/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211022.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 206

                            Headlines

2017 DIAMOND: Reyes et al. Seek Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
A2 MILK COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Earnings
ALLEN, TX: Class Action Over ISD's COVID-19 Protocols Dismissed
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Class Action Filed Against Oil Spill Operators
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Khaimova Sues Over Deceptive Tequila Label

ANTHEM COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Learing Suit Alleges
AT&T INC: Granted Summary Judgment Over 401(k) Plan Class Action
BMJ CONCRETE: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
BURTON CLAIM: Seeks to Stay Conditional Certification Briefing
CALIFORNIA: More Oil Spill Suits Filed on Behalf of Business Owners

CAMBER ENERGY: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Delivery Fees
CIOX HEALTH: Thompson Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir.
CLEVELAND BREWING: Underpays Servers & Bartenders, Bleich Claims
DOUG CONNOR: Amended Bid to Conditionally Certify Collective OK'd

DOUGLASVILLE BAY: Donnelly Seeks to Certify Collective Action
EARGO INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of December 6 Deadline
ELEKTA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Ransomware Attack
ELIAS & COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Suit Says
EZCORP INC: Faces Kowlessar Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

FLORIDA BOARD: Discovery Remains Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss Suit
FS MIAMI: Suit Seeks to Certify WARN Act Miami Location Class
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks to Strike JLCI Class Claims
GUNITE PROS: Troxel Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
HUHTAMAKI INC: Hernandez Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid

INMAR INC: MDI Seeks Certification of Class Action
JGB OILFIELD: Misclassifies Flowback Operators, Deer Suit Claims
JOINT CORP: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Class Status Bid Partly Granted
LET'S GEL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Delacruz Claims

LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LIBERTY MUTUAL: North Pacific Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
LOS OSOS HIGH: Faces Class Action Suit For Hidden Restroom Camera
MANITOBA: Court OKs Cert. Notices Be Distributed to Class Members
MARC JONES: Miller Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri

MAYFLOWER TRANSIT: Class Cert. Hearing Set for November 15
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Island Cty. Balks at Opioid Marketing Strategy
MDL 1917: Extension of Class Certification Schedule Sought
MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Dismiss Employee's Class Action

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Treanor Appeals Antitrust Suit Dismissal
MIDLAND CREDIT: Fulcher Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MINT URBAN: Residents File Class Action Over Habitability Issues
MOBILELINK LLC: Jordens Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid OT
NEST BEDDING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NFL ENTERPRISES: Louth Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Disclosure
PARKASH 1630: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PENN NATIONAL: Guerrriero Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PLY GEM PACIFIC: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PNC BANK: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Deferral Agreements

PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
RASH CURTIS: Vasilyev Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
RAVAGO AMERICAS: Long Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RX VITAMINS: Faces Hamblin Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
SANOFI SA: Must Face Zantac Class-Action Lawsuits, Court Rules

SEVEN BROTHERS: Morales Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
SEVEN SPRINGS: Miles Sues Over Discrimination Towards the Disabled
SMITHFIELD DIRECT: Kane Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Louangamath Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

STAPLES & ASSOCIATES: Tholmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STATE FARM: Sewickley Chiropractic Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
STEELE COUNTY, MN: Coffey Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
SXSW LLC: Reaches Prelim Settlement in Ticket Refunds Class Action
TINDER INC: Manipulates Online Dating Service App, Class Suit Says

TORRES FARM: Mayen Files Suit in E.D. California
VENTURE HOME: James Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practice
VILLAGES TRI-COUNTY: Holmes Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Tolbert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VW CREDIT INC: Smith Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska

WASHINGTON: COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate Unlawful, Wise Suit Says
WAUKESHA, WI: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Mask Mandate
WESTSIDE SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Says

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Agrees to Broader Asbestos Risk Evaluations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Puts Talc Liabilities Into Bankruptcy


                            *********

2017 DIAMOND: Reyes et al. Seek Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JESUS REYES and MARIA MAGDALENA REYES, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUSHI K. SAH,
SUNIL SAH, ANITA SAH, 2017 DIAMOND JUBILEE, LLC d/b/a LA MINI MIX,
ADITYA NARAYAN, INC., and DIXIE WAY, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-03237 (S.D. Tex., October 5, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants' gas
station/convenience store as cooks for a period of time exceeding 3
years, until August 29, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more
than 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendants did not pay
them overtime premium for any of the hours the Plaintiffs have
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, they were only paid
the same hourly rate for all the hours they have worked, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action for
themselves and other similarly situated employees against the
Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages at the applicable rate,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, all costs and attorney's
fees incurred prosecuting these claims, and other relief as the
Court deems just and equitable.

The Individual Defendants owned and operated gas station and
convenience stores, namely 2017 Diamond Jubilee, LLC d/b/a La Mini
Mix, Aditya Narayan, Inc., and Dixie Way, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Tel: (713) 868-3388
          Fax: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

A2 MILK COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Earnings
------------------------------------------------------------
Specialist milk and infant formula maker the A2 Milk Company is
facing a group class action by shareholders over allegations it
provided misleading earnings forecasts that caused them loss.

The action, filed by Slater and Gordon, says the company lowered
its earnings forecast for 2020-21 four times, after initially
painting a positive picture, but should have been aware of issues
with its sales strategy.

A2 has denied the claims.

"The company considers that it has at all times complied with its
disclosure obligations, denies any liability and will vigorously
defend the proceedings," it said.

"The company remains confident in the underlying fundamentals of
the business and growth potential."

Slater and Gordon launched proceedings on October 5 for anyone who
bought shares between August 19, 2020, and May 9, 2021.

A2 Milk's share price fell 8pc on news of the action, finishing the
day at $6.02 and fell another 10 cents on Thursday to close at
$5.92.

Just 14 months ago A2 shares were worth about $20 each.

Allegations of misleading forecasts
Slater and Gordon says A2 released a positive earnings forecast on
August 19, 2020, saying it anticipated continued strong revenue
growth supported by its continued investment in marketing and
organisational capability.

But it wound that back four times, due to problems with infant
formula sales in China.

Slater and Gordon alleges A2 did not take account of a number of
factors that would impact the company's financial performance,
including that price discounting in an attempt to boost sales
through the cross-border e-commerce channel would impact sales
through the daigou/reseller channel.

The action alleges A2 also failed to take into account e-commerce
sales would be impeded by disruptions to the daigou channel and the
loss of associated marketing activity.

Troubled times for A2
On May 10, A2 Milk admitted problems in its once-booming China
trade had not improved.

It wrote off $90 million in unsold nutritional powder stocks.

It predicted a significant decline in its revenue expectations for
2021 because its lucrative Chinese market was changing.

It said a key factor has been the collapsed daigou customer market,
which had directed big volumes of infant formula, sourced in
Australia by tourists and expatriate Chinese, to be resold back
home to friends and family.

The company said COVID-19 travel restrictions and "new regulatory
factors" restraining the previously "highly engaged" daigou trade's
activities in China had impacted its sales cycle.

Want to read more stories like this?

Sign up below to receive our e-newsletter delivered fresh to your
email in-box twice a week. [GN]

ALLEN, TX: Class Action Over ISD's COVID-19 Protocols Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Gravley at starlocalmedia.com reports that a federal class
action lawsuit filed against Allen ISD was dismissed court
documents filed in the Eastern District of Texas revealed.

The lawsuit was filed in September on behalf of a proposed class
consisting of two Allen ISD students (identified as John Doe I and
Jane Doe I) for what their counsel alleged was a violation of the
district's "duty to assure the right to life of . . . . all
students" amid its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Allen ISD spokesperson David Hicks said in a statement that the
district presented evidence in an Oct. 1 motion hearing that its
COVID-19 protocols reduced the spread of the virus and prevented
infections.

"Allen ISD presented a strong case in Court, which likely
influenced the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuit," the statement
said. "This is an important victory for the District. The lawsuit
placed a significant burden on Allen ISD, costing the district tens
of thousands of dollars in legal fees, as well as countless man
hours of work. Unfortunately, because the case was filed under
federal law, Allen ISD cannot recoup its attorneys' fees. However,
the District is pleased that that the lawsuit has come to an end.
Although the plaintiffs may decide to sue the District again, and
the rules likely permit such action, Allen ISD is confident that it
follows the law, and will continue to follow the law, and any
future suit against the District regarding this matter would be
frivolous."

The attorneys for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached
for comment, while those for the defendant referred to Allen ISD's
statement and declined to make further comment. [GN]

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Class Action Filed Against Oil Spill Operators
--------------------------------------------------------------
kyma.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against
the operator of oil platforms whose pipeline leaked oil into the
Pacific Ocean.

New video from the United States Coast Guard shows the section of
pipe that appears to be damaged.

Tens of thousands of gallons of oil spilled into the ocean after a
pipeline was reported ruptured back on October 3rd.

The oil has been showing up on the shores of California including
Huntington Beach and has made its way further down the coast
closing in on San Diego.

Authorities believe that an anchor from a ship snagged the pipeline
and dragged it - bending it like a bow - creating the 13 inch
split.

The Bonzai Surf School in Huntington has filed a class action
lawsuit against Amplify Energy - the parent company of the
operators of the oil platform.

The surf school claims they have suffered "business and/or
commercial losses by virtue of their proximity to the spill."

The suit further charges that their business will suffer "a stigma"
because they are located so close to where the spill occurred.

Cole grew up in a small town of just over 3,000 people called
Moravia, NY—home of President Millard Fillmore and Fillmore Glen
State Park.

He is eager to wake up every morning with the Desert Southwest and
give viewers the greatest coverage to start their day.

Contact Cole at cole.johnson@kecytv.com. [GN]

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Khaimova Sues Over Deceptive Tequila Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stella Khaimova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05268 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 5, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Anheuser-Busch, LLC manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
"Platinum Hard Seltzer - Made With Agave," under the Bud Light
brand, in various fruit flavors.

According to the complaint, the relevant front of the box
representations include "Platinum Seltzer," "Made With Agave," "8%
ALC/VOL," and a glass of clear liquid surrounded by various fruits.
Further, in digital and print media, the product is further
advertised as "Made For The Night." The representations are
allegedly misleading because they give consumers, including the
Plaintiff, the impression the product contains a more valued type
of agave ingredients than it does.

The complaint asserts that the value of the product that Plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for it, added the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

ANTHEM COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Learing Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE LEARING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-02283-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., Oct. 14, 2021)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Learing was employed by the Defendant as nurse.

THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. is a provider of health insurance in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  cbressman@nka.com

AT&T INC: Granted Summary Judgment Over 401(k) Plan Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
investmentnews.com reports that AT&T saw a big win in a
five-year-old lawsuit over its 401(k) plan, with a federal judge on
Sept. 28 granting summary judgment in the company's favor.

In 2017, the telecommunications giant was sued in U.S. District
Court in Central California for alleged fiduciary breaches in the
plan, including claims over administrative fees paid to the plan
provider, Fidelity, as well as to indirect compensation that
Financial Engines paid to that firm.

"Defendants present extensive evidence that they acted prudently in
monitoring the plan's record-keeping expenses," the judge wrote in
the recent order. "The facts show that members of AT&T Services
Benefits team periodically reviewed 408(b)(2) disclosures and
invoices from Fidelity to ensure the compensation for
record-keeping was reasonable."

The plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence indicating that AT&T
acted imprudently, according to the order.

Other claims related to the financial relationship between Fidelity
and Financial Engines - neither of which is a party in the case —
also failed. The plaintiffs alleged that AT&T failed in its duty by
not evaluating third-party compensation and that it should have
disclosed the payments Financial Engines made to Fidelity in annual
Form 5500 filings. They also claimed that compensation Fidelity
received from its BrokerageLink service should have been
disclosed.

However, AT&T's plan committee was aware of the arrangement in 2017
and used that knowledge to negotiate lower record-keeping fees,
according to court records.


"Plaintiffs here cannot maintain an ERISA claim based on the
fiduciaries' purported failure to consider compensation between
Fidelity and Financial Engines, because that compensation exists
independent of the plan and stems from an agreement to which the
plan is not a party," the judge wrote. "Plaintiffs' claim therefore
fails as a matter of law, and there is no triable issue of fact for
a jury to consider."

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by numerous law firms.

Wesco Wins, For Now

A proposed class-action case against Wesco Distribution hit a
stumbling block, with a judge dismissing the claims but giving the
plaintiffs a chance to refile them.

