brett D. Watson, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                 bwatson@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Paige T. Bennett, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
          6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
          Email: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 tgivens@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


GROCERY OUTLET: Chavis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Outlet Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Reginald Antonio Chavis, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Grocery Outlet Inc., Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00308972-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited."

Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. -- https://www.groceryoutlet.com/ --
is a chain of discount supermarkets that offer discounted,
overstocked and closeout products from name brand and private label
suppliers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGLSEY & KINGLSEY
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-990-8300
          Fax: 818-990-2903
          Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS: Kuchar Wins Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLLEEN KUCHAR v. SABER
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02542-JG (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) class:

      "Hourly nurses who worked in one or more workweeks at
      Aurora Manor Special Care Centre any time between November
      11, 2018 and the present and have not executed an
      arbitration agreement with Defendants;"

   3. appointing the named Plaintiff as class representative;

   4. appointing Tittle & Perlmuter and the Fuchs Firm as class
      counsel; and

   5. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the
      name, last known home address (including zip code), last
      known telephone number, last known email address, and
      dates of employment of all individuals within the above-
      defined class. Saber is to provide this information to the
      Plaintiffs within fifteen days of this order.

The Plaintiff Kuchar makes overtime and wage claims against her
former employer and against related employers. With her motion to
certify her Ohio law claims as a class action, Kuchar seeks to
represent herself and other Aurora Manor hourly nurses for unpaid
worktime during lunch breaks.

From 2012 to 2020, the Plaintiff Kuchar worked at Aurora Manor
Special Care Centre, a nursing and care facility. With her class
action claims, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Ohio law
by automatically deducting a half-hour lunch break despite
knowledge that nurses' job duties frequently required them to work
through lunch.


A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3atFwui at no
extra charge.[CC]

HEALTHY PAWS: Modification of Scheduling Order in Benanav Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, BRYAN
GAGE, MONICA KOWALSKI, LINDSAY PURVEY, STEPHANIE CAUGHLIN, and
KATHERINE THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00421-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modifying the Court's scheduling order as follows:.

   -- Last day by which to add any     30 days after Defendant
      necessary parties                files Answer

   -- Close of Fact Discovery          June 30, 2022

   -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to       July 22, 2022
      file Motion for Class
      Certification and Class
      Certification Expert Reports

   -- Deadline for Defendant to        September 23, 2022
      file Opposition to Motion for
      Class Certification and Class
      Certification Expert Reports;
      Deadline for Defendant to
      Complete Deposition of
      Plaintiffs' Class
      Certification Experts

   -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to       October 21, 2022
      file Reply in Support of
      Motion for Class
      Certification; Deadline
      for Plaintiffs to Complete
      Deposition of Defendant's
      Class Certification Experts

   -- All Parties' Daubert Motions     November 15, 2022
      as to Class Certification
      Experts

   -- All Parties' Oppositions         December 6, 2022
      to Daubert Motions as to
      Class Certification
      Experts

   -- All Parties' Replies to          December 22, 2022
      Daubert Motions as to
      Class Certification Experts

   -- Hearing on Motion for Class     To be set by the Court
      Certification

Healthy Paws is a pet health insurance provider.

A copy the Parties' motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oPByo8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         936 North 34 th Street, Suite 300
         Seattle, WA 98103-8869
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (608) 509-4423

              - and -

         Stan M. Doerrer, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF STAN DOERRER PLLC
         950 N. Washington Street
         Alexandria, VA 22314
         Telephone (703) 348-4646
         E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia Goren Gold, Esq
         KALIEL PLLC
         1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
         Washington, D.C. 20009
         Telephone (202) 350-4783
         E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
         E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com

Attorneys for Defendant Healthy Paws Pet Insurance LLC, are:

         Alicia Cobb, Esq.
         Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
         Justin C. Griffin, Esq.
         QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
         SULLIVAN, LLP
         1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 905-7000
         Facsimile: (206) 905-7100
         E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
                 sb@quinnemanuel.com

              - and -

         Rick Werder, Esq.
         Robert Longtin, Esq.
         QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
         SULLIVAN, LLP
         51 Madison Avenue 22 nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Telephone: (212) 849-7000
         Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
         E-mail: rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com

HUGO BOSS: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
----------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUGO BOSS RETAIL INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01687-H-MDD (S.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious
reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on Hugo Boss
branded outlet merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

According to the complaint, Hugo Boss engages in a practice of
false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price,
and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price.
The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price
for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and
therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers
including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to
sell their goods above their true market price, notes the
complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for
those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive
pricing scheme.

Hugo Boss Retail Inc. operates Hugo Boss outlet stores in
California and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells
clothing and clothing accessories in California and throughout the
United States. It is the American branch subsidiary of parent Hugo
Boss AG, which is headquartered in Metzingen, Germany, and
functions as Defendant's corporate parent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

IRVING K MOTOR: Class Cert. Response & Brief Filing Due Oct. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE WILLIAMSON
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
IRVING K. MOTOR COMPANY, LLC d/b/a Clay Cooley Kia, Case No.
3:21-cv-01599-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez
entered an order that:

   -- The respondent may file a response and brief containing
      citations to relevant authorities no later than Monday,
      October 18, 2021.

   -- The movant may file a reply no later than Monday, November
      1, 2021.

   -- No hearing will be scheduled on the motions.

Irving K is located in Irving, Texas, and is part of the Automobile
Dealers Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mU6IIy at no extra charge.[CC]

JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Court Enters Initial Case Management Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH ELLENBERGER and
CAITLAN SHOOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00732-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan
entered an initial case management order as follows:

   1. Settlement Negotiations:

      Counsel for the parties shall confer with their clients
      and any involved insurance carriers before all case
      management, status, or pretrial conferences to obtain
      authority to participate in settlement negotiations
      conducted by the Court.

   2. Initial Scheduling:

      The parties shall comply with the following deadlines:

      a) Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) shall be
         made on or before November 1, 2021.

      b) Additional parties shall be joined on or before
         December 1, 2021.

      c) Pleadings shall be amended by December 1, 2021.

      d) Class certification discovery should be completed by
         January 28, 2022.

      e) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum
         in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed
         by February 28, 2022.

      f) Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class
         Certification and supporting evidence shall be filed
         within 21 days after the filing of the Motion for Class
         Certification.

      g) Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in support of Class
         Certification, if any, shall be filed within 14 days
         after the filing of Defendant's Memorandum in
         Opposition to Class Certification.

      h) Any Class Certification hearing will be scheduled by
         further order of Court.

   4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):

      Counsel have requested and are granted leave to defer ADR
      until after a decision of the Court on Conditional Class
      Certification.

   5. An Order implementing Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d)
      shall be entered.

   6. Discovery and Other Case Management Disputes:

      In the Court's experience, many discovery and case
      management disputes can be promptly resolved in a
      conference with the Court and counsel.

   7. Other Deadlines/Post-Certification Determination Status
      Conference:

      A Post-Certification Determination Status Conference will
      be scheduled after decision upon class certification, at
      which time the Court will address the possibility of
      settlement; and as necessary, will set deadlines for
      completion of fact discovery; expert discovery;
      dispositive motions; pre-trial statements; motions in
      limine; and a presumptive trial date and final pre-trial
      conference.

