/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211026.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 208

                            Headlines

3G HOME: Feril Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class of Installers
3M COMPANY: Barclay Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Pina Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Silano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film Forming Foams
ADAMS COUNTY, MS: Gonzalez Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit

ALLISTER ADEL: Briggs, et al. Seek to Certify Class
AMAZON.COM: Escobar Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid in Scanlan Suit Granted
AMERICAN FAMILY: Urbassik Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
APOLLO GLOBAL: Anguilla Social Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.

BECHT ENGINEERING: Costellow, et al. Seek to Amend Tolling Order
BECHT ENGINEERING: Suit Seeks to Add Expanded Class Opt-Ins
BENEFITFOCUS INC: Pittsburgh Fund Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
BIG PICTURE: Bid for 4th Cir. Review in Williams RICO Suit Pending
BOEING CO: May Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Earl Suit, Says Court

BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Bid for Jan. 6, 2022 Class Cert Hearing Tossed
BOSTON BEER: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in New York
BOTTLING GROUP: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Celgene Merger Deal Lacks Info, Suit Says
BRISTOL-MYERS: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline

BRONX FORD: Seeks Review of Sanctions Ruling in Lopez Labor Suit
CANON INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over All-in-One Printers
CARO NUT COMPANY: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Discloses Class Action Filing, Settlement
CONSUMER CREDIT: Chapman Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls

CREDIT BUREAU: Must File Class Cert. Response by October 29
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem Loses Bid for Class Certification
DEERFIELD COIN: Gonzales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DJI TECHNOLOGY: Kinder Sues Over False, Misleading Representations
DST SYSTEMS: Court Confirms Arbitration Award in Eisenberger Suit

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Sunscreens
EPISCOPAL FOUNDATION: Swope Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ERIE INDEMNITY: Stephenson Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
ETOH MONITORING: Meade Appeals Judgment in Class Suit
FARMERS INSURANCE: Chance Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma

FEDERAL INSURANCE: Faces SXSW Suit Over Class Action Funding
FIRST NATIONAL: Leidner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Sub-classes
FORD MOTOR: Jones Files Suit in D. Maryland
GEO GROUP: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

GKN GROUP: Parker Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun Suit Seeks to Certify Class
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 13 Deadline
INT'L BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Commissions
JENNMAR CORPORATION: Stacy Wins Bid for Conditional Certification

KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Action Over Strawberry Pop-Tarts Pastries
KELLOGG SALES: Russett Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Brooks Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Kolodin Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Norman Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Vincent Wong Discloses Securities Class Action
LANCE CAMPER: Prado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Moab Partners Appeals Case Dismissal
MATTEL INC: Shaffer et al., Seek OK of Amended Bid to Certify Class
NATIONAL GENERAL: Griffin Suit Removed to C.D. California

NESTLE PURINA: Salinas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEUTROGENA CORP: Lavalle Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
NEUTROGENA CORP: Sued Over Dangerous Levels of Benzene in Sunscreen
PFIZER INC: Duff Sues Over Unapproved Varenicline-Containing Drugs
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Veterans

PRECISION CONSTRUCTION: Nava Sues Over Labor Code Violations
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Suit Says
RTI SURGICAL: January 24, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SEVENTY SEVEN: Court Narrows Claims in Snider ERISA Class Suit
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Fralish Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana

ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Dismisses Dixon Suit Without Prejudice
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Money-Laundering Class Action Lawsuit
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Slater and Gordon Investigates Securities Suit
STETSON COURIER: Hames Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TARGET CORPORATION: Locklin Sues Over Unlawful Advertising Practice

TRINITY OPERATING: Price Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED GUARD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Barnes Suit Says
UNITED MEDICAL: Norwood Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
UNITED STATES: Class Action v. Navy Over Vaccine Mandate Pending
UNITED STATES: Defense Department Sued Over Vaccine Mandate

UNITED STATES: Kaiser Appeals Ruling in Common Ground Suit
UNITED STATES: Kaiser Appeals Ruling in Health Republic Suit
VENUS CONCEPT: Boston Robotic Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 13 Deadline
VIRGINIA: State AG's Summary Judgment Bid in Kenny Suit Denied

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dornay Files Suit in D. Maryland
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
WAYNE, MI: Asks Court to Reconsider Portion of Sept. 30 Order
WELLS FARGO: Echard Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
[*] Asset Recovery in Class Action Market Continue to Expand


                            *********

3G HOME: Feril Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class of Installers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.J. Feril and Andrew
Miller, behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
3G Home Exteriors, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and Jacob Heier,
an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-11406-RHC-CI (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to:

      "All similarly situated current and former Installers
      employed by Defendants at any time in the past three
      years (The proposed Class);" and

   3. requiring the Defendants to identify potential opt-in
      plaintiffs within 14 days of the entry of the order.

On June 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against 3G Home
challenging the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated within the class overtime benefits that
they are entitled to under the FLSA.

This case seeks to address and recover unpaid overtime wages for
individuals who, at any time during the last three years, were
subject to Defendants' policy and practice of refusing or otherwise
failing to pay its installers the federally mandated overtime wages
at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours during a work week.

The Plaintiff Feril worked for Defendants as an Installer and Crew
Leader from,2012 to January of 2020. The Plaintiff Miller likewise
worked for Defendants as an Installer and Crew Leader from October
of 2016 to March of 2020.

The Defendant 3G is a Michigan home improvement corporation and
operated by the Defendant Heier.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jtmV6e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Palmer, Esq.
          Channing Robinson-Holmes, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER BONANNI &
          RIVERS, P.C.
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: rpalmer@pittlawpc.com
                  crobinson@pittlawpc.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq.
          Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 South Telegraph Road, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 335-5000
          E-mail: lthomson@hertzschram.com

3M COMPANY: Barclay Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Bruce Barclay, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A.,
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB
FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical
Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03286-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 8,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, AFFF is a specialized substance
designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for
decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires
in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants
collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the
stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the
product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold
and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or
products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in
firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter at multiple sites located
throughout California and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing
PFAS.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Pina Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Pina, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:21-cv-03298-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 13, 2021), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.

This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that
were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds.
AFFF compounding includes Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (commonly known
as "PFOS"), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (commonly known as "PFOA"),
and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with
PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are man made
organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as
fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants) . The compounds
are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create
a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free
hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents designed for a
particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and mixing that
with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film
Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved in
this action are asserted to have used flourocarbon surfactants
which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other
perfluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are also believed to be in
the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA).

The Plaintiff joined the Air Force in 1996, and was subsequently
assigned to Travis AFB, CA (1996-2001). The Plaintiff worked on
Base at Travis using and drinking the water. On information and
belief, Travis AFB has a PFAS environmental contamination level of
712,000ppt (EPA max of 70ppt). In late 2004, it was discovered that
Felowitz had papillary thyroid cancer. A total thyroidectomy was
performed in early 2005. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS
was a cause of the harm until approximately mid-2020, when he saw
internet information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, who during his
service was stationed at Camp Pendleton, a military installation
identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals
which are the subject of this action.