The lawsuit, brought earlier this year by law firms Franklin D.
Azar & Associates and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith,
alleges that the 401(k) plan sponsor failed in its fiduciary duties
by opting for higher-fee share classes of mutual funds and not
reining in record-keeping fees.

However, those claims fell flat because they lacked specificity and
apples-to-apples comparisons to other plans and services that could
potentially show a fiduciary fault.

"Plaintiffs' mere price tag to price tag comparison, accompanied by
conclusory allegations and lack of detail as to the categories of
fees, does not sufficiently plead a breach of duty of prudence,"
the judge wrote.


The plaintiffs law firms have until Oct. 18 to file an amended
complaint that would address the shortcomings in their claims.

Ptc To Settle 401(K) Suit

Tech firm PTC appears to have reached a settlement in a lawsuit
over alleged fiduciary breaches in its 401(k) plan.

The U.S. District Court for Massachusetts issued an order that the
parties must file a motion for preliminary approval of a
class-action settlement by Dec. 1. That order did not include any
specifics about the monetary value of the settlement or any other
components.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against PTC more than a year ago,
alleging that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act in connection with higher-than-necessary costs for
investments within the $632 million plan. For example, the plan
sponsor allegedly failed to consider investment alternatives with
lower costs or better performance records than those included
within the plan and in some cases did not opt for the lowest-fee
share classes of funds it used, according to the complaint.

Law firms Capozzi Adler and Shoffner & Associates represent
plaintiffs in the proposed class.[GN]

BMJ CONCRETE: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ANTONIO LOPEZ and JOSE EFRAIN LOPEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BMJ CONCRETE
INC. and BARTOSZ MAZIARZ as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05510 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide written wage
notices and wage statements, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs Carlos Antonio Lopez and Jose Efrain Lopez were employed
by the Defendants as laborers from August 2016 until March 2020,
and from October 2010 until February 2020, respectively.

BMJ Concrete Inc. is a concrete contractor based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

BURTON CLAIM: Seeks to Stay Conditional Certification Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Latoya Ferguson, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, v. Burton Claim
Service, Inc., and Seibels Claims Solutions, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00580-SAL (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order to stay briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion to conditionally
certify Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and to
issue notice.

The Defendants said that a stay is warranted in the interests of
judicial economy and conservation of the litigants' resources. A
stay will also allow them to take limited depositions of several
opt-in plaintiffs who have submitted affidavit testimony in support
of Plaintiffs' motion.

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff Latoya Ferguson filed the instant
lawsuit on behalf of herself and other insurance claims adjusters
alleging violations of the FLSA. The Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff and other adjusters were "misclassified" as independent
contractors and denied overtime pay, and Plaintiff Ferguson
purports to bring her FLSA claim as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. § 216(b) consisting of all similarly situated persons who
worked for Defendants "as insurance claims adjusters and who were
classified as independent contractors and not paid
overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 in a week at any time
between three years prior to the filing of this action and the date
of final judgment in this matter."

On September 24, 2021, the Parties unsuccessfully attempted early
resolution of Plaintiffs' claims through mediation. Thereafter,
Plaintiffs filed their section 216(b) motion for conditional
certification on September 28, 2021.

The Plaintiffs' motion is premised on the contention that the
putative class of claims adjusters are similarly situated for the
purpose of an FLSA collective action because they all (1) worked
for Defendants, (2) were misclassified as independent contractors,
(3) regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and (4) were
paid a day rate without premium compensation for overtime hours. In
support of the Motion, Plaintiffs submitted Defendants' time sheets
and pay stubs as well as declarations of four of Defendants' former
claims adjusters who have opted in to this action.

Burton specializes in catastrophe claims, property and casualty as
well as dispute resolution.

Seibels is in the Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Service business

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XtTBVz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Local Counsel for Burton Claim Service, Inc., are:

          Debbie Whittle Durban, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
          SCARBOROUGH LLP
          1320 Main Street / 17th Floor
          Post Office Box 11070 (29211-1070)
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 799-2000
          E-Mail: debbie.durban@nelsonmullins.com

Counsel for Burton Claim Service, Inc.

          Paul O. Lopez, Esq.
          Robert L. Scheppske, Esq.
          TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
          110 S.E. 6th Street, 15th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-7500
          E-mail: pol@trippscott.com
                  rls@trippscott.com

Counsel for Seibels Claims Solutions, Inc.

          Cara Y. Crotty, Esq.
          John Dickinson, Esq.
          Lori K. Mans, Esq.
          Jack R. Wallace, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH &
          PROPHETE LLP
          1301 Gervais Street, Suite 1020
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (803) 667-4120
          E-mail: ccrotty@constangy.com
                  jdickinson@constangy.com
                  lmans@constangy.com
                  jwallace@constangy.com

CALIFORNIA: More Oil Spill Suits Filed on Behalf of Business Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
californianewstimes.com reports that oil has been washed away in
Southern California beaches and marshes since a leak in an
underwater pipeline from an offshore platform sent tens of
thousands of gallons of heavy crude oil to the ocean.

Further class action proceedings have been filed on behalf of
business owners operating along the beach, alleging that they have
lost money due to the spill.

The latest proceedings have been filed on behalf of Banzai Surf
School, a surf school in Huntington Beach.

"It's October," said school owner Jazz Canner at a press
conference. "Ask surfers, October is the best time to surf in
California, when the crowds are home and the sun is shining. [and]
The wind is perfect. "

Another employer said the impact was "catastrophic" and forced to
dismiss 20 employees since the spill.

The first federal proceedings related to the disaster were filed.

The spill announced appears to have originated from a Houston-based
Amplify Energy-owned offshore oil production facility.

The proposed class action proceedings filed in federal court in Los
Angeles against the company and its beta offshore division include
monetary damages, injunctive relief, response costs, and medical
surveillance claims. The proceedings were filed on behalf of Peter
Moses Gutierrez Jr., who owns a disc jockey company that plays
regularly along Huntington Beach.

He claims that he has lost and will continue to lose a significant
amount of his DJ business as a result of beach closures and other
spills.

Gutierrez also claims that he has been or will be exposed to toxic
oil pollutants.

"After years of fighting for business owners and residents
devastated by the victims of BP's oil spill in the Gulf and other
national oil spills, we see these events as the environment,
wildlife, and I understand that it will have a terrible impact on
people, "said the plaintiff. Attorney Alex Strauss.

Read more | First federal proceedings filed in a large leak as
cleanup efforts continue

The amount of oil leaked from the ruptured underwater pipeline is
still unknown, but experts say it should be easy to calculate.

There is no solid tally, but many numbers are floating around.
Officials also updated their estimates of the magnitude of the
spill.

Initial estimates in the days following the spill were at least
126,000 gallons of oil leaking into the sea. Authorities now say
that fewer numbers are within the reach, but analysis continues.

Current estimates range from a minimum of about 25,000 gallons to a
worst-case scenario of over 131,000 gallons, officials say.

Captain Rebecca Orr of the US Coast Guard said five federal and
state agencies evaluated pipeline data, adding that this was the
largest scenario and was unconfirmed.

Governor Gavin Newsom was optimistic about the magnitude of the
spill when he visited the scene on Tuesday. But he still needs a
huge amount of resources to clean up, and residents need to take
full advantage of their beloved beaches, swim and surf in the
waters of the disaster area, which stretches about 15 miles from
Huntington Beach to Laguna Beach. I warned that I couldn't.

"Even with significantly less gallons, there are still spreads that
need to be cleaned up," says Newsom. "So this will take some time
to get rid of." [GN]

CAMBER ENERGY: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Camber Energy, Inc. ("Camber" or the "Company") (NYSE: CEI). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Camber and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On October 5, 2021, Kerrisdale Capital released a report alleging
the Company "has failed to file financial statements with the SEC
since September 2020, is in danger of having its stock delisted
next month, and just fired its accounting firm in September." The
report further alleged that Camber only has one real asset, a 73%
stake in an OTC-traded company with negative book value. Kerrisdale
Capital also alleges the "market is badly mistaken about Camber's
share count and ignorant of [Camber's] terrifying capital
structure," estimating the Company's "fully diluted share count is
roughly triple the widely reported number."

On this news, Camber's stock price fell $1.56 per share, or 50.49%,
to close at $1.53 per share on October 5, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]

CHICK-FIL-A INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Delivery Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
nypost.com reports that Chick-fil-A covertly hikes the cost of
items ordered for delivery despite promising consumers low fees, a
new class-action lawsuit alleges.

Lead plaintiffs Susan Ukpere of the Bronx and Aneisha Pittman of
Newark, NJ, allege the chicken chain's delivery customers are
smacked with a 25 to 30 percent mark-up despite advertising that
customers only need to fork over a fee of $2.99 or $3.99, according
to the Sept. 28 Manhattan federal court filing.

The suit contends the identical order of a 30-count chicken nuggets
order costs approximately $5-6 more when ordered for delivery than
when ordered via the same mobile app for pickup, or when ordered
in-store.

Ukpere alleges Chick-fil-A overcharged her on purchases for
delivery she made on the Chick-fil-A website for a spicy deluxe
sandwich meal, the suit says.

"Hundreds of thousands of Chick-fil-A customers . . . . have been
assessed hidden delivery charges they did not bargain for," the
suit says.

"This hidden delivery upcharge makes Chick-fil-A's promise of
low-cost delivery patently false," states the class action lawsuit.


Nuggets ordered for delivery on the app will set you back more than
the pickup option.
Pittman and Ukpere allege Chick-fil-A is guilty of breach of
contract and unjust enrichment, and in violation of New York's
General Business Law regarding deceptive acts or practices and the
NJ Consumer Fraud Act.

"Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chick-fil-A has
moved aggressively into the food delivery business, exploiting an
opportunity presented by Americans' reduced willingness to leave
their homes," the complaint says.

"By unfairly obscuring its true delivery costs, Chick-fil-A
deceives consumers and
gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose
their true delivery charges," the suit says. [GN]

CIOX HEALTH: Thompson Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tammie Thompson, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Tammie Thompson and Debra
Love, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Ciox Health, LLC, individually and d/b/a IOD
Incorporated, and ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 2:20-2847-BHH, in the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs Thompson and Love filed the proposed class action
against Defendants Ciox and ScanSTAT, asserting claims for
violation of South Carolina's Physicians' Patient Records Act, S.C.
Code Sections 44-115-10 through -160 (2018) ("Patient Records
Act"), breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeking a
declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 23, 2021, Judge
Bruce H. Hendricks granted Defendant Ciox's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint.

The Plaintiffs seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Tammie Thompson v. Ciox Health,
LLC, Case No. 21-2102, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on Oct. 6, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants TAMMIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and DEBRA LOVE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situtated, are represented by:

          James C. Bradley, Esq.
          Michael Joseph Brickman, Esq.
          Caleb Michael Hodge, Esq.  
          ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464-0000
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
                  mbrickman@rpwb.com
                  
Defendants-Appellees CIOX HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a IOD Incorporated; and
SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES LLC are represented by:

          Gilad Y. Bendheim, Esq.
          Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: gilad.bendheim@kirkland.com
                  lefkowitz@kirkland.com  

               - and -

          Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq.
          LESEMANN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          418 King Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 724-5155
          E-mail: bjoyce@burr.com  

               - and -

          Michael Anthony Scardato, Esq.
          BURR & FOREMAN, LLP
          P. O Box 1431
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 723-7831
          E-mail: mscardato@burr.com   

               - and -

          Brittany T. Bihun, Esq.
          Alfred Victor Rawl, Jr., Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          40 Calhoun Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 278-5900
          E-mail: bbihun@grsm.com

CLEVELAND BREWING: Underpays Servers & Bartenders, Bleich Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BLEICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND BREWING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a Butcher
and the Brewer, c/o Jason Workman, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01891-JG (N.D. Ohio, October 5, 2021) brings this complaint
as a collective action against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful pay practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server and
bartender at Butcher and the Brewer from approximately March 2019
through the present.