JusticeWorks is a family and child social services company
providing child welfare services and serving youth in the Juvenile
Court System.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FD2fm5 at no extra charge.[CC]


KEEFE GROUP: Raney Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM S. RANEY, JESUS
FLORES, CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, ET AL., v. ANDREW C. TAYLOR, CHRISSY
TAYLOR, and KEEFE GROUP LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00485-bbc (W.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff Adam S. Raney asks the Court to enter an
order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
to allow this case to proceed as a class action.

Mr. Raney says that the class is so numerous that joinder of all
class members is impracticle. This class concerns all inmates in
the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections (approximately
24,000 inmates). He asserts the actions of the defendants violated
the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Act, Fraudulent Representations, and
the Lanham Act and Federal Trade Commission Act.

Keefe Group operates as a supplier of products to correctional
facilities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2mZOh at no extra
charge.[CC]

KRAFT HEINZ: Francione Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michelle Francione, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case
No. 1:21-cv-10928 was transferred from the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 8,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-05346 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The Kraft Heinz Company -- https://www.kraftheinzcompany.com/ -- is
the third-largest food and beverage company in North America and
the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward L. Manchur, Esq.
          P.O. Box 3156
          Peabody, MA 01960
          Phone: (978) 333-1013
          Email: alton823122@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander Michael Smith, Esq.
          Kate Spelman, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-5100
          Email: asmith@jenner.com
                 kspelman@jenner.com

               - and -

          Dean Nicholas Panos, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Quinn, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Email: dpanos@jenner.com
                 tquinn@jenner.com

               - and -

          Nelson G. Apjohn, Esq.
          Ritika Bhakhri, Esq.
          NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210-2699
          Phone: (617) 439-2246
          Email: napjohn@nutter.com
                 rbhakhri@nutter.com


KROEGER CO: Castle Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kroger Co. The
case is styled as Stacey Castle, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2:21-cv-01171
(E.D. Wis., Oct. 8, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger --
https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail company
founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Poole Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America. The case is styled as Brian Loyd Poole, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
BCV-21-102295 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- provides vital information
to help doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers,
and patients make clear and confident decision.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
          10045 SW 111th St
          Miami, FL 33176-3462
          Phone: 305-439-7872
          Fax: 305-270-3203


LACY KATZEN: Jakubowitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lacy Katzen, LLP, et
al. The case is styled as Tovia Jakubowitz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lacy Katzen, LLP,
AccessLex Institute doing business as: Access Group, Provest LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05579-EK-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021).

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

Lacy Katzen Attorneys at Law -- https://www.lacykatzen.com/ -- is a
full-service law firm, with a staff of more than 25 lawyers and
multiple offices located throughout the Rochester NY area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza
          Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com


LENDGINGCLUB CORPORATION: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendingclub
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Yamita Anderson, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lendingclub Corporation,
Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00309434-CU-NP-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 7, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Civil
Unlimited."

LendingClub -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- is a fintech company
that provides range of financial products and services through a
technology-driven platform in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in Loper Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER LOPER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-583-CLM (N.D. Ala.), Judge Corey L.
Maze of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division:

    (i) grants in part and denies in part Lifeguard's motion for
        summary judgment; and

   (ii) grants in part and denies in part its motion to strike
        and disregard.

Background

Ms. Loper brought a class action against Lifeguard to challenge its
alleged practice of billing certain ambulance passengers excessive
rates without contracting for or otherwise disclosing the price
Lifeguard would charge for its services.

In March 2017, Loper was a patient at Thomas Hospital in Fairhope,
Alabama. After a few days in the hospital, Loper's doctor decided
to transfer her either to UAB Hospital in Birmingham or Vanderbilt
Hospital in Nashville, whichever had the first available bed, to
obtain more effective treatment. Loper's doctor contacted both
hospitals on her behalf. Thomas Hospital contacted Lifeguard about
providing an ambulance transport. And the hospital directed
Lifeguard to deliver Loper by no later March 12, which was the next
day.

Lifeguard knew that Loper had health insurance through BlueCross
and BlueShield of Alabama. But because this story began on Saturday
and concluded on Sunday, Lifeguard was unable to determine the
amount of coverage BlueCross would provide and thus didn't know
whether BlueCross would pay for all, some, or none of the
transport.

So Lifeguard didn't make a pre-transport disclosure of the
estimated cost. Loper and Murray believed that BlueCross would
cover the entire cost. In his deposition, Murray vaguely recalled a
Thomas Hospital representative saying that BlueCross would cover
the transport. And Loper and her husband, Murray, each recalled an
on-site Lifeguard representative saying that insurance would cover
the trip. But the form did not set out the amount that Lifeguard
would charge.

Lifeguard submitted an $8,166.11 bill to BlueCross. That amount
represented Lifeguard's base charge of $590.79 for a non-emergency
basic-life-support transport and a mileage charge of $7,575.32 (458
miles at $16.54 per mile). Lifeguard calculated the total using its
commercial rates for uninsured and privately insured passengers.
But the parties dispute whether those align with "market" rates.

BlueCross paid $3,889.96 to Lifeguard. That amount represented
Loper's $4,862.45 in coverage minus Loper's 20% deductible.
BlueCross then sent a notice to Murray that explained the amount it
paid and that Loper still owed $4,276.15 to Lifeguard -- i.e., the
sum of her deductible and the balance of the charge. In April 2017,
Lifeguard sent an invoice to Loper for $4,276.15. Then, in August
2017, Lifeguard referred the debt to a collection agency.

So Loper hired an attorney. In December 2017, Loper's counsel sent
a letter to Lifeguard expressing that no written contract existed,
that Loper did not consent to charges beyond what BlueCross paid,
and that Lifeguard's rates were unreasonable. Loper made several
demands, including "cease and desist any attempts at collection,"
and she threatened to sue.

In her October 2020 deposition, Loper testified that she began
paying "around $20 or $30 a month" for a credit-monitoring service
because of the collection effort. But Lifeguard has not reported
Loper's debt to any credit agencies and her credit has not
suffered. Nor has Lifeguard pursued collection efforts since
December 2017. Indeed, Loper testified that she "never heard
another word" about the debt after her counsel sent the December
7th letter.

Ms. Loper filed her complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama. Lifeguard removed it to this federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act. After removal, the Court denied
Loper's requests to voluntarily dismiss and to remand to state
court.

Ms. Loper then filed an amended complaint with claims for
declaratory judgment (seeking declaratory and injunctive relief),
fraudulent suppression, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of
contract. Her amended complaint seeks these declarations:

      a. that the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the Class did not
enter into any express written contract for the Plaintiff and the
Class to pay the prices charged by the Defendant for the
transportation services it provided;

      b. that the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the Class did not
enter into any express oral contract for the Plaintiff and the
Class to pay the prices charged by the Defendant for the
transportation services it provided;

      c. that the law implies a contract between the Defendant and
the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class whereby the Defendant
rendered services and in return is to receive a reasonable value
for its services;

      d. that the Defendant charged the Plaintiff and the Class
rates in excess of reasonable charges as required by state law;

      e. that the Defendant has no legally enforceable right to
charge and/or collect the prices charged in any court proceeding or
other collection effort, and the Plaintiff and the Class have no
legal obligation to pay Defendant the prices charged by the
Defendant for the transportation of patients; and

      f. that the Defendant charges prices that are excessive and
unsupportable by market rates.

Ms. Loper also asks for an injunction ordering Lifeguard to stop
"charging excessive rates for the transporting of patients without
an express agreement" and to quit its "attempts to collect
outstanding bills representative of excessive rates for which no
express agreement as to price exists." She also requests
"disgorgement" of funds wrongfully collected.