3M did and does business nationwide, including within California
inclusive with U.S. Military Bases/Posts as to firefighting foam
products which 3M manufactured, distributed and/or sold, which
firefighting foams contained toxic chemicals known as, inter alia,
PFOS, PFOA and/or other PFC's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Silano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Silano, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:21-cv-03297-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 8, 2021), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.

This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that
were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds.
AFFF compounding includes Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (commonly known
as "PFOS"), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (commonly known as "PFOA"),
and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with
PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are man made
organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as
fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants) . The compounds
are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create
a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free
hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents designed for a
particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and mixing that
with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film
Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved in
this action are asserted to have used flourocarbon surfactants
which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other
perfluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are also believed to be in
the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA).

The Plaintiff joined the Air Force in 1996, and was subsequently
assigned to Travis AFB, CA (1996-2001). The Plaintiff worked on
Base at Travis using and drinking the water. On information and
belief, Travis AFB has a PFAS environmental contamination level of
712,000ppt (EPA max of 70ppt). In late 2004, it was discovered that
Felowitz had papillary thyroid cancer. A total thyroidectomy was
performed in early 2005. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS
was a cause of the harm until approximately mid-2020, when he saw
internet information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, who during his
service was stationed at Camp Pendleton, a military installation
identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals
which are the subject of this action.

3M did and does business nationwide, including within California
inclusive with U.S. Military Bases/Posts as to firefighting foam
products which 3M manufactured, distributed and/or sold, which
firefighting foams contained toxic chemicals known as, inter alia,
PFOS, PFOA and/or other PFC's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ADAMS COUNTY, MS: Gonzalez Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Louis Gonzalez took an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled LOUIS GONZALEZ, also known as Carlos Ramos
Sanchez, v. WARDEN SHAWN R. GILLIS, ET AL., Case No. 5:20-CV-158,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Natchez.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on  January 4, 2021, the
Hon. Judge David Bramlette entered an order:
adopting the Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker's Report and
Recommendation (R&R) as the findings and conclusions of the Court
in the case, and (1) denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction; (2) dismissed all class allegations and directed the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint; (3) denied the motion to
seek leave to file an untimely response in opposition to Magistrate
Judge Parker's R&R; and (4) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification.

The Plaintiff filed this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights during
his incarceration at Adams County Detention Center (ACDC). He
amended his complaint on January 11, 2021. The Plaintiff is an
alien in the custody of ICE. On May 3, 2021, he was transferred to
the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama.

The appellate case is captioned as Gonzalez v. Gillis, Case No.
21-60764, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on Oct. 5, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Louis Gonzalez, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, also known as Carlos
Ramos Sanchez, who is currently incarcerated at the Etowah County
Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees Warden Shawn R. Gillis; Unit Manager Joseph
January, In his individual and official capacity; Unit Counselor
Cynthia Pernell, In her individual and official capacities; Custody
Officer Tatyana Lewis, In her individual and official capacities;
Custody Officer Randy Woods, Jr., In his individual and official
capacities; Jerome Brown; Kila Blanton; Vandriana Norman; and
Michael Wells, are represented by:

          Lindley Anna Morris, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW, L.L.P.
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 985-4487

ALLISTER ADEL: Briggs, et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deshawn Briggs, et al., v.
Allister Adel, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02684-EJM (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiffs Deshawn Briggs, Lucia Soria, and Antonio Pascale ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All individuals who, at any time between August 23, 2016,
      and August 15, 2020, 2 (1) were enrolled in the marijuana    
  
      diversion program operated by the Defendants Treatment
      Assessment Screening Center, Inc. (TASC) and the Maricopa
      County Attorney's Office (MCAO); (2) at some point in time
      during their enrollment, satisfied all program
      requirements for successful completion other than payment
      of program fees; and (3) after that point in time, were
      required to remain on the program solely because they had
      not paid the required fees, without any determination that
      their nonpayment was willful;" and

   2. appointing their counsel of record to represent the
      certified class.

This case is about Defendant TASC's systemic practice of forcing
individuals to remain in its possession of marijuana pretrial
diversion program for a longer time just because they were poor.
TASC charged exorbitant fees as a prerequisite to program
completion. After participants had met all other requirements, TASC
routinely extended their time on the program solely because they
had not satisfied their debt. During this extended period of
diversion supervision, TASC required participants to take
suspicionless -- and very invasive -- urinalysis tests, with the
threat of criminal prosecution still looming. It did not matter why
a participant had not paid. TASC did not ask. Even when TASC knew
participants were struggling to cover the program costs, it
systematically failed to alleviate their financial burden. Named
Plaintiffs contend that this practice violated their rights under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and they seek compensatory
and punitive damages as a result on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pzRoDU
at no extra charge[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sumayya Saleh, Esq.
          Ryan Downer, Esq.
          Bina Ahmad, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 656-5189
          E-mail: sumayya@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          Virginia Williamson, Esq.
          Olivia Dworkin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          5 Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4704
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Bendor, Esq.
          Timothy J. Eckstein, Esq.
          OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
          2929 N. Central Ave., Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793
          Telephone: (602) 640-9000
          E-mail: jbendor@omlaw.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant Treatment Assessment Screening
Center, Inc., are:

          Robert Arthur Henry, Esq.
          Jennifer Hadley Catero, Esq.
          Kelly Ann Kszywienski, Esq.
          Amanda Z. Weaver, Esq.
          Snell & Wilmer LLP -- Phoenix, AZ
          Arizona Center
          400 East Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          E-mail: bhenry@swlaw.com
                  jcatero@swlaw.com
                  kkszywienski@swlaw.com
                  aweaver@swlaw.com
                  Phxecf@swlaw.com

AMAZON.COM: Escobar Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
Dallan Escobar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. AMAZON.COM, LLC; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2123066 was removed from the Superior
Court of California, San Bernardino County, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 8,
2021, and assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01725-JWH-SP.

The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Amazon: (1)
Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of California Labor Code
Sections 510 and 1198; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in Violation
of Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (3) Failure to Pay
Meal Period Premiums in Violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7 and
512(a); (4) Failure to Pay Rest Period Premiums in Violation of
Labor Code Section 226.7; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon
Termination in Violation of Labor Code Sections 201 and 202; (6)
Failure to Provide Compliant Wage Statements in Violation of Labor
Code Section 226(a); (7) Failure to Reimburse Expenses in Violation
of Labor Code Section 2802; and (8) Unfair Competition under
Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Michael J. Holecek, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: (213) 229-7000
          Fax: (213) 229-7520
          Email: lblas@gibsondunn.com
                 mholecek@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jennifer K. Bracht, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE)
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202-2642
          Phone: 303.298.5700
          Facsimile: 303.298.5907
          Email: jbracht@gibsondunn.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid in Scanlan Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES P. SCANLAN on his own behalf and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., et al., Civil
Action No. 18-4040 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background

Plaintiff James P. Scanlan, a commercial airline pilot and a Major
General in the United States Air Force Reserve, has sued Defendants
American Airlines Group, Inc. ("AAG") and American Airlines, Inc.
("American"), his employer and AAG's wholly owned subsidiary, in
this putative class action under the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301 et
seq., and for breach of contract. In essence, the Plaintiff claims
that he and the classes he seeks to represent have not received the
compensation or benefits due to them under the statute and by
contract. He seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.