The Plaintiff claims that although the Defendant paid him and other
similarly situated servers and bartenders an hourly wage, the
Defendant utilize their tip credit received from the customers to
meet its minimum wage obligation to the Plaintiff and its other
tipped workers and non-tipped employees. As a result, he and other
similarly situated servers and/or bartenders have been paid a
tipped wage that is lower than the full minimum wage for the hours
they worked, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also added that they were required by the Defendant
to perform non-tipped work unrelated to their tipped occupation.
However, the Defendant illegally undercompensated them by still
paying them the sub-minimum tip credit wage rate. In addition, they
were required by the Defendant to purchase certain clothing to work
for the Defendant, which reduced their wages further below the
minimum hourly wage required for tipped employees, the Plaintiff
added.

Moreover, the Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to make,
keep and preserve accurate records of all of the unpaid and/or
underpaid work performed by its servers and bartenders, including
the amount of time they spent performing non-tipped worked.

Cleveland Brewing Company, LLC operates a restaurant and brewery
under the trade name "Butcher and the Brewer" in Cleveland, Ohio.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DOUG CONNOR: Amended Bid to Conditionally Certify Collective OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ALEXY REGUENA v. DOUG CONNOR,
INC. (DCI) and DANA M CONNOR, Case No. 6:20-cv-01670-EJK (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Embry J. Kidd entered an order:

   1. granting in part Plaintiff's amended motion to
      conditionally certify collective action;

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion to amend proposed class notice
      and consent to join form;

   3. conditionally certifying 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) class
      of:

      "individuals who (1) were employed as "grapple truck
      drivers for DCI; (2) worked within the Debris Collections
      Division employed in Brevard County, Florida; and (3)
      worked more than forty hours in a workweek without being
      paid proper overtime compensation;"

   4. directing the Defendants, within 14 days of the entry of
      this Order, to provide Plaintiff with the full name, last
      known address, dates of employment, telephone number, and
      e-mail address for each individual in the conditional
      certified class in a computer readable format;

   5. approving the amended notice, as revised in Plaintiff's
      Response to Court Order;

   6. authorizing Plaintiff to post the approved amended notice
      at DCI's locations in a conspicuous place where putative
      class members are likely to see the amended notice;

   7. authorizing Plaintiff to send the approved amended notice
      to each putative class member by United States Mail and e-
      mail within 14 days after Defendants provide Plaintiff
      with the list of contact information;

   8. directing Plaintiff to file all consent-to-join forms
      within 90 days after the amended notice is served; and

   9. granting in part and denying in part the joint notion to
      stay remaining trial deadlines:

      -- The parties' motion is granted to the extent that the
         pretrial and trial deadlines will be continued.

      -- The parties are directed to file a joint notice setting
         forth a proposed schedule as to the remaining
         deadlines.

      -- The parties' motion to stay all trial deadlines is
         denied.

The Plaintiff initiated this collective action against DCI and Dana
M. Connor pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA").

The Court entered an FLSA Scheduling Order, which directed
Plaintiff to answer the Court's interrogatories and all parties to
enter into settlement negotiations. The Plaintiff then filed
answers to the Court's interrogatories for himself as well as
opt-in Plaintiffs Davis and Curry.

The factual allegations underlying the instant action stem from the
employment of Plaintiff, and others that are similarly situated to
him (the "Conditional Class Members") at DCI.

DCI is a family owned and operated construction company serving
Central Florida since 1985.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZeU7Yl at no extra charge.[CC]

DOUGLASVILLE BAY: Donnelly Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY DONNELLY,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
DOUGLASVILLE BAY BREEZE, INC; and BILL KATSADOUROS, Case No.
1:21-cv-01948-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7, and Northern District of
Georgia Local Rule 7.1:

   1. Conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid
      wages as a collective action representing a class composed
      of all servers who worked for Defendants at the Seabreeze
      Restaurant in Douglasville, Georgia at any time from May
      7, 2018 to the present pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b);

   2. Requiring Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel
      within 10 days of the Court's Order a list, in electronic,
      importable, and searchable format, of all persons who
      worked as a server at the Seabreeze Restaurant located in
      Douglasville, Georgia at any time from May 7, 2018 to the
      present, including their names, job titles, mailing
      address, email addresses, dates of employment, and dates
      of birth;

   3. Authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed notice to
      all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants
      as servers at the Seabreeze Restaurant at any time from
      May 7, 2018 to the present via United States mail;
      electronic mail or message; a case-specific webpage; and
      social media platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter); and
      that all forms of distribution include a linked electronic
      Consent Form that may be completed and signed
      electronically;

   4. Authorizing the conspicuous posting of the proposed notice
      in laminate form with all pages visible at the Seabreeze
      Restaurant where notices of employee rights are
      customarily posted, along with Consent Forms for employees
      to complete and return to Plaintiffs' counsel should any
      employees wish to join this action; and

   5. Permitting putative class members 60 days from the date
      notice is sent to submit (or postmark) a consent form to
      participate in this action. For any addresses provided by
      Defendants that result in undeliverable mailings,
      Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the notice period
      for an additional 30 days.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G3iJDW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
          John L. Mays, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT P.C.
          75 14th Street, Suite 2600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
          E-mail: dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
                  jmays@pcwlawfirm.com

EARGO INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of December 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that investors with
substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities fraud
class action lawsuit against Eargo, Inc. ("Eargo" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EAR).

Class Period: February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021

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

The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Eargo had
improperly sought reimbursements from certain third-party payors;
(2) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to lead to regulatory
scrutiny; (3) that, as a result and because the reimbursements at
issue involved the Company's largest third-party payor, Eargo's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Howard
G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

ELEKTA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Ransomware Attack
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a former patient of
Northwestern Memorial HealthCare (NMHC) against Elekta Inc. over
its April 2021 ransomware attack and data breach.

Elekta, a Swedish provider of radiation medical therapies and
related equipment data services, is a business associate of many
U.S. healthcare providers. Hackers targeted the company's
cloud-based platform that is used to store and transmit healthcare
data and were able to access the platform between April 2 and April
20, 2021. The breach was detected when the hackers deployed
ransomware.

Elekta reported the attack as affecting a small percentage of its
cloud customers in the United States, including NMHC. The entire
oncology database of NMHC was compromised in the attack. The
database contained the protected health information of 201,197
cancer patients including names, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, and healthcare data. In total, the attack affected 170 of
its healthcare clients.

The lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of Deborah Harrington and others
similarly affected by the ransomware attack. The lawsuit alleges
the disclosure of protected health information was preventable,
with the data breach occurring as a result of Elekta failing to
implement sufficient cybersecurity policies and procedures. As a
result, hackers were able to gain access to its platform and copy
the sensitive data of patients.

The lawsuit alleges Elekta was negligent and failed to honor its
duties to maintain adequate data security systems to reduce the
risk of data breaches, adequately protect PHI on its systems, and
properly monitor its data security systems for existing intrusions.
It is also alleged that Elekta did not ensure agents, employees,
and others with access to sensitive information employed reasonable
security procedures.

The lawsuit claims Harrington and the class members have suffered
damages and actual harm as a direct result of the cyberattack and
they now face an increased risk of identity theft and fraud and
must undertake additional security measures to protect themselves
against harm.

The alleged harm suffered by Harrington and the class members
includes imminent risk of future identity theft, lost time and
money expended to mitigate the threat of identity theft, diminished
value of personal information, and loss of privacy.

The lawsuit seeks damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses,
legal costs, injunctive relief, and other and further relief as
deemed appropriate by the courts. [GN]

ELIAS & COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
IRIS GOMEZ; and ROLANDO PEDROZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELIAS & COMPANY
MANAGEMENT, INC.; YUSEN LOGISTIC (AMERICAS), INC.; SIMPLIFIED LABOR
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV37862 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 14, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.

ELIAS & COMPANY MANAGEMENT, INC. provides workforce management
software and solutions for the retail, chain drug, quick-serve
restaurant, and healthcare industries. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Robert Costa, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  rcosta@lelawfirm.com
                  whteam@lelawfirm.com

EZCORP INC: Faces Kowlessar Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KOWLESSAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZCORP, INC. d/b/a VALUE PAWN &
JEWELRY, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-018864 (Fla. Cir., Broward
Cty., Oct. 14, 2021) alleges violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

EZCORP, Inc. owns and operates pawn shops that serve as sources for
consumer credit and retail previously-owned merchandise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               -and-

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

FLORIDA BOARD: Discovery Remains Stayed Pending Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned STEVEN W. HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FLORIDA
BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00247-AW-MAF (N.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order that:

   -- Discovery will remain stayed until the court resolves the
      pending motion to dismiss.

   -- After that, the court will enter a new scheduling order if
      necessary.

   -- Consistent with the parties' agreement, the 90-day
      deadline to move for class certification, is suspended.

   -- The deadline will be reset later if necessary.

Florida Board Of Bar Examiners is a law enforcement company based
out of 1891 Eider Ct, Tallahassee, Florida.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jf5fLL at no extra charge.[CC]

FS MIAMI: Suit Seeks to Certify WARN Act Miami Location Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ALETTA VAN BALDEREN,
DAGOBERTO TURCIOS, SHIRLEY BOWRIN, ROSARIO MIRANDA, NATALIE ARIAS,
LUZ ROJAS, NANCY LEGROS, CLAUDIA ARGUEDAS, JAIME RINCON, JAIME
SIEFKEN, LUISA FORERO, MIRIAM CASTILLO, RAFAEL ANGEL-ELLO, EDGAR
PORRAS, and all others similarly situated, v. FS MIAMI EMPLOYMENT
INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-21842-JAL (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a WARN Act Miami Location Class:

      "All Four Seasons employees at the 1435 Brickell Avenue,
      Miami, Florida location who were furloughed in 2020 and
      were not recalled by the Four Seasons within 6 months
      after the furlough. The Miami Location Class members have
      all suffered harm from the same WARN Act violations;"

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Perera Aleman, P.A. as class counsel;

   4. requiring the Defendant to provide the requisite contact
      information for the class members; and

   5. authorizing undersigned counsel to notify the class
      members with a Court-approved notice.

The Plaintiffs allege Four Seasons is an employer covered by the
WARN Act. The Plaintiffs also allege Four Seasons effectuated a
mass layoff by involuntarily sidelining hundreds of employees.

The Plaintiffs allege "the Harmed Employees suffered an 'employment
loss' under the WARN Act because, among other things, they were
involuntarily sidelined for more than 6 months at a site where at
least 50 employees also suffered an employment loss at the same
time."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BZOf3u
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Hayes, Esq.
          PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.
          12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485-5232
          E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com
                  bayardo@pba-law.com
                  brody@pba-law.com
                  alex@pba-law.com

The Counsel for Defendant are:

          Ashley S. Nunneker, Esq.
          STOKES WAGNER, ALC
          1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2615
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: anunneker@stokeswagner.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esq.
          KIMBERLY A. GILMOUR, PA
          4179 Davie Road, Suite 101
          Davie, FL 33314
          E-mail: gilmourlaw@aol.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks to Strike JLCI Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JAMES LEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
a Montana Corp., JAMES B. LEE, and TRACY D. LEE, husband and wife,
v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, GEICO INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a corporation, and GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-00068-DWM (D. Mont.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order striking Plaintiffs' class claims
in their Third Amended Complaint (TAC) or, alternatively denying
class certification.

The Plaintiffs' purported class is unascertainable and
impermissibly fail-safe, defined so that whether a person qualifies
as a member depends on whether the person has a valid claim. There
is no way to identify "class" members without reviewing all claims
on a case-by-case basis to determine if the potential member was
made whole and whether subrogation was proper under Van Orden,
meaning the case would devolve into endless mini-trials, defeating
the purpose of Rule 23, the Defendants contend.

On its face, the TAC shows that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of
the Rule 23(a) criteria for certifying a class. Moreover,
Plaintiffs cannot certify a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class
and cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that common
questions of law or fact predominate or that a class action is the
superior method to resolve the controversy, the Defendants add.