Lifeguard filed a motion for summary judgment on Loper's claims.
Foreseeing a different ending, Loper filed a motion (and corrected
motion) for class certification.

She asks to proceed on behalf of: "All individuals with private
health insurance and/or uninsureds who, within the applicable
statute of limitations under their respective state's law, have
been charged in excess of reasonable market rates by the Defendant
for medical transport services from a location within the United
States without an express contract to pay specific mileage and
other amounts charged."

Lifeguard opposes class certification.

Discussion

Judge Maze divides its discussion section into two main parts.
First, he addresses Lifeguard's motion to strike and disregard.
Second, he analyzes whether Lifeguard is entitled to summary
judgment.

I. Lifeguard's Motion to Strike and Disregard

After briefing and a hearing on Lifeguard's summary judgment
motion, Loper presented two documents contending that Lifeguard's
actions harmed her in three ways: (1) unlawfully billing her; (2)
forcing her to incur the cost of a credit-monitoring service; and
(3) forcing her to hire counsel to fight Lifeguard's collection
effort. Lifeguard asks the Court to strike those filings and to
disregard those damages allegations because Loper introduced them
"for the first time in response to Lifeguard's motion for summary
judgment."

Judge Maze grants in part and denies in part that request. He
grants Lifeguard's motion to strike in part and disregard's Loper's
reliance on her attorney expenses. She cannot rely on that
information to oppose summary judgment. As for the unlawful billing
and credit monitoring, Loper complied with Rule 26(a) and Rule
26(e) because that information came out during discovery, which put
Lifeguard on notice that Loper might rely on it to support her
claims. So even though Loper's supplemental filings that identified
those alleged damages were untimely, the Judge will not strike them
as to that information because the filings were unnecessary and any
violation was therefore harmless.

II. Lifeguard's Motion for Summary Judgment

Judge Maze analyzes Lifeguard's motion proceeds in two parts.
First, he analyzes whether Loper presents a justiciable
controversy. Second, he discusses the merits of Loper's claims. The
Judge grants Lifeguard's motion in part and denies it in part.

A. Does Loper present a justiciable controversy?

Judge Maze holds that the Court has a continuing and independent
obligation to assure itself of jurisdiction before reaching the
merits. Citing Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1245
(11th Cir. 2020). The case involves two jurisdictional questions:
standing and mootness.

Judge Maze opines that Loper has Article III standing to pursue
retrospective relief for breach of contract, and the prospective
relief of the part of declaration (e) pertaining to Lifeguard's
right to collect charged amounts and her second injunction request.
With regards mootnes, Lifeguard has not pursued collection against
Loper since December 2017. But Lifeguard's counsel admitted that it
ceased doing so to avoid litigation, shortly after Loper hired an
attorney. And Lifeguard has confidently acknowledged that it
continues to apply the commercial rates that are the subject of the
lawsuit for other ambulance passengers. For those reasons, the case
is not moot.

Judge Maze now proceeds to the merits.

B. Are there questions of fact for the jury to decide?

Ms. Loper brought claims for breach of contract, declaratory
judgment (and injunctive relief), fraudulent suppression, and
negligent misrepresentation. Judge Maze addresses her claims in
that order.

1. Breach of Contract

Lifeguard contends that the parties entered an express agreement
that committed Loper to pay Lifeguard's standard commercial rates.
In the alternative, Lifeguard says that Loper agreed to pay
Lifeguard's standard rates under any implied-in-fact agreement. And
Lifeguard argues that Loper's claim fails because Loper didn't
suffer any actual damages.

Ms. Loper, by contrast, argues that the price term in the
Acknowledgment Form is too indefinite to enforce. Her view is that
the parties entered an implied-in-fact contract without a price
term. This means that the contract contained an open, undefined, or
missing price term, and the law therefore implies a promise to pay
the reasonable value of the service. And Lifeguard breached that
contract by charging more than the reasonable value.

Judge Maze opines that questions of fact exist about the parties'
implied-in-fact agreement and the reasonableness of Lifeguard's
charge. So Loper's failure to pay that amount (to date) does not
preclude that question from going to the jury. He thus denies
summary judgment on breach of contract.

2. Declaratory and injunctive relief

Lifeguard presses several arguments against prospective relief. In
its initial brief, Lifeguard focused its arguments on the
improbability of Loper and Lifeguard interacting in the future. In
its reply brief, Lifeguard added that the Court cannot issue a
declaratory judgment that adjudicates past behavior and that
declarations that are "merely duplicative of a breach of contract
claim" must also be dismissed.

Of her six declaratory-judgment requests, Ms. Loper only has
standing to pursue the part of request (e) related to Lifeguard's
right to collect and Loper's obligation to pay previously charged
amounts. Judge Maze allow request (e) to continue because it would
adjudicate Lifeguard's right to pursue collection from Loper in the
future. And it neither adjudicates past conduct nor is duplicative
of her breach-of-claim. He issues such a declaration -- in
sufficiently specific form -- if Loper prevails at trial.

Ms. Loper also seeks two injunctions. The first would require
Lifeguard to "cease charging excessive rates for the transporting
of patients without an express agreement." The second would order
Lifeguard to "cease its attempts to collect outstanding bills
representative of excessive rates for which no express agreement as
to price exists." Lifeguard's only argument against injunctive
relief is that Loper lacks prospective standing. But because the
Court has already rejected that argument, the second
injunctive-relief request survives summary judgment.

3. Ms. Loper's tort claims

Finally, Loper brought claims for fraudulent suppression and
negligent misrepresentation. Lifeguard asks for summary judgment on
those claims. And Loper did not oppose summary judgment in her
briefing. So Judge Maze grants Lifeguard's motion as to those
claims.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Maze grants in part and denies in
part Lifeguard's motion to strike and disregard. He grants in part
and denies in part its motion for summary judgment. He will enter a
separate order that dismisses the claims for which he grants
Lifeguard's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 29, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pz3rwx5v from
Leagle.com.


LOUISIANA: Seeks to Stay Tellis Case Pending Petition in 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY TELLIS and BRUCE
CHARLES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, JERRY GOODWIN, Warden of David Wade
Correction Center COL. LONNIE NAIL; DOCTOR GREGORY SEAL; ASSISTANT
WARDEN DEBORAH DAUZAT; STEVE HAYDEN; AERIAL ROBINSON; JOHNIE
ADKINS; and THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETYAND
CORRECTIONS, Case No. 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that the district court
stay this matter pending their petition for permission to appeal
filed on October 4, 2021 with the United States Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

In connection with the Petition, the Defendants have filed this
motion for stay with this Court, a Request for Stay with the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a Motion for Expedited
Consideration with the Fifth Circuit. Th Defendants submit that a
granting of a stay will serve the parties in allowing the appellate
court time to consider whether it will entertain Defendants' appeal
and the subsequent disposition of the appeal should it agree to
review at this time.