The Plaintiff has worked as a pilot for American since 1999 and has
participated in AAG's Global Profit Sharing Plan since 2016.
Throughout his employment with American and while he has
participated in the Plan, the Plaintiff has taken periods of leave
to perform his military service in the reserves.

American does not pay its pilots when they take military leave no
matter how long or short that leave is. Likewise, with several
exceptions, it does not pay its other employees when they take such
leave. It does, however, pay employees who take leave for jury duty
or bereavement. American employees who take leave for jury duty
either receive their full regular pay or the difference between
their regular compensation and their pay as jurors.

The collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between American and
the Allied Pilots Association on behalf of American pilots is
silent as to bereavement leave. According to defendants' corporate
representative Todd Jewett, the company policy applies when the CBA
is silent. American's policy is to provide up to three days of paid
bereavement leave in the event of a death of an immediate family
member.

American's parent company, AAG, is also the parent company of Envoy
Air, Inc., Piedmont Airlines, Inc., and PSA Airlines, Inc. AAG
adopted and implemented the Profit Sharing Plan effective Jan. 1,
2016 to share a portion of its profits with employees of American
and its subsidiary airlines who are participants in the Plan.
Employees who are eligible to participate in the Plan include
pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and passenger service
employees as well as non-union management and non-management
employees. Participants are categorized by different so-called
"work groups" based on their position and union representation.

Under the Plan, AAG pays profit sharing awards each spring to the
Plan participants that total five percent of AAG's pre-tax earnings
from the preceding year. Participants receive their award as a lump
sum cash payment and may contribute all or part of the award to
their retirement plans. AAG calculates each participant's
individual award by dividing the five percent of AAG's pre-tax
earnings by the aggregate amount of all participants' earnings and
multiplying this resulting value by an individual participant's
"eligible earnings." Eligible earnings are based on the
participant's "compensation" as defined by his or her applicable
401(k) plan. Earnings from paid leave are credited to the Plan
participants for purposes of this allocation.

AAG may modify or terminate the Plan at any time. Profit sharing is
not guaranteed. AAG has not had profits to distribute since 2019.

AAG does not credit short-term military leave toward a
participant's eligible earnings under the Plan when employees are
not paid for such leave. However, it does credit the leave and
impute income under the Plan for employees when they take leave for
jury duty or bereavement. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees who have taken military leave received
lower profit sharing awards than they would have received if credit
had been given for such leave. This situation will continue if and
when profits are distributed among Plan participants in the
future.

The Plaintiff alleges in Count I of the second amended complaint
that AAG's policy of not crediting short-term military leave to
participants' eligible earnings for purposes of its Profit Sharing
Plan but doing so for jury duty and bereavement leave violates
USERRA, specifically Section 4316(b)(1). He also alleges a
violation of Section 4316(b)(1) in Count III based on American's
failure to pay its employees for short-term military leave while
paying its employees for leave taken for jury duty or bereavement.

In denying defendants' earlier motion to dismiss Counts I and III,
the Court explained in its June 18, 2019 Memorandum and Order that
compensation for short-term military leave is a right and benefit
within the meaning of this statute. The Court of Appeals has
recently affirmed this holding in a similar case.

The Plaintiff also brings a claim against AAG in Count II for
breach of contract based on the language of the AAG Profit Sharing
Plan. He alleges that AAG is violating the terms of the Plan by not
including credit or imputed income for American pilots' short-term
military service.

The class which the Plaintiff seeks to certify under Count I is a
profit sharing class of current and former employees of American
and all AAG affiliates who have participated in the Plan at some
point since its inception on Jan. 1, 2016 and who are harmed and
will continue to be harmed as a result of violation of Section 4316
("Profit Sharing Class").

The proposed class consists of participants in the Profit Sharing
Plan who took short-term military leave at any AAG affiliate
(including American) from the inception of the Plan 2016 to the
present.4 Count I is brought on behalf of the Profit Sharing Class
and alleges that AAG violated USERRA Section 4316] by not crediting
periods of short-term military leave under its Profit Sharing
Plan.

Members of this proposed class must also have been employed in the
United States while a participant in the Plan or were a citizen or
national or permanent resident of the United States while employed
in a foreign country and have been a participant whose profit
sharing award did not include credit or imputed earnings for
short-term military leave.

The Plaintiff also seeks to certify a subclass of the Profit
Sharing class under Count II limited to American pilots who are or
were eligible to participate in the American pilots' 401(k) plan
and who have been harmed and will continue to be harmed as a result
of breach of contractual provisions in the Profit Sharing Plan
("Profit Sharing Pilots Subclass").

The proposed subclass consists of members of the Profit Sharing
Class who were pilots at American Airlines. Count II of the Second
Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of the American Pilots
Profit Sharing Subclass and alleges that AAG committed breach of
contract and violated the terms of the Profit Sharing Plan by not
crediting periods of short-term military leave under its Profit
Sharing Plan.

Finally, the Plaintiff moves for certification under Count III of a
class of current and former American employees who have been harmed
and will continue to be harmed as a result of violation of Section
4316 because of American's failure to pay them for short-term
military leave ("Paid Leave Class").

The proposed class consists of American employees who took
short-term military leave between 2013 and the present. Count III
is brought on behalf of the Paid Leave Class against American
alleging that the Class Members were entitled to be paid at least
the difference between their regular pay and military pay when they
took short-term military leave.

Analysis

Class certification may only be granted if the four requirements of
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are first
satisfied: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation. In addition to the prerequisites of Rule 23(a),
plaintiff must also satisfy one of the requirements under Rule
23(b).

Judge Bartle finds that the Plaintiff has met the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) for certification of a class of current and
former American Airlines, Inc. pilots. He divides this approved
class of American pilots into a subclass for each of the
Plaintiff's three claims.

Order

First, Judge Bartle certifies a subclass with regard to Count I for
AAG's alleged violation of Section 4316 as relates to the Profit
Sharing Plan. This subclass will consist of current and former
American Airlines, Inc. pilots who: participated at some point in
the AAG Global Profit Sharing Plan since its inception on Jan. 1,
2016; while participants in the Plan, were employed in the United
States or were a citizen or national or permanent resident of the
United States and employed in a foreign country; took short-term
military leave in a year during which they were entitled to receive
an award under the Plan; and were not credited or imputed earnings
for this short-term military leave.

Second, Judge Bartle certifies a subclass with regard to Count II
for breach of contract of those American pilots included in the
subclass in Count I who, from Jan. 1, 2016 through the date of
judgment in the action, are or were eligible to participate in the
American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan for Pilots and subject to
taxation in the United States.

Third, Judge Bartle certifies a subclass with regard to Count III
of all current and former American Airlines, Inc. pilots who took
short-term military leave while employed at American at any time
from Jan. 1, 2013 through the date of judgment in the action and
were not paid for that leave equal to what they would have received
had they taken leave for jury duty or bereavement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yukzkp65 from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Urbassik Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Family
Mutual Insurance Co. The case is styled as Jeremy Urbassik,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-01974-JPC
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 19, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated Insurance for Insurance Contract.