The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ndtStA at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          Mac Morris, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          1915 South 19 th Avenue
          Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
          Telephone: (406) 556-1430
          E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
                  wmorris@crowleyfleck.com

               - and -

          Sheila Carmody, Esq.
          Courtney Henson, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          One Arizona Center
          400 E. Van Buren St., Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6268
          E-mail: scarmody@swlaw.com
                  chenson@swlaw.com

GUNITE PROS: Troxel Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MICHAEL TROXEL, ADAM CORNETT,
JAMES WILKINSON, ANTHONY BAKER, DERRICK BRADSHAW, APRIL LEWIS,
ANTHONY ROCA and CHRISTOPHER SHARPE, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GUNITE PROS, LLC, PAUL
CASTILLION and CARLA CASTILLION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00057-WS-N (S.D.
Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;

   2. approving their proposed notices and consents to join and
      proposed method of distribution including mailing and
      emailing;

   3. directing the Defendants to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative collective member in an
      electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
      such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
      is entered;

   4. allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin when
      Defendants produce the names and contact information for
      the collective members, in which collective members may
      submit consents to join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs;
      and

   5. awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
      all other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled,
      whether specifically prayed for or not.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aRMoBK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com

HUHTAMAKI INC: Hernandez Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned VELMA HERNANDEZ v. HUHTAMAKI,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08155-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that her deadline to
file her motion for class certification shall be extended up to and
including February 18, 2022 and the briefing schedule shall be set
as follows:

    Current Date     Proposed Date          Event

  Nov. 19, 2021      No later than     Plaintiff files motion
                     Feb. 18, 2022     for class certification
                                       and any expert reports in
                                       connection therewith

  Jan. 7 2022       5 weeks after      Defendant files
                    Plaintiff files    opposition to class
                    her motion for     certification and
                    class cert. (no    any expert reports in
                    ater than Mar.     connection therewith
                    25, 2022)

  Feb. 11, 2022     4 weeks after      Plaintiff files
                    Defendant files    reply in support
                    its opposition     of motion for
                    to Plaintiff’s     class certification  
                    motion for class   and any expert reports
                    certification      in rebuttal to
                    (no later than     Defendant’s expert  
                     April 22, 2022)   reports in connection
                                       therewith

A copy of Parties motion dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ncmxtX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INMAR INC: MDI Seeks Certification of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL
MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v.
INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, INC., CAROLINA
COUPON CLEARING, INC. and CAROLINA SERVICES, Case No.
1:19-cv-141-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in this
antitrust case alleging a market and customer allocation conspiracy
between Defendants and International Outsourcing Services (IOS).

The Plaintiffs request certification of two classes who paid higher
shipping fees as a result of the conspiracy: (1)
a class of manufacturers that directly paid observably higher CCC
or IOS shipping fees during the class period (April 11, 2001
through March 28, 2007); and (2) a class of retailers that directly
paid observably higher CCC or IOS shipping fees during the class
period.

The Plaintiffs request their counsel, Kotchen & Low LLP and Brooks,
Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, be appointed
class counsel, as they are experienced and knowledgeable in
antitrust class actions and have done substantial work identifying
and investigating claims in the action over the past thirteen
years.

Inmar develops technology and data analytics services.

Carolina Manufacturing Company manufactures and distributes textile
products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vAGn6c at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Low, Esq.
          Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
          Lindsey Grunert, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com
                  dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  lgrunert@kotchen.com

               - and -

          Kearns Davis, Esq.
          Matthew B. Tynan, Esq.
          BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON
          HUMPHREY & LEONARD LLP
          230 North Elm Street
          2000 Renaissance Plaza
          4Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 373-8850
          Facsimile: (336) 378-1001
          E-mail: kdavis@brookspierce.com
                  mtynan@brookspierce.com

JGB OILFIELD: Misclassifies Flowback Operators, Deer Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE DEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JGB OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00215-C (N.D. Tex., October 5, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking monetary
damages and other injunctive relief as a result of the Defendant's
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a flowback operator
from approximately October 2014 to February 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated flowback operators were required by the Defendant to work
more than 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant improperly
classified them as independent contractors to avoid its obligation
to pay employees as well as to reap other benefits of such
classification, that includes tax liability, avoiding paying
workers' compensation insurance, and other forms of insurance, ad
to pass on the Defendant's operational costs to their work force.
Despite 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. Instead, they were only paid a flat day rate for
all hours worked, regardless of how many hours they actually
worked, says the suit.

JGB Oilfield Services, LLC provides oil and gas well monitoring
services to energy companies nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: (281) 885-8844
          Fax: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

JOINT CORP: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of The Joint Corp. (NASDAQ: JYNT) resulting from
allegations that Joint may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2174.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 7, 2021, market analyst The Bear
Cave issued a report alleging problems at Joint, alleging that the
franchisor of chiropractic clinics has been re-acquiring struggling
clinics, may be using an undisclosed related party to make loans to
franchises, and has been overbilling customers.

On this news, Joint share prices fell $12.44, or over 12%, in
intraday trading, closing at $85.53 on October 7, 2021.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Class Status Bid Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned DANIELLE GAMINO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KPC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., KPC HEALTHCARE, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE, ALERUS FINANCIAL, N.A., KALI PRADIP
CHAUDHURI, KALI PRIYO CHAUDHURI, AMELIA HIPPERT, WILLIAM E. THOMAS,
LORI VAN ARSDALE, Defendants, and KPC HEALTHCARE, INC. EMPLOYEE
STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley
Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to
unseal the Court's August 9, 2021 Order granting in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

KPC Healthcare provides health care services. The Hospital offers
laboratory, pathology, surgical, medical care, and social
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DTR2LZ at no extra charge.[CC]

LET'S GEL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Delacruz Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. LET'S GEL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08192-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website https://www.gelpro.com/ to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

Mr. Delacruz alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

Let's Gel, Inc. was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes manufacturing hard surface floor coverings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Phyllis Headly, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Liberty Homecare
Options, LLC, and Lucia Devivo Catalano, Case No. 3:20-cv-00579-JAM
(D. Conn.), the Plaintiff Headly individually and on behalf of
65-200 class members ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and 23(b).

   2. designating her as Class Representatives; and

   3. designating her counsel, the Law Office of Nitor V.
      Egbarin, LLC, as class counsel.

The Plaintiff proposes the following definition of the class she
seeks to represent:

   "All Persons who worked for Defendants as a domestic service
    worker in Connecticut from January 15, 2018 to the present,
    who worked at least one 24-hour shift providing care to
    Defendants’ clients."

Liberty Homecare is a non-medical agency providing home and
community based services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B1gsFW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
          100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-3007
          Telephone: (860) 249-7180
          Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
          E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL: North Pacific Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff North Pacific Management, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled NORTH PACIFIC
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00404-HZ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Portland.

Plaintiffs North Pacific Management, Inc., Airport Inn, LLC, BPS
Associates, LLC, Bean & Company, LLC, COHO.Res, LLC, JBH Property
Acquisitions, LLC, Suntek Park, LLC, TFBP Holdings, Inc., and
Triple S Enterprises, Inc. bring this class action lawsuit against
the Defendant seeking a declaratory judgment that their insurance
policies, provided by Defendant, cover their business income losses
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant breached its insurance contracts with them and similarly
situated policyholders when it denied coverage for their
pandemic-related business income losses.

Plaintiff North Pacific operates a property management company in
Tigard, Oregon. Plaintiff Airport Inn operates the Radisson Hotel
Portland Airport and a restaurant called Lakeside Bar & Grill in
Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff BPS Associates owns and operates
athletic clubs in Portland and Lake Oswego, Oregon. Plaintiff Bean
& Company owns and operates a restaurant in Aurora, Oregon, called
Filberts Farmhouse Kitchen. Plaintiff COHO.Res "owns and operates
an electronic inventory distribution for independent hotels" and is
located in Tigard, Oregon. Plaintiff Heathman Garage Associates
owns and operates a parking garage in Portland. Plaintiff JBH
Property Acquisitions owns and/or operates hotels in Portland and
Beaverton, Oregon. Plaintiff Suntek Park owns and operates office
buildings and retail centers in Portland. Plaintiffs TFBP Holdings
and Triple S Enterprises own and operate restaurants in Portland,
Oregon. Plaintiff North Pacific obtained business insurance on
behalf of all the Plaintiffs from Defendant Liberty Mutual.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and business closure orders issued by
the state of Oregon, the Plaintiffs "were forced to suspend, in
whole or in part, their business operations" leading to financial
losses. They tendered an insurance claim seeking coverage for their
financial losses stemming from reduced business operations. The
Defendant denied the Plaintiffs' claim. The Plaintiffs allege that
the "business income," "extended period of restoration," and "extra
expense" coverages in their business insurance policy require the
Defendant to cover their financial losses resulting from reducing
their business operations.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 23, 2021, Judge
Marco A. Hernandez granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of that order.

The appellate case is captioned as North Pacific Management, Inc.,
et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, Case No. 21-35842, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct.
6, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Airport Inn, LLC, BPS Associates, LLC, Bean &
Company, LLC, COHO.Res, LLC, Heathman Garage Associates, LLC, JBH
Property Acquisitions, LLC, North Pacific Management, Inc., Suntek
Park, LLC, TFBP Holdings, Inc. and Triple S Enterprises, Inc.
Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 13, 2021;

   --  Appellants Airport Inn, LLC, BPS Associates, LLC, Bean &
Company, LLC, COHO.Res, LLC, Heathman Garage Associates, LLC, JBH
Property Acquisitions, LLC, North Pacific Management, Inc., Suntek
Park, LLC, TFBP Holdings, Inc. and Triple S Enterprises, Inc.
opening brief is due on December 3, 2021;

   -- Appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company answering
brief is due on January 3, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants NORTH PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, INC., an Oregon
corporation, DBA Coho Services, DBA Hudsons Hospitality Group, DBA
North Pacific Management; AIRPORT INN, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company, DBA Airport Inn, DBA Lakeside Bar & Grill &
Lakeside Cafe, DBA Radisson Hotel Portland Airport; BPS ASSOCIATES,
LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, DBA Central Eugene
Industrial Park, DBA Mountain Park Racquet Club, DBA Timberline
Properties, DBA West Hills Racquet Club; BEAN & COMPANY, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company; COHO.RES, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company; HEATHMAN GARAGE ASSOCIATES, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company, DBA Southpark Garage; JBH PROPERTY
ACQUISITIONS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, DBA Red
Lion Hotel on the River, DBA Rodeway Inn; SUNTEK PARK, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company, DBA Cornell Center, DBA Suntek
Office Park, DBA Suntek Park Company; TFBP HOLDINGS, INC., an
Oregon limited liability company, DBA Jantzen Beach Bar and Grill,
DBA Jantzen Beach Cafe, DBA Jantzen Beach Restaurant; and TRIPLE S
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington limited liability company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA
Southpark Seafood, DBA Southpark Seafood Grill & Wine Bar, are
represented by:

          Kyle Sturm, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
          FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
          3519 NE 15th Avenue, Suite 489
          Portland, OR 97212
          Telephone: (503) 477-4693
          E-mail: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                  nick.thede@foremansturm.com    

Defendant-Appellee LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Wisconsin company, is represented by:

          John Andrew Bennett, Esq.
          Stuart Duncan Jones, Esq.
          R. Daniel Lindahl, Esq.  
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY
          One SW Columbia Street, Suite 800
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 499-4418
          E-mail: john.bennett@bullivant.com
                  stuart.jones@bullivant.com

LOS OSOS HIGH: Faces Class Action Suit For Hidden Restroom Camera
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against a Rancho Cucamonga school
district -- on behalf of potentially hundreds of victims -- after a
football coach was arrested back in August on allegations of
putting a hidden camera in the girl's restroom of a high school.

David Riden, 52, was first taken into custody Aug. 26 on suspicion
of putting a hidden camera in a girl's restroom at Los Osos High
School. Riden was an assistant football coach at Los Osos.

The camera was discovered by school staff, who notified the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

It's unclear how long the hidden camera was in the restroom. Riden
had been an employee at Los Osos High since 2015. He has served as
the boys' locker room attendant and assistant coach for the varsity
football team. Riden resigned from his position on the day of his
initial arrest.

He was released on bail, but re-arrested Aug. 29 on suspicion of
possession and production of child pornography after forensic
examinations were conducted on devices found at his home and
vehicle.

A San Diego law firm filed a class action lawsuit against the
Chaffey Joint Union High School District on behalf of "all persons"
who entered the bathroom between Jan. 1, 2015, and Aug. 24 of this
year.