On September 20, 2021, this Court certified a class and subclass in
this matter. The certification of the class and subclass gives the
Defendants an opportunity to petition the United States Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Defendants are exercising
through the filing of a Petition for Permission to Appeal on
October 4, 2021.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mNsn4V at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeff Landry, Esq.
          Randal J. Robert, Esq.
          Connell L. Archey, Esq.
          Keith J. Fernandez, Esq.
          Aliena W. McCain, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          445 North Boulevard, Suite 300 (70802)
          P. O. Box 2997
          Baton Rouge, LA 70821-2997
          Telephone: (225) 383-4703
          Facsimile: (225) 343-0630
          E-mail: Randv.Robert@butlersnow.com
                  Connell.Archev@butlersnow.com
                  Keith.Fernandez@butlersnow.com
                  Allena.McCain@butlersnow.com

MARK III CONSTRUCTION: Chavira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark III
Construction, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nelson Chavira,
Michael Bird, Mickey Lathum, Michael McCreven, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mark III Construction, Inc., Does
1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00308972-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited."

Mark III Construction, Inc. -- https://mark-three.com/ -- is an
industry leading design/build mechanical, electrical, and
underground utility contractor specializing in commercial and
industrial construction throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com



MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN HELMAN et al., v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00036-RM
(D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the proposed Classes because common evidence will be used to prove
the Marriott Defendants' liability on every claim in this case, and
all other Rule 23 requirements are satisfied:

   -- CICO, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding/Abetting, and
      Breach of Implied Covenant Class

      "All entities and individuals (including their assignees)
      who owned a 1/12 fractional interest at the Ritz-Carlton
      Great Bay as of July 17, 2012, but excluding (a) those who
      financed their purchases through any Defendant and whose
      fractional interest was foreclosed upon; (b) any
      Defendants named in the complaint and any affiliate,
      parent, or subsidiary of any defendant; any successor or
      assignee of any defendant; any entity in which any
      defendant has a controlling interest; and any officer,
      director, or employee of any defendant; and (c) anyone who
      was a member of the board of directors of either the Great
      Bay Condominium Owners Association or the Neighborhood
      Association between 2008-2014;" and

   -- Fraudulent Concealment Class

      "All members of the Class described above who also owned
      their fractional interests as of January 26, 2014."

The Ritz-Carlton St. Thomas is a luxury private residence club in
the Virgin Islands that has 105 condominiums sold in 1/12
fractional interests. Each fractional is a separately deeded
property interest that allows its owner to stay at the Club for
three weeks per year.

The Plaintiffs paid premium prices for their fractionals -- between
$100,000 and $200,000 per interest -- and also pay annual
maintenance fees that average over $12,000.

Marriott’s uniform control over all class members' property
Marriott drafted the Club's governing documents to provide itself
with practical control over all class members' interests. Marriott
International (MI) also had control over the Association when it
was formed in 2002, and caused it to enter into a management
agreement that would allow Marriott to have perpetual control over
the Club and its management.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2X66fdc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler Meade, Esq.
          THE MEADE FIRM p.c.
          12 Funston Ave., Suite A
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 724-9600
          E-mail: tyler@meadefirm.com

               - and -

          J. Russell B. Pate, Esq.
          THE PATE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 890
          St. Thomas, VI 00804
          Telephone: (340) 777-7283
          E-mail: Pate@SunLawVI.com
                  SunLawVI@gmail.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Reiser, Esq.
          REISER LAW, P.C.
          1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 256-0400
          E-mail: michael@reiserlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 530-9700
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Clay Townsend, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-6041
          E-mail: ctownsend@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Matt Ferguson, Esq.
          FERGUSON SCHINDLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          119 South Spring Street, Suite 201
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (970) 925-6288
          E-mail: matt@fsaspenlaw.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Helman Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN HELMAN et al., v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00036-RM
(D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the proposed Classes.

   -- CICO, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding/Abetting, and
      Breach of Implied Covenant Class:

      "All entities and individuals (including their assignees)
      who owned a 1/12 fractional interest at the Ritz-Carlton
      Great Bay as of July 17, 2012, but excluding (a) those who
      financed their purchases through any Defendant and whose
      fractional interest was foreclosed upon; (b) any
      Defendants named in the complaint and any affiliate,
      parent, or subsidiary of any defendant; any successor or
      assignee of any defendant; any entity in which any
      defendant has a controlling interest; and any officer,
      director, or employee of any defendant; and (c) anyone who
      was a member of the board of directors of either the Great
      Bay Condominium Owners Association or the Neighborhood
      Association between 2008-2014;" and

   -- Fraudulent Concealment Class:

      "All members of the Class described above who also owned
      their fractional interests as of January 26, 2014."

The Ritz-Carlton St. Thomas is a luxury private residence club in
the Virgin Islands that has 105 condominiums sold in 1/12
fractional interests.

Marriott drafted the Club's governing documents to provide itself
with practical control over all class members' interests. Marriott
International (MI) also had control over the Association when it
was formed in 2002, and caused it to enter into a management
agreement that would allow Marriott to have perpetual control over
the Club and its management.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lsaFoe at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler Meade, Esq.
          THE MEADE FIRM P.C.
          12 Funston Ave., Suite A
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 724-9600
          E-mail: tyler@meadefirm.com

               - and -

          J. Russell B. Pate, Esq.
          THE PATE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 890
          St. Thomas, VI 00804
          Telephone: (340) 777-7283
          E-mail: Pate@SunLawVI.com
                  SunLawVI@gmail.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Reiser, Esq.
          REISER LAW, P.C.
          1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 256-0400
          E-mail: michael@reiserlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 530-9700
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Clay Townsend, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-6041
          E-mail: ctownsend@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Matt Ferguson, Esq.
          FERGUSON SCHINDLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          119 South Spring Street, Suite 201
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (970) 925-6288
          E-mail: matt@fsaspenlaw.com

MAVERICK FIELD: Misclassifies Manual Workers, McCaig Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MCCAIG, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAVERICK FIELD SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00173 (W.D. Tex., September 24, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Completions Foreman
from approximately January 2020 to July 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
misclassifying him and other similarly situated manual workers as
exempt from overtime. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours
per week, the Defendant did not pay them 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, the Plaintiff adds.

Maverick Field Services, LLC operates in the oil and gas industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

METORPOLITAN LIFE: Stewart Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Alverta Stewart,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-08092-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Professional Business Systems doing business as Practicefirst
Medical Management Solutions --
https://www.practicefirstsecure.com/ -- provides billing, coding,
credentialing, enrollment, chart audits, compliance and practice
management.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Fax: (914) 824-1561
          Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


MEWBOURNE OIL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 15, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAY CREEK ROYALTIES, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. MEWBOURNE
OIL COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-01199-F (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen P. Friot entered a first amended scheduling order as
follows:

   -- Class certification fact            January 31, 2022
      discovery cutoff

   -- Plaintiff's class certification     March 1, 2022
      expert report

   -- Defendant's class certification     March 31, 2022
      expert report

   -- Plaintiff's class certification     not later than April
      expert deposition                   19, 2022

   -- Defendant's class certification     not later than May 16,
      expert deposition                   2022

   -- Class Certification Motion          June 15, 2022
      filed with all supporting
      evidence

   -- Class Certification Response        July 13, 2022
      filed with all supporting
      evidence

   -- Class Certification Reply           August 1, 2022
      filed with any rebuttal
      evidence

   -- Class Certification Hearing         September 12, 2022
                                          at 1:30 p.m.