American Family Insurance, also abbreviated as AmFam --
https://www.amfam.com/ -- is an American private mutual company
that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also
offers commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage
as well as investment and retirement-planning products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Moyer, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE - San Diego
          401 West A Street, Ste. 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: msingh@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE
          14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Anguilla Social Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Global
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Anguilla Social Security
Board, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Apollo Global Management, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-01757 (Del.
Chancery Ct., Oct. 19, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Complaint - Inspection of Books &
Records."

Apollo Global Management -- https://www.apollo.com/ -- is a global
alternative investment management firm and is one of the largest
asset managers serving many of the world's most prominent
investors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
          Christopher M. Foulds
          Joel E. Friedlander
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS PA
          1201 N Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 573-3508
          Fax: (302) 573-3501
          Email: jgorris@friedlandergorris.com


BECHT ENGINEERING: Costellow, et al. Seek to Amend Tolling Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW, JOHN
TRIPLETT BRUCE HALLMAN, CARL HEBERT, CHRISTINE M. MORSE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC.; BECHT FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order amending its Tolling Order to add the Expanded Class
Opt-Ins.

The Plaintiffs contend that at the time the lawsuit was filed
seeking a nationwide class of workers who were paid a single hourly
rate for all hours worked, Becht knew the worksites and employees
who were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked. There is
absolutely no prejudice to Becht by adding the Expanded Class
Opt-Ins to the Court's Tolling Order. In fact, the Court's order
granting class certification specifically envisioned the potential
for Plaintiffs to seek expansion of the class based on information
Becht had been withholding, the Plaintiffs add.

Becht is an oil & energy company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/310ytrx at no extra
charge[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Frasher, Esq.
          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & Q UINN, L.L.P.
          801 Laurel Street
          Post Office Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Telecopier: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com
                  mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com

BECHT ENGINEERING: Suit Seeks to Add Expanded Class Opt-Ins
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW, JOHN
TRIPLETT BRUCE HALLMAN, CARL HEBERT, CHRISTINE M. MORSE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC.; BECHT FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order amending its Tolling Order to add the Expanded Class
Opt-Ins.

The Plaintiffs file this motion asking the Court to Amend its prior
Tolling Order of December 16, 2020 to include those Opt-In
Plaintiffs who, "but for" Becht's improper discovery tactics, would
have been included in the Court's Tolling Order and first Order
granting conditional class certification. Simply stated, had Becht
complied with its disclosure obligations under Local Rule CV-26 and
timely produced the documents, information and testimony showing
Becht's creation and nationwide use of a Single Rate Pay Policy
across multiple states, the expanded opt-in Plaintiffs would have
been part of the Court's original certification order, and this
Motion would not be necessary.

The "Expanded Class Opt-Ins" are current and former employees of
Becht/BFS who Plaintiffs are now seeking to add to the Court's
Tolling Order were workers, (1) who were subjected to Becht's
Single Rate Pay Policy in different states, and (2) who Becht
eventually agreed to add as opt-in plaintiffs after the Court
Ordered Becht to produce information, documents and testimony
concerning the scope of the Single Rate Pay Policy.

Without adding the Expanded Class Opt-Ins to the original Tolling
Order, Becht will have been permitted to purposely/intentionally
delay producing relevant discovery showing Becht's nationwide use
of the Single Rate Pay Policy, thereby manipulating the applicable
statute of limitations to divest the rights of those Expanded Class
Opt-Ins, by delaying their receipt of Notice to join this action,
the Plaintiffs contend.

Becht provides engineering services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XAbsds at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Frasher, Esq.
          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
          801 Laurel Street
          Post Office Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Telecopier: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com
                  mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com

BENEFITFOCUS INC: Pittsburgh Fund Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust
Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
styled CITY OF PITTSBURGH COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PENSION TRUST
FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. BENEFITFOCUS, INC., et al., Case No. 651425/2021, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 25, 2021, the
lawsuit asserts strict liability and negligence claims for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Benefitfocus's
secondary public offering which commenced on March 1, 2019 of
6,560,472 shares of common stock, including an executed
underwriters' overallotment of 855,714 shares, at a price of $48.25
per share (the "SPO" or the "Offering").

The securities class action was brought on behalf of a Class of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Benefitfocus common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the SPO, and who were damaged
thereby.

Defendant Benefitfocus describes itself as a "leading cloud-based
benefits management platform" that "simplifies how organizations
and individuals transact benefits." The Company's broker customers
use its platform to manage employer portfolios; employer customers
use the platform to streamline benefit processes, control costs,
and keep up with regulatory requirements; and insurance carrier and
supplier customers use the platform to market offerings to
consumers, simplify billing, and improve the enrollment process.

On March 1, 2019, Benefitfocus conducted an SPO and the Selling
Stockholder Defendants -- including Mercer LLC, an entity related
to Mercer Health -- raised more than $316 million in gross
proceeds, while the banks that underwrote the Offering collected
over $9.4 million in fees. In other words, the SPO was a great
success for Defendants; however, the SPO was disastrous for
investors.

Just prior to and in connection with the SPO, Benefitfocus
disclosed it had amended the Mercer Health Agreement to, among
other things, take advantage of increased opportunities in the
broker channel. Benefitfocus claimed that any reduction in revenue
associated with the amended Mercer Health Agreement would be
limited to 2019 and would have no material impact on the Company's
financial condition and results, the suit says.

However, within months of the SPO, Benefitfocus disclosed
materially adverse and previously existing but undisclosed
conditions, trends, uncertainties, and risks at the Company that
pre-dated the SPO, including the complete runoff of significant,
recurring, high-margin Mercer Health revenues, significant losses
and earnings misses, and the inability to replace lost Mercer
Health revenues with new broker channel revenues.

As a result of these undisclosed adverse facts that existed at the
time of the Offering, Benefitfocus's common stock plummeted,
falling from its SPO price of $48.25 per share to close at $14.90
per share on March 2, 2020, the date this Action was filed, the
suit added.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive
Municipal Pension Trust Fund vs. Benefitfocus, Inc. et al Case No.
2021-03696, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Department, filed on October 7,
2021.[BN]

Defendants-Respondents Benefitfocus, Inc., et al., are represented
by:

          Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY  10019-6022
          Telephone: (212) 497-7725
          E-mail: sbassin@wsgr.com

BIG PICTURE: Bid for 4th Cir. Review in Williams RICO Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Matt Martorello's appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled LULA WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs v. BIG PICTURE
LOANS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-461-REP, has been
transferred to the regular docket and assigned docket number
21-2116.

The case is one of four similar, but distinct, actions arising out
of a so-called "Rent a Tribe" scheme allegedly orchestrated by Matt
Martorello, members of his family, companies that he controls, and
investors, who allegedly funded the scheme (the "Martorello
Defendants") along with two entities formed under the tribal laws
of the Lac View Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians ("LVD"),
i.e., Big Picture Loans, LLC and Ascension Technologies, Inc.
("Tribal Defendants").