"The negligence of the leadership at Los Osos High School and the
Chaffey Joint Union High School District has caused irreparable
damage to the school's female students," said attorney Jason
Hartley in a statement. "Schools are responsible for the safety of
their students. The District here allowed a school employee to
record thousands of female students without their knowledge as they
were using the restroom and undressing. The District must take
action immediately to ensure this isn't happening elsewhere and
doesn't happen again." [GN]

MANITOBA: Court OKs Cert. Notices Be Distributed to Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has approved notices to be distributed to Class members
regarding certification of this class action, including Class
Member rights and options at this stage. You can review the Long
Form Notice here. You can review the Short Form Notice here.

This class action is certified to proceed on behalf of the
following Class Members: "all persons who resided at MDC between
July 1, 1951 and May 29, 2020, and were alive as of October 31,
2016."

If you are a Class Member, and you wish to keep your rights to sue
the Government of Manitoba, you must remove yourself from the Class
by the deadline of January 12, 2022. If you remove yourself, you
cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are
awarded. To ask to be removed, you must complete the Opt Out Form
available here.

The parties are currently completing productions and reviewing a
large number of documentary productions. [GN]



MARC JONES: Miller Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marc Jones
Construction, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Melissa Miller,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marc
Jones Construction, LLC doing business as: Sunpro Solar, Marc
Jones, John Doe Corporations 1-10, John Doe Entities 1-10, Case No.
2:21-cv-04194-BCW (W.D. Mo., Oct. 14, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sunpro Solar -- https://www.gosunpro.com/ -- is the premier,
trusted solar panel installation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
          Samantha Joanne Orlowski, Esq.
          HALVORSEN KLOTE
          680 Craig Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: (314) 451-1314
          Email: joel@hklawstl.com
                 sam@hklawstl.com


MAYFLOWER TRANSIT: Class Cert. Hearing Set for November 15
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Greenley v. Mayflower
Transit, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00339 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Q. Hayes entered an order that the hearing date on
Plaintiff's motion to certify class is November 15, 2021.

The nature of suit states other contract -- diversity action.

Mayflower Transit, a subsidiary of UniGroup, is an American moving
company based in Fenton, Missouri. Mayflower operates as an agent
owned co-op to coordinate loads, packing, and third-party
services.[CC]

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Island Cty. Balks at Opioid Marketing Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------
ISLAND COUNTY, on behalf of itself and similarly situated counties
and cities, Plaintiff v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., UNITED STATES
and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01383
(W.D. Wash., Oct. 8, 2021) arises from the alleged deceptive
marketing strategy of management consulting firm McKinsey to expand
opioid use in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The lawsuit concerns McKinsey's work for American privately held
pharmaceutical company Purdue Frederick Company and its owner, the
Sackler family, beginning at least as early as 2004, and in
particular McKinsey's work in the years after the 2007 guilty plea
relating to Purdue's sales and marketing strategy for its opioids.
By June 2009, McKinsey was advising Purdue on precisely the same
sales and marketing strategy and practices for OxyContin that were
the subject of the Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA).

According to the complaint, McKinsey knew of the dangers of opioids
and of Purdue's prior misconduct, but nonetheless accepted the
assignment to design and implement the strategy for boosting opioid
sales, and by June 2009, McKinsey and Purdue were working together
to maximize OxyContin sales. McKinsey devised a plan to work around
the requirements of the CIA, suggesting a specific sales and
marketing strategy based on McKinsey's own independent research and
unique methodologies, and Purdue adopted that strategy. McKinsey
then worked intimately with Purdue on an ongoing basis to implement
its plan. Despite the strictures imposed by the CIA, OxyContin
sales began to multiply, says the suit.

Because of Defendant's alleged misconduct, Plaintiff Island County,
located in northwestern Washington State, is experiencing a severe
public health crisis and have suffered significant economic
damages, including but not limited to increased costs related to
public health, opioid-related crimes and emergencies, the counties'
and cities' own self-insured health care, criminal justice, and
public safety. Island County, like other counties and cities in
Washington, has incurred substantial costs in responding to the
crisis and will continue to do so in the future, adds the suit.

McKinsey & Company is a management consulting firm, founded in 1926
by University of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises
on strategic management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Banks, Esq.
          ISLAND COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
          P.O. Box 5000
          Coupeville, WA 98239
          Telephone: (360) 240-5506
          Facsimile: (360) 240-5566

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          David J. Ko, Esq.
          Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
          Matthew M. Gerend, Esq.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384

MDL 1917: Extension of Class Certification Schedule Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties asks the Court to enter an order granting their
stipulation to extend the class certification schedule as follows:

   1. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' (DPPs) deadline to file their
      Motion for Class Certification and any accompanying expert
      reports shall be extended to November 19, 2021;

   2. The Irico Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
      DPPs' Motion for Class Certification and any accompanying
      expert reports shall be extended to January 14, 2022;

   3. The deadline for class certification expert discovery to
      be completed shall be extended to January 28, 2022;

   4. DPPs' deadline to file their reply in support of their
      class certification motion shall be extended to February
      25, 2022; and

   5. The hearing on DPPs' class certification motion shall be
      rescheduled for March 24, 2022, at 2 p.m. or another date
      at the Court's convenience.

Irico Group manufactures color picture tubes for television sets.

A copy of Parties stiplation dated Oct. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AX0TyG at no extra charge.[CC]

Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are:

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Matthew D. Heaphy, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813

The Attorneys for Defendants Irico Group Corp. and Irico Display
Devices Co., Ltd., are:

          Evan J. Werbel, Esq.
          John M. Taladay, Esq.
          Evan J. Werbel, Esq.
          Thomas E. Carter, Esq.
          Andrew L. Lucarelli, Esq.
          Jonathan Shapiro, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          700 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 639-7700
          Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
          E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com
                  evan.werbel@bakerbotts.com
                  tom.carter@bakerbotts.com
                  drew.lucarelli@bakerbotts.com
                  Jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com

MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Wainwright
U.S.A., LLC. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Michael
Wainwright U.S.A., LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08494 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14,
2021).

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

Michael Wainwright USA -- https://www.michaelwainwright.com/ --
makes functional art for your table and home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Dismiss Employee's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that shortly after the computer memory
and computer data storage producer removed the former employee's
case to federal court, it filed a motion to dismiss. Micron
Technology Inc. contends that the plaintiff's lawsuit is legally
baseless because Section 2802 of the California Labor Code does not
require employers to reimburse their employees for wireless
internet and phone expenses.

Previously, Micron removed the putative class action from Santa
Clara County Superior Court to the Northern District of California.
It now seeks to dismiss the Section 2802 claim, first contending
that employees, not their employers, are responsible for expenses
incurred as a result of government mandates.

In support of this argument, Micron points to two cases wherein
workers argued they incurred expenses their employers should have
paid for, and in both cases the court disagreed. According to
Micron's motion, the first decision turned on the fact that the
employer was "required to require" its workers to wear protective
personal equipment, and therefore it did not have to supply or pay
for those items. The other decision reportedly held that police
officers had to pay for state-mandated training, not the police
force, by virtue of the fact that the training was state-ordered.

Micron analogizes to these cases, explaining that pandemic-related
stay-at-home orders required the plaintiff to work from home for
the benefit of public health, not the company. Costs incurred as a
result of his working from home are thus "‘not an expense of
discharging the duties of employment,'" the defendant argues.

Micron also asserts that the labor code provision the ex-director
of marketing seeks relief from requires "employers to reimburse
employees only for expenses incurred as a ‘direct consequence' of
the discharge of employment duties." To this end, an unforeseen
pandemic causing the plaintiff to work from home is beyond the
scope of the law, Micron contends.

The motion adds that the plaintiff's second and third claims, under
the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act fall as mere derivatives of his first
cause of action. Micron asks that the court dismiss the complaint
with prejudice as its defects are allegedly incurable. The
ex-employee is represented by Ladva Law Firm and Micron by Jones
Day. [GN]

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Treanor Appeals Antitrust Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JOHN TREANOR, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Treanor v. Micron Technology
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03805, in the U.S. District Court for
Northern California, Oakland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges the
companies of colluding to fix prices on dynamic random-access
memory, a key component to most smartphone and computer functions.

DRAM purchaser John Treanor's antitrust complaint contends the
companies command a roughly 95 percent share of the worldwide
market for the technology that holds data while it's being
processed, in a market where rigorous competition and growing
production capacity had been driving prices downward.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated September 3, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS
MEMORY (DRAM) DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, JOHN TREANOR;
ONSHORE NETWORKS OF ILLINOIS, L.L.C., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, DBA onShore Networks, L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC.; MICRON
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; MICRON CONSUMER PRODUCTS GROUP, INC.;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SK
HYNIX, INC., FKA Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.; SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC.,
FKA Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 21-16641, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on Oct. 6, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 13,
2021;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on December 10, 2021;


   -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on January 10, 2021;

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Fulcher Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nidia Fulcher,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:21-cv-01768-TWR-DEB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MINT URBAN: Residents File Class Action Over Habitability Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Mint Urban Infinity apartments in Denver are seeking a
class action lawsuit against their landlord, the Cardinal Group,
for what they say is a lack of action on major fixes needed to
their buildings. [GN]



MOBILELINK LLC: Jordens Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
JODY JORDENS and STACI WILBER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MOBILELINK, LLC, MFK, LLC, and MFK
MOBILELINK WISCONSIN, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-1173 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 11,
2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Plaintiff Jordens was employed by the Defendants from September
2017 to September 2021 as a salaried-paid employee in the positions
of Store Manager, Senior Store Manager, and Territory Manager, with
her territory covering the States of Wisconsin and Michigan.

Plaintiff Wilber was employed by the Defendants from July 2018 to
February 2021 as both an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee and as a
salaried-paid employee in the position of Store Manager working in
the State of Wisconsin.

The Defendants are Cricket Wireless service providers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

NEST BEDDING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nest Bedding, Inc.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Nest Bedding, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05747 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2021).

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

Nest Bedding -- https://www.nestbedding.com/ -- is a bed-in-a-box
company that makes all-foam, hybrid, and latex mattresses in the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


NFL ENTERPRISES: Louth Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LOUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NFL ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00405 (D.R.I., Oct. 5, 2021) seeks damages and other legal
and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in knowingly disclosing personally identifiable
information including a record of every video clip viewed by the
user to unrelated third parties in violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act and the Rhode Island Video, Audio, and Publications
Rentals Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant develops, owns, and
operates a popular mobile application, titled "NFL" (NFL App),
which describes itself as a "pure football app" that disseminates
"live local and primetime games, exciting videos and highlights,
and replays of every game."

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other users, each time they view video
clips, the NFL App allegedly sends a record of the transaction --
along with an identifier for the video, the user's precise GPS
coordinates and other identifiers associated with the user's
device, such as its unique Advertising ID -- to an unrelated
third-party data analytics company through the Anvato application
programming interface (API) which is owned by Google LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
          MCINTYRE TATE LLP
          50 Park Row West, Suite 109
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 351-7700
          Facsimile: (401) 331-6095
          E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
          E-mail: creilly@bursor.com

PARKASH 1630: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DELFINO ADAN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Parkash 1630 LLC, and Ved Parkash,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08382 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2021) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wage Theft
Prevention Act, and the New York Labor Law arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages.

Mr. Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a handyman from 2012
until June 6, 2020, when he suffered a stroke. He performed manual
work including maintenance and repairs, such as sheet rock, plaster
and painting, as well as garbage removal in Defendants' multi-story
building located in Bronx, New York.

Parklash 1630 LLC engages in the business of real estate and
building management and ownership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PENN NATIONAL: Guerrriero Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA GUERRIERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC.; CENTRAL OHIO
GAMING VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a HOLLYWOOD CASINO COLUMBUS; DAYTON REAL
ESTATE VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a HOLLYWOOD GAMING AT DAYTON RACEWAY;
TOLEDO GAMING VENTURES, LLC d/b/a HOLLYWOOD CASINO TOLEDO; and
YOUNGSTOWN REAL ESTATE VENTURES, LLC d/b/a HOLLYWOOD CASINO AT
MAHONING VALLEY RACE COURSE, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-01917
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 11, 2021) challenges policies and practices of the
Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Wage Laws, and concerns the underpayment of minimum wages to
Plaintiff and class members.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were jointly employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees within the three years preceding
the filing of the action.

The Defendants are operators of casinos and racetracks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

PLY GEM PACIFIC: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ply Gem Pacific
Windows Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Nathaniel
Williams, Lajuan Dennis, on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, Does 1-50, Case
No. 34-2021-00309657-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Oct. 13, 2021).