Mewbourne Oil Company operates as an oil company The Company
specializes in the exploration and production of oil and natural
gas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FCkQym at no extra charge.[CC]


MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Baten Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY BATEN, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, v. MICHIGAN LOGISTICS,
INC. d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS, INC.
d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, WESTERN DELIVERY & LOGISTICS, LLC,
d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, and LARRY BROWNE, Case No.
2:18-cv-10229-GW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a proposed class of:

   "All individuals who worked as delivery drivers under
   contract with CLI and/or WD&L in California between November
   2, 2014 and September 9, 2021 for whom Defendants have not
   produced by September 9, 2021 an executed Arbitration
   Agreement."

On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court, which
Defendants removed to the United States District for the Central
District of California.

On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. The Plaintiff's FAC asserts the following causes of
action under California law: (1) Overtime Claim; (2) Minimum Wage
Claim; (3) Unlawful Wage Deductions Claim; (4) Meal and Rest Break
Claims; (5) Timely Wage Payment Claim; (6) Wage Statement Claim;
(7) Expense Reimbursement Claim; and (8) Unfair Business Practices
Claim based on the foregoing violations.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303H4Jl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          OLIVIER SCHREIBER AND CHAO LLP
          1149 N. Gower St., Suite 215
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (415) 484-0522
          Facsimile: (415) 484-0980
          E-mail: rachel@osclegal.com

               - and -

          Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25 th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Adam Koshkin, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: akoshkin@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, New York 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                  mmatura@kesslermatura.com

MIELE INC: Alcazar Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, and PAMELA
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MIELE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02890-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order extending the Plaintiff's
deadline to file his motion for class certification to November 1,
2021.

No further extensions will be granted, says Judge Chhabria.

Miele is a German manufacturer of high-end domestic appliances and
commercial equipment, headquartered in Gutersloh,
Ostwestfalen-Lippe.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iSLGZt at no extra charge.[CC]



MRS BPO: Rosenberg Seeks to Certify Class of New York Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Naftali Rosenberg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MRS
BPO, L.L.C. d/b/a MRS Associates, Case No. 1:21-cv-02200-PKC-RML
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the putative Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(b)(3) because it readily meets the requirements of Rule
      23(a):

      "All individuals with addresses in New York; to whom
      Defendant sent a collection letter; on behalf of Verizon
      Wireless; that did not include any information regarding
      the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs if
      not paid by the provided dates; which letter was sent on
      or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this
      action and on or before a date 2l days after the filing of
      this action;"

   2. appointing Tamir Saland as Class Counsel for the proposed
      Class; and

   3. appointing Naftali Rosenberg as Class Representative for
      the proposed Class.

This is class action case where Defendant allegedly engaged in the
same uniform conduct for each member of the Class in violation of
Section 15 U.S.C. section 1692 e et seq. of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The conduct at issue concerns
the deceptive practice of omitting any information regarding the
accrual of interest, fees and/or additional costs if not paid by
the provided dates, when in fact the balance was subject to
increase due to fees and other charges.

Each member of the proposed class is a New York debtor who incurred
or allegedly incurred a debt with Verizon Wireless that was subject
to increase due to the accrual of interest, fees and/or additional
costs. Each member of the proposed class was subject to the exact
same conduct and methodology.

The Plaintiff has a New York State address, located in Kings
County. The Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter on May 1,
2020 on behalf of Verizon Wireless that did not include any
information regarding the accrual of interest, fees and/or
additional costs if not paid by the provided dates, when in fact
the debt was subject to increase due to the accrual of interest,
fees and/or additional costs, exactly like the other consumers in
the putative class.

On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiff was sent a subsequent collection
letter, evidencing the increased amount of debt due, related to
"fees and other charges."

MRS provides business process outsourcing services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lsmdYo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ, 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 122
          E-mail: tsaland@SteinSaksLegal.com

NATIONAL CONSUMER: Time Extension for Class Cert. Briefing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT S. TREPETA, on
behalf himself and all other similarly situated individuals, v.
NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM AND UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC. (NCTUE) and
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-RCY-DEM
(E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order for
enlargements of time to complete briefing on Plaintiff's upcoming
renewed motion for class certification as follows:

         Event                       Current       Requested
                                     Deadline      Deadline

-- Plaintiff's Renewed Motion     Oct. 15, 2021   Nov. 5, 2021
   for Class Certification

-- Equifax's Response             Nov. 15, 2021   Dec. 6, 2021

-- Plaintiff's Reply              Dec. 6, 2021   Dec. 27, 2021

NCTUE is a reporting agency that collects data such as, payment
history, account history, from paid tv services, utilities, and
telecommunications services.

Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DAbhhw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: len@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

The Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC, is represented
by:

          Zach McEntyre, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572 4636
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Mohammadb Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Mia Mohammadb, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Enterprise
Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05606 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2021).

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

National Enterprise Systems (NES) -- https://www.nes1.com/ -- is an
account receivable collection agency servicing credit grantors from
retail, automotive, financial services, and telecommunications
industries in all fifty states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com



NEW DAY HOME: Faces McKinsey Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN MCKINSEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW DAY HOME CARE, INC., CREATIVE LIVING
COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, CLEMENT POWNALL, and GRACE POWNALL,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01284 (D. Conn., September 24, 2021)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant to
recover damages as a result of its violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Connecticut Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on or about August 26,
2019 as an Independent Living Support Trainer to provide care and
companion services to its consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
widespread pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the
FLSA by refusing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees and former employees in accordance with the provisions of
the FLSA for all hours worked, that includes an overtime rate for
any of the hours they worked more than 40 hours in a week.

New Day Home Care, Inc. provides homecare and companionship
services. Clement Pownall and Grace Pownall are owners of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Petela, Esq.
          Richard Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
          900 Chapel St., 11th Floor
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Tel: (203) 691-6491
          Fax: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com
                  rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

OAKLAND, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Gaffett Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE GAFFETT, et al.,
v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02881-RS (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying in part and
granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Defendants' motion is denied except as to the conspiracy claim
and the part of the Ralph Act claim for discrimination based on
national origin and religion; those parts of the motion are
granted. Should Plaintiffs elect to file a further amended
complaint on the claims identified in this order, they must do so
within 21 days of this date, says Judge Seeborg.

The Plaintiffs were injured by police while protesting police
brutality last summer. They sued the unknown law enforcement
officers who injured them, the Oakland Police Department and some
of its leaders, and Alameda County and its Sheriff, Gregory Ahern.


Alameda County and Sheriff Ahern move to dismiss. They argue
Plaintiffs cannot show they will likely be injured again, or that
the County can be held liable for its deputies' actions in this
case. Neither of Defendants' arguments supply sufficient grounds to
dismiss Plaintiffs' core claims. The Plaintiffs adequately plead
that Defendants' failure to train, for example, may give rise to
liability. However, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs have not
averred enough facts for their conspiracy claim.

Similarly, the Complaint contains no facts to explain how
Defendants could have discriminated against Plaintiffs based on
religion or national origin. For the reasons further set out below,
the Defendants' motion is denied, except that it is granted as to
the conspiracy count and part of the Ralph Act count.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mJ7qYQ at no extra charge.[CC]

PATRICK MEYERS: Collins Files Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrick Meyers. The
case is styled as Stephen E. Collins, Resort Meeting Source, a
Colorado limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Patrick Meyers, in his official
capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Office of Economic
Development and International Trade, Case No. 1:21-cv-02713-WJM (D.
Colo., Oct. 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.