The term "Rent-a-Tribe" refers to the practice of so-called payday
lenders partnering with Native American tribes in an effort to
cloak the payday lenders in the sovereign immunity of Native
American tribes, and, in so doing, to preclude enforcement of the
interest rate caps in state usury laws.

The Plaintiffs are all Virginia citizens, who took out small-dollar
high-interest loans from one of two LVD-affiliated entities (i.e.,
Red Rock or its successor Big Picture). The Plaintiffs' basic
argument is that the loans from these entities were made in
violation of Virginia's usury laws, and Martorello, who is not a
member of any Native American tribe, was both the de facto head and
primary beneficiary of the LVD's lending operations.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 2, 2021, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. On August 4, 2021, Mr. Martorello
sought a review of the Class Certification ruling entered by the
District Court.

The case has been transferred to the regular docket and assigned
docket number 21-2116.

Accordingly, the appellate case is now captioned as Matt Martorello
v. Lula Williams, Case No. 21-2116, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant MATT MARTORELLO is represented by:

          Bernard R. Given, II, Esq.
          William Nathaniel Grosswendt, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          1010 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2235

               - and -

          John David Taliaferro, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          901 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 618-5015

Plaintiffs-Respondents LULA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and
all individuals similarly situated; GLORIA TURNAGE; GEORGE HENGLE;
DOWIN COFFY; and MARCELLA P. SINGH, Administrator of the Estate of
Felix M. Gillison, Jr., are represented by:

          Elizabeth Anne Adams, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603

               - and -

          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1229 Tyler Street, NE
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5997

               - and -

          Amy Leigh Austin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          626 East Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 905-9900

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660

               - and -

          Michael Allen Caddell, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430

               - and -

          Matthew W. H. Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741

               - and -

          David Neal Anthony, Esq.
          Timothy James St. George, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          P. O. Box 1122
          Richmond, VA 23218-1122
          Telephone: (804) 697-5410

               - and -

          Justin Alexander Gray, Esq.
          ROSETTE, LLP
          44 Grandville Avenue, SW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 655-1601

BOEING CO: May Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Earl Suit, Says Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Boeing Company and Southwest Airlines Company obtained
approval to take an appeal from a court ruling entered their
lawsuit styled as DAMONIE EARL, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. THE BOEING
COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-507, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

As previously reported, this lawsuit is an action seeking to hold
Southwest and Boeing responsible for their reckless, greedy
conspiracy to launch the defective 737 MAX 8 and to keep it
flying.

Plaintiffs purchased tickets on either Southwest Airlines or
American Airlines for flights from the date Southwest first took
delivery of the MAX 8, August 29, 2017, until the date that all 737
MAX Series aircraft were grounded by the FAA, March 13, 2019.

According to the complaint, each of the Plaintiffs bought a ticket
to fly on a safe airline that flew safe planes. None of them would
have bought a ticket, let alone for the price they paid, to
potentially fly on a plane that Southwest and Boeing knew was
fatally defective. Put simply, Southwest and Boeing conspired to
cover up this indisputable fact: The 737 MAX 8 was so defective and
poorly designed that it could easily kill you. Plaintiffs wanted
their money back.

In September 2021, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Defendants sought a review of the order in an appellate case
captioned as Earl v. Boeing Company, Case No.
21-90044, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed
on September 17, 2021.

On September 30, 2021, the Fifth Circuit held that request for
permission to appeal is granted for both petitioners and the case
is transferred from miscellaneous Case No. 21-90044 to Case No.
21-40720.

Accordingly, the new appellate case is captioned Earl v. Boeing
Company, Case No. 21-40720, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, on September 30, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that transcript
order was due October 15, 2021 for Appellants Boeing Company and
Southwest Airlines Company.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Boeing Company and Southwest Airlines
Company are represented by:

          Gregory DuBoff, Esq.
          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          800 E. Canal Street, Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1154

               - and -

          Thomas Miles Farrell, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 353-6677

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Hatch, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P.
          101 W. Main Street
          World Trade Center
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 640-3727

               - and -

          Jason K. Fagelman, Esq.
          James Vincent Leito, Esq.
          Michael Alan Swartzendruber, Esq.
          Philip Tarpley, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, L.L.P.
          2200 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201-7932
          Telephone: (214) 855-8120

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
          Peter B. Siegal, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, L.L.P.
          799 9th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-4501
          Telephone: (202) 662-0466

               - and -

          Geraldine Wileen Young, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, L.L.P.
          1301 McKinney Street
          Fulbright Tower
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651-5437        

Plaintiffs-Respondents Damonie Earl, Linda Rugg, Alesa Beck,
Timothy Blakey, Jr., Stephanie Blakey, Marisa Thompson, Muhammad
Muddasir Khan, John Rogers, Valerie Mortz-Rogers, James LaMorte,
Brett Noble, Ruben Castro, Fritz Ringling, Litaun Lewis, and Lance
Hogue, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
          BATHAEE DUNNE, L.L.P.
          445 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (332) 322-8835

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq.
          CAPSHAW DERIEUX, L.L.P.
          114 E. Commerce Avenue
          Gladewater, TX 75647
          Telephone: (903) 236-9800
          E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
          BATHAEE DUNNE, L.L.P.
          633 W. 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 462-2772

               - and -

          Edward Maxwell Grauman, Esq.
          BATHAEE DUNNE, L.L.P.
          7000 N. MoPac Expressway
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 575-8848

BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Bid for Jan. 6, 2022 Class Cert Hearing Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE R. ROJAS, et al., v.
BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 5:18-cv-05841-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order denying
stipulated request to continue hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification to January 6, 2022.

The Court has granted multiple prior requests by the parties to
extend the deadlines for briefing and/or hearing Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The Court three times extended Plaintiffs'
deadline to file their class certification motion; three times
extended the briefing schedule on the class certification motion;
and twice continued the hearing on the class certification motion,
from October 21, 2021 to October 28, 2021, and most recently from
October 28, 2021 to January 6, 2022.

The Court cannot grant the parties' third request to continue the
hearing on the class certification motion. The parties' request
filed on October 14, 2021 indicates that the current hearing date
of January 6, 2022 conflicts with the travel schedule of
Defendant's counsel. The parties request that the hearing be
continued to January 13, 2022 or later.

Unfortunately, after January 6, 2022, the Court has no availability
on its motion calendar for several months. The Court will hear the
motion via Zoom, and it is confident that K&L Gates LLP, the law
firm representing Defendant, employs many capable attorneys who
have worked on this case and could appear on January 6, 2022, the
Court says.

Bosch manufactures silicon-based photovoltaic products and solar
cells.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m7BNcs at no extra charge.[CC]

BOSTON BEER: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that The
Boston Beer Company committed federal securities law violations by
misleading its investors about the state of its business operations
and prospects, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Mark Huber claims shareholders like himself suffered
economic damages after Boston Beer's stock price dropped when the
company revealed its hard seltzer Truly was underperforming
expectations.

Huber wants to represent a nationwide Class of investors who held
Boston Beer stock between the periods of April 22, 2021 and Sept.
8, 2021.