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

Ply Gem -- https://www.plygem.com/ -- is the #1 exterior home
building products manufacturer in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          Email: norm@bamlawca.com


PNC BANK: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Deferral Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Whitford at rwllaw.com reports that PNC Bank has been "taking
advantage" of homeowners who couldn't keep up with paying off their
mortgages during the coronavirus pandemic by double-charging them
for deferred principal payments, a proposed nationwide class
claimed in Maryland federal court.

Lead plaintiffs Robert Roy Akins and Rachael Latini, a married
couple from Idlewylde, Maryland, accused the bank of botching its
COVID-19 deferral agreements, which provided homeowners extra time
to make certain principal and interest payments during the
pandemic's economic upheaval.

According to Akins and Latini, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania-headquartered PNC agreed to "pause" their mortgage
payments for eight months starting in September 2020. Then, this
spring, the bank deferred those payments to the end of the
mortgage.

But in doing so, the complaint alleges, PNC tacked all the deferred
payments onto the couple's outstanding principal balance,
effectively double-charging them for the unpaid principal and
increasing the size of their mortgage.

This is not the way principal is supposed to function, the
plaintiffs said, using the example of a $100,000 loan that must be
repaid in monthly $10,000 installments.

"When a customer misses a monthly payment, it does not increase the
outstanding principal by the unpaid principal amount," the
complaint said. "The principal remains the same."

Yet, what PNC has allegedly done is "the equivalent of improperly
adding the $10,000 missed-payment to the outstanding principal
balance and increasing the mortgage loan to $110,000."

Akins and Latini's proposed class includes U.S. homeowners who saw
their total deferred payment tacked onto their outstanding
principal balance on a PNC mortgage loan.

Two subclasses would cover those who have already paid off their
mortgages and Maryland homeowners covered by the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, respectively.

PNC should recalculate the outstanding balance on all affected
mortgages, the proposed class said, and issue refunds for any
overcharges.

Borrowers may be owed additional refunds, according to the
complaint, if, like Akins and Latini, they completed their deferred
payments early -- resulting in a double-charge on interest as well
as the principal.

PNC should also pay damages for providing mortgage holders with
"inaccurate and inflated" outstanding principal balances in
violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, according to the
complaint.

Akins and Latini ultimately decided to switch banks in August, the
complaint said, telling PNC by email that it "must have calculated
the outstanding principal balance in error."

But PNC failed to investigate the alleged error in violation of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the complaint
alleges, for which it should pay additional damages.

PNC declined to comment, as did counsel for the proposed class.

The proposed class is represented by Charles S. Fax, Liesel J.
Schopler and Stephen Kuperberg of Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC, and
Jason M. Frank, Scott H. Sims and Andrew D. Stolper of Frank Sims &
Stolper LLP.

Counsel information for PNC Bank was not immediately available.

The case is Akins et al. v. PNC Bank NA, case number 1:21-cv-02558,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Maryland.
[GN]

PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prestamos CDFI, LLC.
The case is styled as Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris
Townsend, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-04337 (E.D. Pa,
Oct. 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Prestamos -- https://www.prestamosloans.org/ -- is committed to
promoting business and community development by providing access to
capital through non-traditional small business financing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Phone: (856) 324-8219
          Fax: (304) 342-1110
          Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 463-2101
          Fax: (202) 463-2103
          Email: llederer@baileyglasser.com


RASH CURTIS: Vasilyev Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rash Curtis &
Associates. The case is styled as Anton Vasilyev, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rash Curtis &
Associates, Case No. 1:21-cv-05451 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2021).

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

Rash Curtis & Associates -- https://rashcurtis.com/ -- provides
debt collection services to a variety of governmental bodies at the
state, county and municipal level.[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


RAVAGO AMERICAS: Long Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER LONG, Plaintiff v. RAVAGO AMERICAS, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01649 (M.D.
Fla., October 5, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated employees against the Defendant to
recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed the Defendant as a full-time account
payable coordinator from approximately October 7, 2013 to the
present.

The Plaintiff asserts that she typically worked more than 40 hours
in a work week, specifically up to 65 hours in a work week.
However, the Defendant did not pay her overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff added.

Ravago Americas, LLC is a company that produces a wide range of
plastic and rubber. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
          Bruce Mount, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Tel: (407) 574-4999
          Fax: (833) 813-7512
          E-mail: ahall@theleachfirm.com
                  bmount@theleachfirm.com
                  yhernandez@theleachfirm.com

RX VITAMINS: Faces Hamblin Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL W. HAMBLIN, D.V.M., P.C. d/b/a ALPINE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LTD.,
an Illinois professional corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff
v. RX VITAMINS, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05267 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In an attempt to promote its product and services, the Defendant
allegedly sent facsimiles advertisements to the Plaintiff using a
telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device on or about
January 16, 2018, February 27, 2018, February 19, 2019, and
September 29, 2021. The Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant its
prior express invitation or permission to receive such fax ads.
There is not reasonable means for the Plaintiff to avoid receiving
unauthorized fax advertisements since the Plaintiff's fax machine
are left on and ready to receive the urgent communications their
owners desire to receive, says the suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unlawful conduct has
injured the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.
Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory liquidated damages and treble
damages, enjoin the Defendant from additional violations, as well
as pre-judgment interest, costs, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

RX Vitamins, Inc. is an innovative, nutraceutical company providing
veterinarians with nutritional formulations designed to enhance
patient outcomes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Tel: (847) 368-1500
          Fax: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

SANOFI SA: Must Face Zantac Class-Action Lawsuits, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Even after the global Zantac recalls of 2019 and 2020 and the
associated controversy, the courtroom saga over the medicine's risk
is just getting started. Branded drugmakers GlaxoSmithKline,
Sanofi, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim lost an attempt to escape
class-action lawsuits over their marketing of the decades-old
drug.

In a federal court in Florida, Judge Robin Rosenberg denied
requests by the companies to throw out lawsuits by former Zantac
patients asking for medical monitoring and compensation for their
financial losses. Lawsuits alleging personal injury from the drug
can continue as well.

The cases stem back to the investigation into cancer-causing
impurities in the drug and last year's FDA order demanding the
removal of Zantac and all generics from the market. In making that
order, the agency said the drug can contain the contaminant
N-Nitrosodimethylamine, which increases over time during warm
storage. That could "result in consumer exposure to unacceptable
levels," the FDA said last year. Before the order, the companies
had already begun a worldwide process to pull the drug from
shelves. [GN]

SEVEN BROTHERS: Morales Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Giovani Morales, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SEVEN BROTHERS OCEANSIDE LLC d/b/a as SEVEN BROTHERS GOURMET,
and ANTHONY FIORITO and JOSEPH FIORITO, individually, and JOHN DOES
1-5, said names being fictitious, being the administrators or
executors of the Estate of ANTONIO FIORITO, Case No. 2:21-cv-05721
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2021), is brought to recover compensation for
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid spread of hours wages
and notice damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff
regularly worked more than 40 hours each week and was not
compensated for overtime. The Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff (and all similarly situated
employees) to work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying
appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours compensation and overtime
compensation as required by federal and state laws. The Plaintiff
was a victim of the Defendants' common policy and practices, which
violated his rights under the FLSA and NYLL by, inter alia, not
paying him the wages he was owed for the hours he worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a kitchen helper at Seven Brothers Gourmet
located in Oceanside, New York.

Seven Brothers is a specialty Italian Gourmet food market that
offers catering services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 323-6980
          Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

               - and -

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          CAMPOLO MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK, LLP
          4175 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
          Phone: (631) 738-9100
          Email: ypollack@cmmllp.com


SEVEN SPRINGS: Miles Sues Over Discrimination Towards the Disabled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Miles, Leland Foster, individually, and on behalf of
individuals similarly situated v. SEVEN SPRINGS MOUNTAIN RESORT,
INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00174-KRG (W.D.
Pa., Oct. 1, 2021), is brought pursuant to the enforcement
provision of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 against the
Defendant in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have
accessible facilities.

The Plaintiffs have each encountered architectural barriers at the
subject properties of Hidden Valley, Seven Springs and their
multiple facilities. The barriers to access at the property have
endangered their safety. The Defendant has discriminated against
the individual the Plaintiffs by denying them access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings. The
Defendant's properties fail to comply with the ADA and its
regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities who uses a
wheelchair for mobility.

Seven Springs Mountain Resort, Inc.'s property, is a multi-location
golf and ski and lodging resort operating under the names of Seven
Springs Mountain Resort.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.
          4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Phone: (734) 240-0848 - Monroe, MI
          Phone: (419) 241-9661 – Toledo, OH
          Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
          Email: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net


SMITHFIELD DIRECT: Kane Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned STEVEN KANE, on behalf of
himself and other similarly-situated vs. SMITHFIELD DIRECT, LLC,
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-04832-PA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4);

   2. certifying the Plaintiff Class and each of the proposed
      subclasses, as being comprised of and defined as follows
      for a class-wide trial pursuant to Rule 13 23(b)(3):

      -- Plaintiff Class

         "All individuals employed by Defendant Smithfield
         Direct, LLC in the State of California as exempt Route
         Sales Representatives/Associates and/or any other
         similar job titles or positions from April 12, 2017
         until the commencement of trial and/or such earlier
         date that the Court certifies the Class;"

      -- Plaintiff Subclass One ("Overtime Subclass")

         "All members of the Plaintiff Class who, within Class
         Period, were subject to a policy of not being
         compensated for all hours worked or under Defendant’s
         control over eight hours per day and/or forty hours per
         week, at the applicable overtime wage;"

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Two ("The First Meal Period
         Subclass")

         "All members of the proposed Plaintiff Class during the
         Class Period who worked for periods of more than five
         hours per workday and for whom Defendant's timekeeping
         records show that said Subclass Member was not provided
         a timely and compliant 30-minute unpaid meal period in
         the manner required by Section 11 of the applicable
         Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order(s).

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Three ("The Second Meal Period
         Subclass")

         "All members of the proposed Plaintiff Class during the
         Class Period who worked for periods of 10 hours per
         workday and for whom Defendant's timekeeping  records
         show that said Subclass Member was not provided a
         timely and compliant second 30-minute unpaid meal
         period in the manner required by Section 11 of the
         applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage
         Order(s);"

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Four ("The Rest Period Subclass")

         "All members of the proposed Plaintiff Class during the
         Class Period who worked for periods of more than 3.5
         hours per workday and for whom Defendant did not
         provide a compliant off-duty 10-minute paid rest period
         in the manner required by Section of the applicable
         Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order(s);"

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Five ("The Wage Statement Subclass")

         "All members of the proposed Plaintiff Class during the
         applicable limitations period (from April 12, 2020 to
         the date of certification) for whom Defendant provided
         wage statements that did not accurately state total
         overtime hours worked, or the corresponding rates of
         pay as required by Labor Code section 226;"

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Six ("The Termination Pay Subclass")

         "All members of the proposed Plaintiff Class during the
         applicable limitations period (from April 12, 2018 to
         the date of certification) whose employment with
         Defendant was terminated and for whom Defendant did not
         timely pay all wages due in the manner required by
         Labor Code section 203."

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Seven ("The Sick Pay Subclass")

         "All members of the Plaintiff Class who, within Class
         Period, were subject to a policy and/or practice of not
         being provided with appropriately calculated sick pay;"

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Eight ("The Vacation Pay Subclass")

         "All members of the Plaintiff Class who, within Class
         Period, were subject to a policy and/or practice of not
         being compensated for all earned vacation wages upon
         termination of employment;" and

      -- Plaintiff Subclass Nine ("The UCL Subclass")

         "All members of the proposed Plaintiff Class who,
         during the Class Period, were subjected to Defendant's
         business acts or practices regarding overtime,
         vacation, and sick pay, and meal and rest periods,
         whom, if said business acts or practices are found to
         be unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive, are owed
         restitution;" and

   3. appointing him as representatives of the Plaintiff Class
      and Subclasses, and appointing his counsel of record,
      Cohelan Khoury & Singer, as Class Counsel for the
      Plaintiff Class and Subclasses.