Patrick Meyers -- https://oedit.colorado.gov/pat-meyers -- was
appointed by Governor Polis as the Executive Director of the Office
of Economic Development and International Trade and as the Chief
Economic Recovery Officer in April 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn E. Roper, Esq.
          Wencong Fa, Esq.
          PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION-HIGHLANDS RANCH
          1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400
          Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
          Phone: (720) 344-4881
          Fax: (916) 419-7747
          Email: geroper@pacificlegal.org
                 wfa@pacificlegal.org


PHIL LIGHTFOOT: Gomillion Files Suit in M.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phil Lightfoot, et
al. The case is styled as C. G. Gomillion, Celia B. Chambers, Alma
R. Craig, Frank H. Bentley, Willie D. Bentley, Kenneth L. Buford,
William J. White, Augustus O. Young, Jr., Detroit Lee, Delia D.
Sullivan, Lynwood T. Dorsey, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Phil M. Lightfoot, as mayor of the City of
Tuskegee; G. B. Edwards, Jr., L. D. Gregory, Frank A. Oslin, W. Foy
Thompson, H. A. Vaughan, Jr., as member of the Tuskegee City
Council; O. L. Hodnett, as Chief of Police of the City of Tuskegee,
Alabama; E. C. Leslie, Charles Huddleston, J. T. Dyson, F. C.
Thompson, Virgil Guthrie, as members of the Board of Revenue of
Macon County, Alabama; Preston Hornsby, as Sheriff of Macon County,
Alabama; William Varner, as Judge of Probate of Macon County,
Alabama; City of Tuskegee, Alabama, a Municipal Corporation; Case
No. 3:58-cv-00462-FMJ (M.D. Ala., Oct. 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Voting Civil Rights.

Phil M. Lightfoot is the mayor of the City of Tuskegee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred Sr. D. Gray, Esq.
          GRAY LANGFORD SAPP MCGOWAN GRAY GRAY & NATHANSON PC
          PO Box 830239
          Tuskegee, AL 36083-0239
          Phone: (334) 727-4830
          Fax: (334) 727-5877
          Email: fgray@glsmgn.com


PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Seeks Decertification of Green Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN GREEN, et al., v.
PLATINUM RESTAURANTS MID-AMERICA LLC d/b/a EDDIE MERLOT'S PRIME
AGED BEEF AND SEAFOOD, Case No. 3:14-cv-00439-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
for summary judgment.

In the alternative, Platinum requests that the Court decertify this
matter as a class and collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The Platinum contends that it is entitled to decertification
because permitting this case to proceed as a class and collective
action while Plaintiffs are clearly not similarly situated, and do
not assert any common contention, would lead to anomalous results
and would create an administrative nightmare for the Court and
Platinum.

Platinum is a full-service restaurants.

A copy of the Defendant motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DreQGX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kyle D. Johnson, Esq.
          John T. Lovett, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Bame, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202-3363
          Telephone: (502) 589-5400
          Facsimile: (502) 581-1087
          E-mail: jlovett@fbtlaw.com
                  kjohnson@fbtlaw.com
                  jbame@fbtlaw.com

PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Amendment of Scheduling Order in Kohl Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KOHL and MATTHEW
KOHL, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, LLC, PLURIS HOLDINGS, LLC, and
PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-01683-CEM-GJK (M.D.
Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the
case management and scheduling order as follows:

            Action or Event                       Deadline

-- Motion for Class Certification             October 29, 2021

-- Opposition to Class Certification          December 13, 2021

-- Reply in support of Class Certification    January 7, 2022

A copy of the Parties motion dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YBRW0n at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven R. Maher, Esq.
          Matthew S. Mokwa, Esq.
          Jason R. Fraxedas, Esq.
          THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          271 W. Canton Ave.. Suite 1
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 839-0866
          Facsimile: (407) 425-7958
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com
                  mmokwa@maherlawfirm.com
                  jrfraxedas@maherlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
          Timothy C. Davis, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
                  tim@hglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
          Michelle.montecalvo@normandpllc.com
          Service@normandpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jenny A. Hergenrother, Esq.
          Douglas S. Arnold, Esq.
          Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
          Jenny A. Hergenrother, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: doug.arnold@alston.com
                  cari.dawson@alston.com
                  jenny.hergenrother@alston.com

               - and -

          Phil Sandick, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 239-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 239-3300
          E-mail: phil.sandick@alston.com

PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Bid for Class Certification Due October 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kohl, et al., v. Pluris
Wedgefield, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01683 (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly entered an endorsed order
granting joint motion to amend case management and to modify the
class certification briefing schedule as follows:

  -- Motion for Class Certification due      Octobber 29, 2021

  -- Opposition to Class Certification due   December 13, 2021

  -- Reply in support of Class               January 7, 2022
     Certification due

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]

PROBUILD COMPANY: Settlement in Sengvong Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTINA SENGVONG, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. PROBUILD COMPANY
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02231-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
      class settlement and granting in substantial part
      Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and an
      incentive award;

   2. certifying the Settlement Class for the purposes of the
      Settlement;

   3. approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);

   4. directing the parties to undertake the obligations set
      forth in the Settlement Agreement that arise out of this
      Order;

   5. awarding attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of
      $350,000 and costs in the amount of $8,581.33;

   6. awarding Plaintiff an incentive payment for work performed
      as the class representative in the amount of $15,000;p[

   7. directing the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment
      of dismissal in accordance herewith, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
      58(a), and to close the case.

The Settlement Class consists of:

   "all persons employed by Defendants in California as non-
   exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class
   Period (October 15, 2015 through October 3, 2020)."

   There are 1894 Settlement Class Members with two opt-outs.
   The Defendant will pay a total sum of $1.4 million (the
   "Gross Settlement Amount") in full settlement of all claims.
   The parties have agreed that no portion of the Gross
   Settlement Amount will revert to Defendant.

The Defendants are suppliers of structural and related building
products for new residential construction, including lumber,
windows, pre-hung doors, and other general construction tools and
supplies. In California, the Defendants operate retail locations.

The Plaintiff resides in San Diego, California. The Defendants
first employed Plaintiff on January 25, 2018 to work as a materials
handler at their Dixieline Lumber & Home Centers in San Diego,
California.

The Plaintiff continuously worked for Defendants from the time of
his hire until approximately February 6, 2019, when his employment
ended.

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other
aggrieved employees, sent a written notice by certified mail to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and
Defendants of the specific California Labor Code provisions to have
been allegedly violated by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego against the Defendants alleging the following causes of
action: (1) Failure to provide meals periods; (2) Failure to
provide rest periods; (3) Failure to compensate for all hours
worked; (4) Failure to Indemnify; (5) Failure to provide accurate
written wage statements; (6) Waiting time penalties; (7) Unfair
competition; and (7) Civil Penalties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ay7zDe at no extra charge.[CC]

PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp Seeks to Certify California Consumer Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEY SHARP, MARY
LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, PENELOPE MUELLER, JAY WERNER, DIANE CABRERA, MEG
LARSON, GARY OPAS, and JOANNE PARKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., a New York
Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. f/k/a NBTY, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All individual consumer residents of California who
      purchased Defendants' Products pursuant to a BOGO price,
      directly from Defendants, within the applicable statutory
      limitations period, including the period following the
      filing of the date of this action;" and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Meg Larson, Diane Cabrera, Mary
      Ludolph-Aliaga, and Penelope Mueller as Class
      Representatives;

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' BOGO marketing scheme runs
afoul of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Certification is appropriate
because whether Defendants' perpetual BOGO prices are false,
deceptive, and unlawful is a common question that will be
determined by reference to an objective, "reasonable consumer"
standard and established by common proof for the numerous class of
consumers."