Boston Beer Stock Plummets After Report of Slow Hard Seltzer Sales
Huber says Boston Beer stock dropped 26 percent in value in July
and 3.7 percent in value in September after the company made
announcements reducing its expected earnings for the year.

In July, Boston Beer blamed the earnings reductions on struggles
with its hard seltzer sales and the beer industry as a whole,
according to the class action lawsuit.

Boston Beer then withdrew its 2021 financial guidance in September
and told investors it "expects to incur hard seltzer-related
inventory write-offs, shortfall fees payable to 3rd party brewers,
and other costs," according to the class action lawsuit.

Huber claims Boston Beer failed to disclose to investors that it
was struggling with sales of its hard seltzer and that positive
statements the company had previously made were thus "materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis."

"As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," states the class action lawsuit.

Huber claims Boston Beer has violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. He is demanding a jury trial and requesting compensatory
damages for himself and all Class Members.

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Boston Beer last
month by a consumer in New York who accused the company of
inflating its stock price by failing to inform investors its hard
seltzer wasn't selling well.

The plaintiff is represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, J. Alexander
Hood II, and Thomas H. Przybyłowski of Pomerantz LLP, and Peretz
Bronstein of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

The Boston Beer Stock Price Class Action Lawsuit is Huber v. The
Boston Beer Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08338, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

BOTTLING GROUP: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bottling Group, LLC.
The case is styled as David Chavez, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants
v. Bottling Group, LLC, a Limited Liability Company Case No.
BCV-21-102467 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 19, 2021).

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

Bottling Group, LLC, doing business as Pepsi Beverages Company --
https://www.pepsico.com/ -- manufactures, distributes, and sells
non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers soft drink, bottled
water, energy drink, and fruit juices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste. 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Phone: 310-961-9600
          Fax: 310-961-9094
          Email: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Celgene Merger Deal Lacks Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SM Merger/Arbitrage, L.P., SM Investors, L.P. and SM Investors II,
L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, GIOVANNI CAFORIO, VICKI
L. SATO, PETER J. ARDUINI, ROBERT BERTOLINI, MATTHEW W. EMMENS,
MICHAEL GROBSTEIN, ALAN J. LACY, DINESH C. PALIWAL, THEODORE R.
SAMUELS, GERALD L. STORCH and KAREN H. VOUSDEN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08255 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2021) is a class action
brought on behalf of all former Celgene shareholders that received
Contingent Value Rights (CVRs) in exchange for their Celgene shares
pursuant to Bristol's $74 billion acquisition of Celgene on
November 20, 2019.

The complaint asserts that the Joint Proxy statement issued in
connection with the transaction contained materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts in violation
of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This action arises from Bristol's subversion of the FDA approval
process for a blockbuster cancer therapy - JCAR017 a/k/a
lisocabtagene maraleucel (Liso-cel) - for the purpose of avoiding a
$6.4 billion payment to CVR holders. By Bristol's own design, the
CVR payout required approval of three therapies, including
Liso-Cel, by specified dates (the "Milestones"). A single therapy
missing its Milestone by a single day was all Bristol needed to
avoid payment to CVR holders. To assure that miss, Bristol intended
to subvert the FDA regulatory approval process. Bristol submitted
FDA filings that omitted volumes of basic information concerning
Liso-cel in contravention of industry standards and Bristol's own
long-standing practices in a multitude of prior FDA filings, says
the suit.

Allegedly, the facts demonstrate that from the outset of the
merger, by its own design, Bristol knew it would not take diligent
efforts to obtain FDA approval for Liso-cel by the Milestone date
of December 31, 2020. Accordingly, the statements in the Joint
Proxy concerning the efforts Bristol would make to meet the
Milestones, the likelihood that the Milestones would be met and the
purported value of the CVRs were materially false and misleading
when made, the suit added.

As a result of these alleged material misrepresentations and
omissions, Celgene shareholders were misled into accepting
consideration from the Merger that was significantly lower than
represented.

The Plaintiffs exchanged their Celgene shares and received Bristol
CVRs as partial consideration in connection with the merger.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is an American multinational
pharmaceutical company, headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200

               - and -

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          Frost Bank Tower
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1170
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960

               - and -

          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700

BRISTOL-MYERS: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company alleging
violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The case is currently in
the lead plaintiff stage. All former Celgene Corporation
(NASDAQ:CELG) shareholders that received Contingent Value Rights
("CVRs") in exchange for their Celgene shares pursuant to Bristol
Myers's $74 billion acquisition of Celgene on November 20, 2019,
and were damaged thereby, may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Bristol-Myers for more information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Bristol-Myers

The action arises from Bristol Myers's alleged subversion of the
FDA approval process for the purpose of avoiding a $6.4 billion
payment to CVR holders. By Bristol Myers's own design, the CVR
payout required approval of three blockbuster therapies, including
the cancer therapy Liso-cel, by specified dates ("Milestones"). It
is alleged that from the outset of the Merger, Bristol Myers knew
it would not take diligent efforts to obtain FDA approval for
Liso-cel by the Milestone date of December 31, 2020. The Complaint
alleges that the statements in the Joint Proxy concerning the
efforts Bristol Myers would make to meet the Milestones, the
likelihood that the Milestones would be met and the purported value
of the CVRs were materially false and misleading when made.

Interested Bristol-Myers investors have until December 6, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Bristol-Myers

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Bristol-Myers [GN]

BRONX FORD: Seeks Review of Sanctions Ruling in Lopez Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants BRONX FORD, INC., et al., are taking another appeal to
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York in and for the First Department, from an order entered in the
case captioned STEPHANIE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRONX FORD, INC., CITY
WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY
WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD
ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD
ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 155504/2017,
pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of New York
Labor Law.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 4, 2021, the
Defendants appealed the trial court's decision and Order granting
Plaintiff's motion to strike the pleadings and denying Defendants'
cross-motion for: (i) a protective Order; (ii) an Order vacating a
Court Attorney's "Order" to the extent it constitutes one and a
declaratory judgment declaring it has no legal effect; (iii) an
Order dismissing every cause of action against City World
Acquisition Group ("CWA") based upon documentary evidence, for
failure to state a cause of action, and for summary judgment; and
(iv) an Order of sanctions against Plaintiff. Among other reasons,
Defendants-Appellants stated that the trial court erred and
otherwise abused its discretion in striking the pleadings for what
it incorrectly found constituted perjury. Further, there was a
sufficient basis and ample evidence in the record warranting
dismissal of CWA from this action based on Defendants-Appellants'
cross-motion, the appeal said.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated
September 16, 2021, granting Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. The
Defendants submit that the trial court erred and otherwise abused
its discretion in granting certification of a class action as a
sanction without Plaintiff having satisfied the elements to obtain
certification of a class action. Furthermore, it asserted that the
trial court otherwise abused its discretion in determining the
underlying discovery dispute and issuing related sanctions.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Lopez,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION
GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.,
CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 2021-03675, in the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for
the First Department, filed on Oct. 6, 2021.[BN]
     
Defendants-Appellants BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION
GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.,
CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., and CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS,
L.L.C. are represented by:

          Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
          MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC
          3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8
          Lake Success, NY 11042-1073
          Telephone: (516) 328-8899
          Facsimile: (516) 328-0082
          E-mail: emanuel@mllaborlaw.com

CANON INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over All-in-One Printers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Shalvey, writing for Business Insider Africa, reports that a
Queens man filed a class-action lawsuit against Canon, saying some
of the electronics giant's All-in-One printers won't scan documents
unless they have ink cartridges installed.