Smithfield Direct is located in Lisle, Illinois, and is part of the
grocery and related product merchant wholesalers industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lWycxR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC.
          880 E. Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: support@davtyanlaw.com

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Herrera Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Herrera, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., a
California Corporation, PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21SMCV01625
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant as a result of the Defendants' failure of
paying he Plaintiff all wages due to them, including, but not
limited to minimum wages, overtime wages, double time wages, split
shift pay and/or reporting time pay, within the statutorily
required time period.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 8, and in excess of 12,
hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants
routinely required the Plaintiff to perform work tasks before
and/or after their scheduled shifts, and/or during off-the-clock
meal breaks, and/or during rest breaks. As a consequence, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff all of the wages
to which they were entitled. Due to the company-wide failures of
the Defendants, the Plaintiff was forced to work off-the-clock
before and/or after their scheduled work shifts, and/or during rest
breaks, and/or during meal breaks. The Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wage for this time and/or falsified timekeeping
records to hide this fact. The Defendants willfully failed to
maintain accurate payroll records for the Plaintiff as a result of
the Defendants failure to accurately record employees rest breaks,
and/or meal breaks, and/or off-the-clock work. The Defendants
failure makes it impossible for the Plaintiff to accurately
determine the extent of their underpayment, thereby causing further
injuries to each of them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Security Officer on or about April 20, 2020.

The Defendants are California and Delaware Corporations that are an
acute care hospitals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Louangamath Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned HELLY LOUANGAMATH, on behalf
of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, vs. THE SPECTRANETICS
CORPORATION d.b.a. SPNC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting class certification of the Settlement Class
      solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure section 23;

   2. preliminarily approving the Second Amended Joint
      Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and
      Release of Claims (the "Settlement");

   3. appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter
      Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and
      related forms;

   6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement
      Class; and

   7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of
      class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and
      costs.

"Class Members" means all current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees employed in the Fremont North or South
facilities by the Defendant or its predecessor companies as
non-exempt hourly employees working as assemblers or in comparable
positions, at any time during the Class Period.

Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes its
technology for interventional cardiovascular therapy.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class Oct. 12, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aRuuPt at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (213) 725-9094
          Facsimile: (213) 634-2485
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  maralle@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          4276 Katella Ave., No. 301
          Los Alamitos, CA 90720
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

STAPLES & ASSOCIATES: Tholmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staples & Associates,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Calvin Tholmer, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Staples & Associates, Inc., Does
1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00309142-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 1, 2021).

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

Staples & Associates, Inc. -- https://www.staplesandassociates.com/
-- provides financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


STATE FARM: Sewickley Chiropractic Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company. The case is styled as Sewickley Chiropractic
Center PC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-01368-WSH
(W.D. Pa., Oct. 13, 2021).

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

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company -- https://www.statefarm.com/
-- operates as an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


STEELE COUNTY, MN: Coffey Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Isaiah Coffey and Ron Jaeger,
on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly
situated, v. Lon Thiele, in his official capacity as Steele County
Sheriff, Case No. 0:20-cv-02237-NEB-TNL (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the class;

   3. appointing the named Plaintiff Isaiah Coffey as Class
      Representative;

   4. appointing LAMP as Class Counsel;

   5. approving the form and manner of the Notice to be sent to
      Class Members concerning the Settlement Agreement;

   6. confirming a date for a Final Fairness Hearing; and

   7. preliminarily approving the plan of allocation.

Steele County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 12, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DXJojP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradford Colbert, Esq.
          Matthew Wilkening, Esq.
          LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO
          MINNESOTA PRISONERS
          875 Summit Ave., Room 254
          St. Paul, MN 55105

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephanie A. Angolkar, Esq.
          Jason M. Hiveley, Esq.
          Julia C. Kelly, Esq.
          IVERSON REUVERS
          9321 Ensign Avenue South
          Bloomington, MN 55438
          Telephone: (952) 548-7200
          E-mail: jasonh@iversonlaw.com
                  stephanie@iversonlaw.com
                  julia@iversonlaw.com

SXSW LLC: Reaches Prelim Settlement in Ticket Refunds Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Minsker at pitchfork.com reports that SXSW was hit with a
class action lawsuit in April 2020 on behalf of ticket holders who
were not offered refunds after the Austin, Texas festival was
canceled by the city. The festival and the plaintiffs have recently
reached a settlement for the lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Maria
Bromley and Kleber Pauta, according to court documents viewed by
Pitchfork. A district court judge granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on September 30.

The judge's order granting the preliminary approval notes that the
two parties reached the settlement "as a result of intensive,
arm's-length negotiations" during a 10-hour mediation session on
December 17, 2020. The judge's preliminary approval outlines
procedures the festival needs to take in order to reach out to
members of the class. A "fairness hearing" is scheduled for
February 18, 2022, which will determine if the settlement should be
approved as "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

In a statement, shared with Pitchfork via email, the plantiffs'
litigation team said: "Class Counsel are pleased to have secured a
settlement that provides meaningful relief to 2020 SXSW pass
holders, and we look forward to working towards final approval so
that the Class may enjoy the settlement's benefits."

"The pandemic has been extremely challenging for everyone," a
spokesperson for SXSW shared with Pitchfork in a statement. "While
SXSW has a longtime no refunds policy, we recognize these are
unprecedented times. We are glad the court preliminarily approved
the settlement and look forward to a final resolution."

October 6—days after the judge granted the settlement's
preliminary approval—SXSW filed a separate lawsuit against
Federal Insurance Company for not funding its defense. The
complaint, viewed by Pitchfork, claims the company has refused to
provide insurance coverage surrounding the 2020 cancellation. The
festival is suing for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
conversion; SXSW seeks a judicial declaration ordering the Federal
Insurance Company to indemnify and defend the event, including
loss, settlement, and defense costs.

Pitchfork has reached out to attorneys for SXSW and the class
action plaintiffs. [GN]

TINDER INC: Manipulates Online Dating Service App, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Slater Vecchio LLP has recently filed a lawsuit against Tinder and
owners Match Group Inc and Match Group LLC alleging algorithmic
manipulation of the Tinder app and age-based discrimination.

Tinder is a dating app available for iPhone and Android smartphones
which allows users to meet other users as part of an online dating
service. The app is free to use, but Tinder sells premium features
designed to improve a user's chances of a successful match.

The lawsuit alleges that Tinder manipulates the Tinder app's in
order to induce and compel users to purchase premium features.
Alleged particular of the manipulation are:

-- Hiding prospective matches from non-paying users when those
prospective matches should be visible to them;
-- Hiding non-paying users from prospective matches when the
non-paying user should be visible to those prospective matches;
-- Providing non-paying users with match notifications without
showing the matches;
-- Secretly reducing the number of matches a non-paying user gets
if they "swipe right" too often;
-- Punitively reducing the visibility of the profiles of users who
have purchased bu later cancelled premium features;
-- and others.

In addition to these claims, the lawsuit alleges that Tinder
discriminates against individuals based on age. The lawsuit alleges
that if a user is under the age 30, Tinder Gold is available to
them for $19.99 for 1 month. However, if the user is 30 or older,
then Tinder Gold is available to them for $39.99 for 1 month. This
same price disparity based on age occurs when a user purchases
Tinder Plus as well. The lawsuit alleges that this age
discrimination is in violation consumer protection legislation in
Canada. Similar lawsuits have been filed and settled in the United
States regarding this age-based discrimination.

Slater Vecchio LLP is looking for class members in this action. If
you are over 29 and have purchased premium features in Tinder,
please visit our website to fill out our form:
https://www.slatervecchio.com/tinder-class-action-canada/

                   About Slater Vecchio

Slater Vecchio LLP is a boutique law firm located in British
Columbia. Over the past 20 years, Slater Vecchio has represented
thousands of clients and has grown into one of the largest personal
injury and class action firms in the province. Slater Vecchio's
goal is to exceed every client's expectations, not only with the
best results possible, but throughout the experience as we work
together. [GN]

TORRES FARM: Mayen Files Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torres Farm Labor
Contractor, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Mayen, an individual,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Torres Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01515-AWI-JLT
(E.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Agriculture Acts.

Torres Farm Labor Contractor Inc. -- https://www.tflcinc.com/ -- is
a general contractor in Bakersfield, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Lipeles, Esq.
          Thomas Henry Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (310) 322-2211
          Email: kevin@kallaw.com
                 thomas@kallaw.com


VENTURE HOME: James Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practice
------------------------------------------------------
Kurt James, Julie Stewart, and Zaker Ahmed, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. VENTURE HOME SOLAR, LLC,
VENTURE COMMERCIAL NYC, LLC, AND VENTURE SOLAR COMMERCIAL, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01306-CSH (D. Conn., Oct. 1, 2021), is brought on
behalf of individuals who leased or purchased a solar panel system
marketed by the Defendants and who did not receive the offset on
their electricity usage charges promised by the Defendants, during
the class periods as determined by the applicable State statutes of
limitations, and continuing until the Defendants' unlawful acts and
the effects of their acts cease.

The Defendants promised each the Plaintiff and Class member that
their electricity usage bills would be offset upon installation and
commencement of service of a solar panel system the Defendants
marketed to them, and that they would benefit from significant (if
not complete) savings – "offsets" – on their electricity usage
charges. These offset promises were included in contracts provided
to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class by the Defendants. The
Defendants knew or should have known that the solar systems they
were marketing could not provide sufficient electricity to provide
the represented offset, and despite numerous complaints from their
consumers, they continue to market solar panel systems with the
promise of a substantial (if not complete) offset of electricity
bills. The Defendants' conduct constitutes a deceptive trade
practice. The Plaintiffs and the Class were deceived and have lost
significant amounts of money as a result of Defendants' actions,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Connecticut, residing in New Haven
County.

Venture Solar is the entity that marketed solar panel systems to
Plaintiffs and the residential members of the Class.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
          Amir Alimehri, Esq.
          KLAFTER LESSER LLP
          2 International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 934-9200
          Email: seth@klafterlesser.com
                 jak@klafterlesser.com
                 amir.alimehri@klafterlesser.com

               - and -

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Phone: (610) 822-0782
          Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                 amilz@consumerslaw.com


VILLAGES TRI-COUNTY: Holmes Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chrystal Holmes, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. THE VILLAGES TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL
CENTER, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH CENTRAL FLORIDA, CENTRAL FLORIDA
HEALTH, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH CENTRAL FLORIDA, Case No.
35-2021-CA-001536-AX was removed from the Lake County Circuit Civil
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Oct. 14, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00508 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

UF Health Leesburg Hospital -- https://ufhealth.org/ -- is a
351-bed acute care hospital that has served Leesburg and the
surrounding communities for 57 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 649-4000
          Fax: (407) 841-0168
          Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com


VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Tolbert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew Kreps Gallery
Ltd. The case is styled as Alice Tolbert, Randy Shields, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volunteers of
America of Los Angeles, a California Corporation, Case No.
21STCV37694 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Volunteers of America -- https://voala.org/ -- is a non-profit
human services organization committed to serving people in need,
strengthening families, and building communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kacey E. Cook, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Dr.
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 805-570-4519
          Email: kaceycook.esq@yahoo.com


VW CREDIT INC: Smith Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VW Credit, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Regan Smith, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. VW Credit, Inc., VW Credit
Leasing Ltd., Case No. 8:21-cv-00406-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb., Oct. 13,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Truth in
Lending.

VW Credit, Inc. -- https://www.vwcredit.com/emailus -- retails
automobiles. It was founded in 1981 to function as the captive
financial services arm of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 South Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: (650) 781-8000
          Fax: (650) 648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


WASHINGTON: COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate Unlawful, Wise Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS JAY WISE, CHELSIE BYROADS, ANDILEE JORDAN, DANIEL BETZ,
DAVID CHARBONNEAU, CHERYL BERNARD, DESIRAE KING, JERRY LEASE,
JORDAN LOZARO, LAURECE RUST, MARY DRASS, NADIA FEDOROVA, TERRY
DUNN, RITA WALDO, LEVI HINES, CHRISTOPHER MOORE, SHELLEY ENGLE,
THOMAS FORSYTH, and TRAVIS YEAGER, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DONALD CLINTSMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; CHIEF
BRIAN SCHAEFFER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE
SPOKANE FIRE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF JOHN BATISTE, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL; AND ROGER
MILLAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00288
TOR (E.D. Wash., Oct. 6, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful COVID-19 vaccination mandate in violation of the Civil
Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 21-41.2 on September 27, 2021
wherein he prohibited any person from working in the fields of
healthcare, education, and state employment if that person has not
been fully vaccinated by October 18th.