This common question is "capable of class-wide resolution -- which
means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an
issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one
stroke." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
Finally, because Defendants continue to engage in this misconduct,
they can prove entitlement to both monetary relief under the CLRA
and injunctive relief under the UCL, on a common basis, the
Plaintiffs add.

The Class period in this case is defined as October 14, 2012
through the present. The Plaintiffs sought detailed sales and
marketing information from Defendants for the entire class period
in discovery, which Defendants refused to produce.

The Defendants have offered Products for sale under BOGO prices
throughout the entire Class Period. Throughout this time,
Defendants have directly marketed and sold their branded Products
to consumers via catalog, email, mail, and through their website
www.puritan.com. Defendants do not sell the Products through brick
and mortar retailers.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YBVXlv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          William Hansult, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT
          1399 Ramona Avenue, # C
          Grover Beach, CA 93433
          Telephone: (805) 489-1448
          E-mail: hansultlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Tina Mehr, Esq.
          VISION LEGAL, INC.
          445 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (877) 870-9953
          Facsimile: (877) 348-8509
          E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com

PVH CORP: Fallenstein Sues Over Deceptive Discount Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
CALLY FALLENSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PVH CORP., a Delaware Corporation, PVH
RETAIL STORES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES
1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01690-AJB-AGS (S.D.
Cal., Sept. 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' deceptive
business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on Calvin Klein branded outlet
merchandise, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engage in a practice of
false reference pricing as it fabricates a false "original" price,
and then offers an item for sale at a deeply "discounted" price.
The alleged practice artificially inflates the true market price
for the items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and
therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers
including the Plaintiff. The practice also enables the Defendant to
sell their goods above their true market price, added the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of the alleged false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme to obtain redress for
those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive
pricing scheme.

PHV Corp. operates Calvin Klein outlet stores, as well as the
calvinklein.com website, and advertises, markets, distributes,
and/or sells clothing and clothing accessories in California and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Fox Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying three Classes
of persons who have dined at any of the public food service
establishments owned and operated by the Defendant Ritz-Carlton
Hotel since November 28, 2013 and who paid an undisclosed or
improperly disclosed automatic gratuity:

   -- No Notice Class

      "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the
      conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food
      service establishment in the state of Florida owned and/or
      operated by Defendant; (ii) were presented with a menu
      that provided no notice that an automatic gratuity or
      service charge would be added to the check; (iii) the
      check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge;
      and, (iv) the person paid the check in full;"

   -- Inadequate Notice Class

      "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the
      conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food
      service establishment in the state of Florida owned and/or
      operated by Defendant; (ii) were presented with a menu
      that provided inadequate notice that an automatic gratuity
      or service charge would be added to the check; (iii) the
      check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge;
      and, (iv) the person paid the check in full.

   -- Miami Inadequate Notice Class:

      "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the
      conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food
      service establishment in Miami-Dade County-owned and/or
      operated by Defendant; (ii) were not presented with
      conspicuous notice, either on a sign or in a statement on
      the establishment's menu in the same form and manner as
      the other items on the menu, that an automatic gratuity or
      service charge would be added to the check; (iii) the
      check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge;
      and, (iv) the person paid the check in full.

The Plaintiff asserts that Ritz has for years pursued a deceptive
practice of imposing an automatic gratuity or service
charge on customers' bills with no advance notice, or with
inadequate notice, on the restaurants' menus.

The Plaintiff's claims are based on the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. 501.201 et seq.
("FDUTPA"), Fla. Stat. Ann. 509.214 and Miami-Dade County Code of
Ordinances, Sec. 8A-110.1(3).

   A. The Experience of Plaintiff Michael Fox

      From April 4 through April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff Fox
      stayed at the Ritz-Carlton Key Biscayne in Miami, Florida.
      During his stay, he ordered and paid for food and
      beverages from three separate public food service
      establishments located in the hotel -- Lightkeepers,
      Cantina Beach, and Key Pantry. On each occasion he was
      unaware he would be charged an automatic service charge.

   B. Ritz's Common Practices

      Discovery produced to date demonstrates Defendant's
      violations of Florida law with respect to the Classes. Mr.
      Coleman's review of the menus produced to date
      demonstrates that it was Defendant's widespread practice
      to omit any notice to consumers whatsoever of an automatic
      gratuity or service charge from the face of the menus used
      in its Florida public food service establishments.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is an American multinational
company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The
Ritz-Carlton. The company has 108 luxury hotels and resorts in 30
countries and territories with 29,158 rooms, in addition to 46
hotels with 8,755 rooms in the pipeline.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DnFYXg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITH MARCO, P.C.
          7204 Kyle Ct.
          Sarasota, Florida 34240
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539

               - and -

          P.C. James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
          Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600

               - and -

          Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
          Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
          LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Howard Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 376-8450

SAN GABRIEL: Misclassifies Recovery Care Technicians, Forbes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTY FORBES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN GABRIEL RECOVERY RANCH, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00851-LY (W.D. Tex., September 24,
2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a recovery care
technician from October 2018 to September 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has misclassified her and
other similarly situated recovery care technicians as exempt from
overtime under the FLSA. Even though they worked more than 40 hours
a week, the Defendant denied them of overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff.

San Gabriel Recovery Ranch, LLC operates a chain of mental health
facilities known as "The Arbor." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaner Device Unsafe, Blank Says
---------------------------------------------------
Larry Hunter-Blank, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SoClean, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-02425, (D. Kan., September 28, 2021), seeks actual damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief
available resulting from fraud, breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment and for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act.

SoClean manufactures and markets devices used to clean continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, which are used to treat
sleep apnea. SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize
and deodorize CPAP machines. Blank alleges that ozone used is an
unstable toxic gas that causes respiratory problems in humans and
are not safe.

Plaintiff is the owner of a SoClean CPAP cleaning device.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
      Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
      SHARP LAW, LLP
      4820 W. 75th St.
      Prairie Village, KS 66208
      Telephone: (913) 901-0505
      Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
      Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
             rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com


STERIGENICS US: Court Junks Vallejo's First Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER VALLEJO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. e 3:20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order:

   1. granting defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first
      amended complaint and class allegations; and

   2. denying defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's class
      allegations.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's claim for unfair competition is
derivative of 25 first through sixth causes of action. Therefore,
because the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first through sixth causes
of action, the Court also dismisses Plaintiff's claim for unfair
competition WITH leave to amend.

The Plaintiff brings this class action for alleged violations of
wage abuse under California's Labor Codes and Business and
Professions Code. Between January 2013 and January 2018, the
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid non-exempt
Machine Operator. During this time, the Defendant allegedly "had
the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the Class; to
directly or indirectly control work rules, working conditions,
wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of Plaintiff and
the Class; and to hire and terminate the employment of Plaintiff
and the Class."

The Plaintiff asserts Defendant "engaged in an ongoing and
systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees."

For example, the Plaintiff states Defendant regularly required
Plaintiff and the purported class to work off the clock without
compensation, rounded employee time in a manner that was not
neutral which advantaged Defendants, and failed to adequately
inform Plaintiff and the purported class of their right to take
meal and rest periods.

Sterigenics is a business unit of Sotera Health along with Nordion
(TM) and Nelson Labs (TM).