"In truth, the All-in-One Printers do not scan or fax documents
when the devices have low or empty ink cartridges," said David
Leacraft, the plaintiff, in a complaint filed on Oct. 12 in US
District Court in the Eastern District of New York.

"Canon's advertising claims are false, misleading, and reasonably
likely to deceive the public," Leacraft added.

He purchased a "so-called all-in-one device," a Canon PIXMA MG2522,
from Walmart in March 2021, he said in his complaint, which was
first reported by Actionable Intelligence, a research firm.

"Plaintiff Leacraft would not have purchased the device or would
not have paid as much for it had he known that he would have to
maintain ink in the device in order to scan documents," the
complaint said.

Canon didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit said it expected the full list of plaintiffs to be more
than 100 consumers. They'd seek more than $5 million in total
damages and costs, it said.

Leacraft's complaint collected similar gripes against the company
from online forums, including Canon's community forum. Since at
least 2015, customers have been posting about not being able to use
their scanners when their ink is low, the complaint said.

In one response, a Canon representative said "there is no
workaround for this," according to the complaint.

The lawsuit accused Canon of breach of express warranty, unjust
enrichment, and several New York laws. Leacraft is represented by
Mark S. Reich and Courtney E. Maccarone, attorneys with Levi &
Korsinsky LLP. [GN]

CARO NUT COMPANY: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caro Nut Company, et
al. The case is styled as Victor Manuel Lopez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARO NUT COMPANY,
PARTNERS PERSONNEL-MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. BCV-21-102464
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 20, 2021).

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

Caro Nut Company -- https://caro-nut.com/ -- provides healthy,
delicious, sustainable nut products to consumers everywhere.[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


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Discloses Class Action Filing, Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CLASS ACTION PENDING
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) HEARING AGREEMENT;
AND (III) MOTION FOR LAWYERS 'FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

This notice is for all persons and entities that purchased or
acquired the common stock of Cognizant Technology Solutions
Corporation ("Cognizant") during the period from February 27, 2015
through September 29, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period") (the
"Agreement Class"). Certain individuals and entities are excluded
from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the
completed printed Notice of (I) Class Action Pending and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Conciliation hearing; and (III) Motion for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses (the "Notice").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the
above-mentioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in Court.

YOU ARE ALSO ADVISED that Lead Plaintiffs Union Asset Management
Holding AG, Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee of the LongView Collective
Investment Funds and the Colorado Fire and Police Pension
Association have reached a proposed settlement of the Action to $
95,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement") on behalf of the Settlement
Class, which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on December 20, 2021 to 2:00 pm ET, before
the Honorable Esther Salas either in person at the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Courtroom 5A, Martin
Luther King Building and US Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark,
NJ 07101 or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of
the Court) for the following purposes: (a) to determine whether the
proposed Settlement under the terms and conditions provided in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and appropriate for the Settlement
Class, and must be finally approved by the Court; (b) to determine
whether a Judgment substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B
to the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with
prejudice against the Defendants; (c) to determine whether the
Settlement Class should be certified for the purposes of the
Settlement; (d) to determine whether the proposed Allocation Plan
for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable and
should be approved; (e) determine whether to approve the Lead
Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses; and
(f) consider any other matter that may be duly brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may have
the right to share in the Settlement Fund.. If you have not yet
received the Notification and Claim Form, you can obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Cognizant
Securities Litigation, c / o JND Legal Administration, PO Box
91421, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-855-648-2213. Copies of the
notification and claim form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.CognizantSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form. postmark (if mailed), or online, no later than January
28, 2022, in accordance with the instructions established in the
Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit
a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to participate in the
distribution of the Settlement's net proceeds but will nonetheless
be bound by the releases, judgments or orders issued by the Court
regarding the Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and want to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit an exclusion
request so that it is He received no later than November 22, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions established in the Notice. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgment or order entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to participate in the proceeds
of the Settlement. keep in mind: If you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you may be prevented from enforcing the claims
covered by the Action by a statute of repose.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Assignment, or the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
the Lead Counsel and Cognizant attorney in a manner that is He
received no later than November 22, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions established in the Notice.

Do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Cognizant, the other
Defendants, or their attorneys regarding this notice. All questions
about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Chief Legal
Counsel or the Claims Administrator. [GN]

CONSUMER CREDIT: Chapman Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chapman, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. CONSUMER CREDIT CARD RELIEF, LLC, Case No.
CACE-21-018666 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 8,
2021), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a
result of the Defendants unwanted telephonic sales calls.

The Defendant uses automated systems to make outbound telemarketing
calls to hundreds if not thousands of consumers across U.S.,
soliciting consumers to solicit the purchase of their services. By
doing so, the Defendant has violated the provisions of the FTSA.
The Defendant has caused the Plaintiff and Class Members to suffer
injuries as a result of placing unwanted telephonic sales calls to
their phones. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful telemarketing calls. The
Plaintiff additionally seeks damages as authorized by the FTSA on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class Members, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the actions of
the Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of New York.

The Defendant provides debt consolidation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 Northwest 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


CREDIT BUREAU: Must File Class Cert. Response by October 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Meyers v. Credit Bureau
Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00141 (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an order granting motion to extend
class certification deadlines as follows:

   -- Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification by October 29, 2021.

   -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply brief is
      extended to November 19, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Credit Bureau offers debt collection services.[CC]

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem Loses Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA AKEEM, et. al., v.
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et. al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13650-BWA-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barry W. Ashe entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

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

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

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

The Court issues the Order denying the motion because plaintiffs
did not satisfy all of the requirements for class certification set
forth in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

These consolidated matters involve a putative class action brought
by current and former tenants and maintenance workers of five
apartment complexes ("Plaintiffs") against the current and former
owners and property managers of the apartment complexes
("Defendants") for damages allegedly caused by hazardous
conditions.

In their master amended complaint, which combines the allegations
of the six consolidated actions, Plaintiffs allege that the
apartment complexes' current and former owners and property
managers "allowed deteriorating structural components of buildings
such as roofs, plumbing, gutters, slabs, siding, stairwells, etc.
to cause persistent water-intrusion spurring widespread
mold-infestation."

The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants provided inadequate
security, failed to properly dispose of trash, failed to address
insect, rodent, and reptile infestations, and failed to adhere to
fire and safety codes, all of which created hazardous conditions.