On September 23, Fire Chief Brian Schaeffer sent a letter to his
employees with issues from the city's evaluation of possible
vaccine accommodations. The letter said the city, "determined that
accommodating a religious or medical exemption for an unvaccinated
EMT/Paramedic would result in undue hardship or burden and pose a
direct threat to the safety and health of employees and others. For
that reason, we cannot reasonably accommodate employees in their
job of hire."

The complaint alleges that Governor Inslee is acting beyond his
power and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection
clause that reads, "no State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States."

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Washington and Idaho, all of whom
work in Washington and whose employment is adversely affected by a
proclamation of the Governor of the State of Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Grant Wolf, Esq.
          WOLF LEGAL GROUP
          400 S. JEFFERSON ST. Suite 109
          Spokane, WA, 99204
          Telephone: (502) 681-8655
          E-mail: grant@law-lynxnetwork.com

               - and -

          Milton G. Rowland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MILTON G. ROWLAND
          1517 W. Broadway Ave.
          Spokane, WA, 99201
          Telephone: (509) 327-5094
          Facsimile: (509) 252-5094
          E-mail: milt@spokanelitigation.com

WAUKESHA, WI: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Mask Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------------
duluthnewstribune.com reports that the first lawsuit was filed in
Wisconsin's Eastern District against the Waukesha School District
alleging children who've been wearing masks have contracted
COVID-19 because their classmates are going to school unmasked
while having symptoms. The Waukesha School Board voted May 12 to
end many of their COVID-19 mitigation policies including universal
masking.

Minocqua Brewery owner Kirk Bangstad said a class of defendants are
being compiled and another class action lawsuit will be filed in
Wisconsin's Western District.

"Basically, every school district that is not Milwaukee, Madison or
some others that have had the courage to do which is right, which
is few and far between in the state of Wisconsin," Bangstad said.

Bangstad said he became interested in this topic about three weeks
ago, when he heard from a school board member in Hudson who is
facing a recall election after saying children should wear masks.
Bangstad soon realized this is a hot-button issue across the state
and nation.

He said filing the first lawsuit against the Waukesha School
District was not a political decision. He asked parents, via the
brewery's Facebook page, to tell their stories. One of the most
compelling stories came from Shannon Jensen.

Jensen is named in the class action lawsuit as she's representing
all K-12 parents in the Waukesha School District case.

Jensen, whose children go to Rose Glenn Elementary School, said her
kids continued to wear masks when they returned to school in
September -- even though they weren't required.

On Sept. 16, one of her children's classmates came to school with
COVID-19 symptoms and was not wearing a mask, according to the
lawsuit. The next day, that same student visited the school nurse
twice and was eventually sent home due to his COVID-19 symptoms.
Jensen's child was seated next to the student both days.

On Sept. 19, Jensen's child tested positive for COVID-19, according
to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges the school board and the Waukesha School
District have thrown students into the COVID-19 "snake pit" and
have violated the 14th Amendment that ensures the right to be safe
from state created dangers while in school.

Waukesha Superintendent James Sebert said in an email to WPR that
the district received the complaint but hadn't been formally
served.

"We contacted our attorneys and on the advice of our counsel, we
have been advised not to respond further at this time," Sebert
wrote.

Bangstad's super PAC has raised more than $50,000 to pay lawyers,
infectious disease experts and epidemiologists, which he said will
work around the clock to prepare the case.

"If we get a temporary injunction in a few weeks, that money we
raised might be enough and could buy Wisconsin schools a few months
until the FDA approves the vaccine for children, at which point we
wouldn't need to continue the lawsuit," Bangstad wrote on his
Facebook page.

Bangstad started his super PAC on Jan. 4, two days before the
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. He said he did so after U.S. Sen.
Ron Johnson and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany voted against a stimulus
package that would have helped restaurants and bars, including his
own.

"Then Jan. 6 happened, and those two guys also said the election
was fraudulent, and I felt they incited the insurrection and were
traitors to our country," Bangstad said. "I said let's get rid of
these guys and make Northern Wisconsin progressive."

The state Republican Party has fired back. On Sept. 29, Jordan
Moskowitz, political director with the Wisconsin GOP filed a
complaint with the Federal Elections Commission alleging Bangstad
is personally profiting from the super PAC.

Bangstad said there's nothing in that complaint worth responding
to.

"It's an obvious way to deflect from the good that we're doing
trying to protect kids and Wisconsin communities by slinging mud at
me and the super PAC," Bangstad said. [GN]

WESTSIDE SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTSIDE SUPERMARKET LLC (D/B/A WESTSIDE
MARKET), WS MARKET LLC (D/B/A WEST SIDE MARKET), MAJED ALMADHLOM,
and TAWFIK ALHAYANI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08368 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 11, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and class members minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide
spread of hours pay, and failed to furnish written wage notices and
wage statements.

Ms. Espinoza was employed by the Defendants at West Side Market
from January 25, 2021 until September 17, 2021 as a stock worker
and delivery worker.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a supermarket, located in
Chelsea, New York under the name "West Side Market."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Agrees to Broader Asbestos Risk Evaluations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to broaden its ongoing
Risk Evaluation for Asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control
Act.

An agreement to settle two lawsuits – both alleging inadequate
evaluation of toxic asbestos – was filed Oct. 13 in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization was the lead plaintiff
in the risk evaluation litigation and was joined by health
organizations, scientists and doctors, including acclaimed thoracic
surgeon Dr. Raja Flores of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

“We are pleased [with the agreement] because a more robust and
comprehensive evaluation will better document the immense harm
asbestos continues to cause in the United States,” said Linda
Reinstein, president and co-founder of ADAO.

Included in the agreement is a consent decree with a commitment
from the EPA to finish Part 2 of its risk evaluation by Dec. 1,
2024, and to provide the court with updates on its progress every
180 days. The next draft scope document will be available for
public comment by the end of the year.

"EPA will continue to move forward with actions, including the risk
evaluation of asbestos, Part 2 and risk management on asbestos,
Part 1, to ensure the public is protected from unreasonable risks
in a way that is supported by science and the law," an EPA
spokesperson told The Mesothelioma Center at Asbestos.com.

Exposure to asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral once used
ubiquitously in manufacturing, can cause serious health issues,
including mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer with no definitive
cure. The most glaring problem today is legacy asbestos, most of
which is found in older, deteriorating construction throughout the
country.

The use of asbestos products has declined dramatically in recent
decades and is heavily regulated. There is no mining of the product
within the U.S. The only raw asbestos being imported today is used
by the chloralkali industry to manufacture chlorine.

Part 1 of the EPA's risk evaluation task was completed in December
2020. It was roundly criticized by health organizations,
particularly because it included only chrysotile asbestos, the only
form of asbestos to be imported, processed or distributed within
the U.S.

Its decision to wait for Part 2 in addressing legacy asbestos also
was criticized, along with the absence of a clear scope of what it
would include and when it would be finished.

As part of the broadened scope of the EPA's Part 2 risk evaluation,
the recent agreement included an evaluation of:

- Talc and talc-containing products potentially contaminated with
asbestos fibers and the human health hazards they present
- Health hazards of five more types of asbestos fibers:
crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite
- Evidence involving noncancer health hazards of asbestos –
including asbestosis – in addition to all cancer health hazards
- Risks to human health from all environmental pathways of exposure
to asbestos, including ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact
- Health risks of potentially exposed individuals who may be more
susceptible to the dangers of asbestos

Also included in the agreement was the EPA’s emphasis on
addressing all legacy uses and associated disposal of six fiber
types of asbestos.

"After years of delay, we will finally have an enforceable court
order that assures that EPA performs its legal duty to determine
the risks of legacy asbestos," said Bob Sussman, ADAO's attorney.
"This is encouraging progress."

The EPA has emphasized that the risk evaluation, which began in
2016, never was intended to address legacy asbestos. It was only
added in 2019.

Its Part 1 evaluation found 16 conditions of asbestos use that
presented unreasonable risks to human health, either through
occupational exposures or consumer uses.

ADAO, the leading nonprofit aimed at eliminating asbestos exposure
of all types, has been lobbying Congress for many years to impose a
complete ban on asbestos. Several efforts throughout the years have
failed.

The closest came a year ago when the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos
Now Act of 2020 appeared to have broad support but failed to
advance through the U.S. House of Representatives. More than 60
countries already have banned asbestos.

Only in recent years has ADAO turned toward legal issues, mostly
directed at the EPA. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton is overseeing the
recent ruling.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Puts Talc Liabilities Into Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Spector and Dan Levine, writing for Reuters.com, reports that
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) put into bankruptcy tens of thousands of
legal claims alleging its Baby Powder and other talc-based products
caused cancer, offloading the potential liabilities into a newly
created subsidiary.

J&J put the talc claims into an entity called LTL Management LLC,
which filed for bankruptcy protection on Thursday in North
Carolina, according to the company and court records. J&J and its
affiliates were not part of the bankruptcy filing.

Tens of thousands of plaintiffs have alleged J&J's Baby Powder and
other talc products contained asbestos and caused cancer, which the
company denies. The plaintiffs include women suffering from ovarian
cancer and others battling mesothelioma.

J&J executed the corporate reshuffling through a contentious legal
maneuver known as a Texas two-step bankruptcy, a strategy other
companies facing asbestos litigation have used.

In that process, a J&J business split in two through a so-called
divisional merger under Texas law. That transaction created LTL,
the new entity saddled with J&J's talc liabilities, according to
court papers filed Thursday.

J&J, with a market value exceeding $400 billion, said the talc
cases would be halted while LTL navigates bankruptcy proceedings.

The company's costs defending nearly 40,000 cases have approached
$1 billion, according to bankruptcy-court filings. Settlements and
verdicts have cost J&J about $3.5 billion more.

"We are taking these actions to bring certainty to all parties
involved in the cosmetic talc cases," J&J General Counsel Michael
Ullmann said in a statement.

"While we continue to stand firmly behind the safety of our
cosmetic talc products, we believe resolving this matter as quickly
and efficiently as possible is in the best interests of the
(company) and all stakeholders," Ullmann added.

Plaintiffs' lawyers decried the bankruptcy filing. J&J's
"bankruptcy gimmick is as despicable as it is brazen" and "an
unconscionable abuse of the legal system," said Linda Lipsen, chief
executive of the American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers'
group, in a statement.

J&J said it would fund LTL's legal costs for talc cases in an
amount later determined by a bankruptcy judge, with an initial
advance of $2 billion. LTL has also received certain royalty
revenue streams with a present value of more than $350 million to
contribute to potential legal costs, J&J said.

Reuters first reported in July that J&J was exploring offloading
its talc liabilities and placing them into bankruptcy.

Thursday's move shifted high-stakes litigation over the safety of
J&J's talc from courtrooms across the United States to one legal
proceeding before a federal bankruptcy judge who could potentially
force a settlement among the blue-chip company and plaintiffs.

During earlier settlement discussions, a J&J attorney told
plaintiffs' lawyers that the company could pursue the bankruptcy
plan, which might result in lower payouts for cases that do not
settle beforehand, Reuters previously reported.

In the weeks leading up to Thursday's bankruptcy filing, lawyers
representing women with cancer claims asked multiple judges to
forbid J&J from executing such a maneuver, only to be turned down.

The company maintained in statements and in court proceedings over
the summer that it had not decided whether to pursue the maneuver.

A 2018 Reuters investigation found J&J knew for decades that
asbestos, a known carcinogen, lurked in its Baby Powder and other
cosmetic talc products. The company stopped selling Baby Powder in
the United States and Canada in May 2020, in part due to what it
called "misinformation" and "unfounded allegations" about the
talc-based product.

J&J maintains its consumer talc products are safe and confirmed
through thousands of tests to be asbestos-free.

In bankruptcy-court papers, lawyers for the newly created J&J
subsidiary said the Chapter 11 filing was "necessitated by an
unrelenting assault by the plaintiff trial bar, premised on the
false allegations that the ... talc products contain asbestos and
cause cancer."

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear J&J's appeal of a
Missouri court ruling that resulted in $2 billion of damages
awarded to women alleging the company's talc caused their ovarian
cancer.

J&J has prevailed in other recent talc cases.


                            *********

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 ***