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lAsLUS at no extra charge.[CC]

TULSA INSPECTION: Misclassifies Inspectors, Mitchell Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TULSA INSPECTION RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-H (N.D. Tex., September 24, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector from
approximately November 2019 to February 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees
were misclassified by the Defendant as exempt from overtime.
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff added.

Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC operates in the oil and gas
industry and performs inspection services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Patel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILA Y KAMAL PATEL, RACHEL
A. GLADSTONE, ELIJAH BLOW, and AVERY ARROYO, v. UNIVERSITY OF
VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00061-gwc
(D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford entered a scheduling
order as follows:

   1. The court declines to bifurcate class certification and
      merits discovery.

   2. The parties and the court are all committed to reaching
      the class certification issues as early as possible. The
      court sets a deadline of six months -- April 1, 2022 --  
      for the filing of a class certification motion. The court
      intends this deadline to hold. It is not intended to be
      the first of multiple extended deadlines. That means that
      discovery relevant to the class issues must be largely
      complete by March 1, 2022 in order to allow time for
      counsel to draft the motion papers.

   3. The court allows Defendant 45 days to file a response to
      the class certification motion. The Plaintiffs have 15
      days for a reply. The court will set a hearing on the
      class certification motion soon after June 1, 2022.
      Following a ruling on the motion, the court will meet with
      the parties to discuss any remaining need for discovery.

   4. The Plaintiffs will disclose any class certification
      experts within 60 days.

   5. Prior to April 1, 2022, the defendant is also entitled to
      conduct discovery without limitation about whether it
      relates to class or merits issues.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' counsel has agreed that discovery
into the individual tuition and scholarship arrangements for
thousands of UVM students during the spring semester of 2020 is not
necessary at least at this time. The parties agree that discovery
into information concerning the various sources of student tuition
payment and the decision to move to an online format as a result of
the COVID-19 emergency is generally appropriate. The Plaintiffs'
counsel advised that they were primarily interested in the
communications sent out to students and the university community as
well as the internal discussions and policy statements by senior
administrators concerning this decision. They do not intend to seek
every email by a UVM faculty member, department chair, or
administrator concerning the movement to online instruction. With
this commitment to a focused discovery effort, the court declines
to create two stages of discovery."

The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, is a
public land-grant research university in Burlington, Vermont.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FFhhHK at no extra charge.[CC]

VCG ENERGY: McCaig Seeks Foremen's Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MCCAIG, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VCG ENERGY GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:21-cv-03430 (W.D. La., September 24, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action seeking to recover damages against
the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a completions foreman
from approximately September 2015 to December 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts that despite regularly working more than 40
hours per workweek, he and other similarly situated manual workers
were not compensated at the federally mandated overtime rate for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hour worked. This is because the
Defendant has misclassified them as exempt from overtime
compensation, says the Plaintiff.

VCG Energy Group, LLC operates in the oil and gas industry and
provides various services at oil wells across the Southwest US.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

                - and –

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

WESTCHESTER PARKWAY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Edgar Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES EDGAR v. WESTCHESTER
PARKWAY CONSULTING LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Court entered a scheduling order as follows:

   -- Initial disclosures

      The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by October
      15, 2021.

   -- Venue and jurisdiction

      There are no contested issues related to venue or
      jurisdiction at this time.

   -- Parties and pleadings

      Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
      parties shall be filed by February 18, 2022.


      The motion for class certification shall be filed by
      September 30, 2022. Defendants' motion for decertification
      of any conditionally certified FLSA collective action
      shall be filed by September 30, 2022.

   -- Issues

      This is a putative collective and class action brought by
      Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly
      situated, based on his allegation that Defendants failed
      to pay employees overtime wages in purported violation of
      the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio
      Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("the Ohio Wage Act"), and
      the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff asserts four
      causes of action: (1) an FLSA collective action for unpaid
      overtime under the FLSA; (2) a Rule 23 class action for
      alleged unpaid overtime under the Ohio Wage Act; (3) a
      Rule 23 class action for alleged violations of the OPPA;
      and (4) alleged recordkeeping violations under the Ohio
      Wage Act. Defendants deny that they are liable under
      any of Plaintiff's causes of action and deny that
      Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief he and the
      putative class and collective seek in this action.
      Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.

   -- Discovery procedures

      All discovery shall be completed by August 31, 2022.

   -- Dispositive motions

      Any dispositive motions shall be filed by September 30,
      2022.

   -- Expert testimony

      Primary expert reports must be produced by 45 days after a
      ruling on dispositive motions. Rebuttal expert reports
      must be produced by 45 days after primary expert reports.

   -- Settlement

      Plaintiff will make a settlement demand 30 days after
      Defendant produces Plaintiff's and the class members'
      payroll and timekeeping records after the notice period.
      The Defendant will respond 30 days after receiving
      Plaintiff's demand. The parties agree to make a good faith
      effort to settle this case.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oVvKt8 at no extra charge.[CC]

WORKDAY INC: Juster Sues Over Unauthorized Backgrounds Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Juster, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Workday, Inc. and Hireright, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07555, (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2021),
requests statutory and punitive damages, including attorney fees
and costs and such other and further relief for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code,
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act, as well as for breach of contract.

Juster applied to Workday, Inc. in approximately May 2021 and was
hired to work in June of 2021. He was required to fill out a
standard authorization form permitting Defendants to obtain a
consumer report verifying his background and experience. He alleges
that Defendants forced him to sign an unlawful non-compete and
non-solicitation clause. He also asserts that their background
checks are in violation of his rights.

Hireright provides background checks for employees, with its
principal place of business located in Orange County, California.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ashwin Ladva, Esq.
     Scott S. Nakama, Esq.
     LADVA LAW FIRM
     530 Jackson Street, 2nd Flr.
     San Francisco, CA 94133
     Tel: (415) 296-8844
     Fax: (415) 296-8847
     Email: ladvalaw@gmail.com
            snakama@ladvalaw.com

            - and -

     Daniel Martinez de la Vega, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGA
     201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: (415) 287-6203
     Fax: (415) 704-5067
     Email: dvega@vegalawyer.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Alleges MRM Improperly Disposed Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apnews.com reports that the former owners of a Salem property
recklessly cut corners that probably led to the release of asbestos
during demolition at the site, the state attorney general's office
said in a lawsuit.

The office alleges in the suit, filed this week, that MRM Project
Management, its principals and a contractor broke the law by
knocking down buildings containing asbestos, leaving the
contaminated debris on the site uncovered, and hauling it away in
cardboard containers on open trucks, The Salem News reported.

The 6.7-acre (2.7-hectare) former home of Salem Oil and Grease is
the site of a planned 129-unit apartment complex. MRM purchased it
in 2006 and sold it in 2018.

Two buildings at the site were never checked for asbestos before
they were demolished, according to the suit, and the company failed
to follow a plan it had submitted for the ones that were known to
be contaminated.

"These defendants recklessly cut corners while redeveloping this
site, ignored our important air pollution and asbestos laws, and
put the health and safety of their workers and the public at risk,"
Attorney General Maura Healey said in a news release.

Her office seeks fines of up to $50,000 per violation per day under
state laws.

Attorney Marshall Handly, who has been representing MRM, said he
had not yet seen the complaint but has had conversations with the
attorney general’s office.

"We've asked for some specificity as to the violations they're
claiming," Handly said. "The place was completely cleaned by MRM
under the direction of the (Department of Environmental
Protection)."


                            *********

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 ***