Dasmen Residential LLC is a privately held real estate investment
and management firm that owns and operates multi-family properties
in major cities throughout the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ge0Rqk at no extra charge.[CC]

DEERFIELD COIN: Gonzales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra M. Gonzales, and other similarly situated individuals v.
DEERFIELD COIN LAUNDRY LLC, and SHALO SARGSYAN, individually, Case
No. 0:21-cv-62165-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover money damages
for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the
laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
every week, but she was not paid for regular and overtime hours.
Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
minimum wages in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also failed
to pay overtime wages at the rate of time and a half her regular
rate, for every hour that she worked over 40, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted
full-time laundry attendant, from August 20, 2021, to September 6,
2021.

DEERFIELD COIN LAUNDRY is a coin laundry establishment that
provides laundry services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


DJI TECHNOLOGY: Kinder Sues Over False, Misleading Representations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kinder, as an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and the general public v. DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Case No. 3:21-cv-01791-AJB-MSB (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 20, 2021), is brought against the Defendants as a result
of the Defendants' false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair
representations and warranties.

According to the complaint, DJI represents the distance/video
transmission of the Products to be upward of approximately 2 miles.
DJI promotes its drones' ability to fly distances of several miles,
which is used to promote the Products to consumers, which consumers
rely on to make their purchase decisions and in fact purchase on
the basis of DJI representations. DJI touts the distance/video
transmission representations knowing that they are material to
consumers. Consumers rely on DJI's distance/video transmission
representations and warranties to purchase the Products. Consumers
purchase DJI Products with the intention to fly the DJI Products
for the distance/video transmission as represented and warranted on
DJI's packaging of the Products.

DJI's representations and warranties relating to flight time and
distance/video transmission are false and misleading and thus
induce consumers to purchase the Products with the belief that
consumers can operate DJI Products to the same specifications set
forth in its representations and warranties. Consumers reading,
reviewing, and purchasing the Products based on the specifications
are not informed that the Products cannot meet the corresponding
flight time and distance/video set forth on DJI's website or on the
back of the packing of the Products because (1) consumers cannot
legally operate (federal law mandates pilots fly within the VLOS)
the DJI Products in a manner consistent with DJI's representations
and warranties (2) the actual flight time and distance/video
transmission requires conditions that are unobtainable to
consumers. In fact, any disclaimers are intentionally positioned by
DJI on either the DJI website or on the back of the DJI packaging
in completely different positions than the DJI's representations
and warranties related to the specifications for the DJI Products.
DJI clearly attempts to conceal the disclaimer or limitation from
the consumer by its positioning of the disclaimers and
limitations.

Despite federal law, DJI does not conform its Products in a manner
that would accurately represent DJI's actual flight time and
distance/video transmission capabilities. DJI's Products do not
conform to the flight time and distance/video transmission
representations and warranties because DJI's actual flight times
and distance/video transmission do not meet DJI's representations
and warranties. The conditions DJI claims for the consumer to meet
the specifications relating to flight time and distance/video
transmission representations and warranties are unobtainable. The
Plaintiff would not have bought the Products had he known that
DJI's representations and warranties were false, misleading,
deceptive, and unfair, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products at a substantial price premium
based on DJI's representations and warranties relating to the
Products.

DJI manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells a variety of
drone products within the DJI product line and is recognized
globally as a leader in this space.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 West Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Phone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, PC
          220 Halleck Street, Suite 220
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Phone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          Email: matt@righettilaw.com
                 jglugoski@righettilaw.com

               - and -

          Pratik H. Shah, Esq.
          SHAH D'EGIDIO, APC
          7801 Mission Center Court, Suite240
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 550-3011
          Facsimile: (877) 888-6304
          Email: pshah@dstlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John Christian Bohren, Esq.
          BOHREN LAW, APC
          P.O. Box 12174
          San Diego, CA 92112-3174
          Phone: (619) 433-2803
          Facsimile: (800) 867-6779
          Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com


DST SYSTEMS: Court Confirms Arbitration Award in Eisenberger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DAVID EISENBERGER, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant. KIVA MILLER, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
ANNE ARNOLD, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. CARYL
SUMMERS, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. CINDY
GORDANIER, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JASON GREEN,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KELLY HIGHFILL,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KOLE SCARBROUGH,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MATT KOLAKOWSKI,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MICHAEL BRANDT,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MITCHELL SCHWARTZ,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MOLLY EATON, Plaintiff
v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 4:21-cv-09022,
4:21-cv-09031, 4:21-cv-09042, 4:21-cv-09043, 4:21-cv-09044,
4:21-cv-09045, 4:21-cv-09046, 4:21-cv-09047, 4:21-cv-09048,
4:21-cv-09049, 4:21-cv-09050, 4:21-cv-09051 (W.D. Mo.), Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri granted each Plaintiff's motion to confirm the
arbitration award.

Background

At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was a participant, within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(7), in DST's 401(k) Profit
Sharing Plan. DST, though incorporated in Delaware, has its
principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. DST is the
sponsor, administrator, and a designated fiduciary of the Plan
under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1002 and 1102.

The underlying dispute arose from DST's alleged failure to monitor
and ensure the rebalancing of overly concentrated investments in
the Plan. On Jan. 13, 2017, Mr. James DuCharme, a participant in
the Plan, filed a putative class action in the Western District of
Missouri, seeking to recover damages on behalf of the Plan for
DST's alleged wrongdoing. On Feb. 22, 2017, DST filed a motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss Mr. DuCharme's lawsuit. On June
23, 2017, the Honorable Brian C. Wimes granted DST's motion to
dismiss the DuCharme litigation, finding that the Arbitration
Agreement was "valid" and that "Ducharme's claims for breach of
fiduciary duty f[e]ll within the Arbitration Agreement's scope" --
Ducharme v. DST Sys., Inc., No. 17-CV-0022-BCW, 2017 WL 7795123, at
*1 (W.D. Mo. June 23, 2017).

On June 18, 2018, DST sent a notice to all Plan participants bound
by the Arbitration Agreement explaining that a former employee had
initiated an arbitration relating to the Plan and advising each
participant that he or she "may initiate an individual arbitration
proceeding under the Arbitration Program by submitting a written
request" to DST.

Hundreds of Plan participants initiated arbitration proceedings
through the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). To date, 554
participants or beneficiaries have initiated arbitration
proceedings. During the past three years, the arbitrations have
progressed—including through discovery, depositions, motion
practice, merits hearings, or simply settlements. To date, the
claims of 342 claimants have been tried; 214 claimants have
received awards in their favor; and 61 other claimants are awaiting
awards. DST has appealed some of the awards against it through the
arbitration process. All of the arbitration hearings at issue,
albeit virtual, were conducted in Missouri.

The Western District of Missouri has already confirmed at least
five of the arbitration awards -- Murphy v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-00174-BCW (W.D.Mo.); O'Brien v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-9008-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Quast v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-9009-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Mayberry v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-09007-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Keeton v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-09006-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Parrott v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-mc-09012-NKL (W.D.Mo.). In at least one of those cases, DST
expressly stated just months ago that it "did not oppose the
confirmation of the Arbitration Award."

In September 2017, months after the DuCharme case was dismissed
upon DST's motion, a participant in the Plan brought a putative
class action in the Southern District of New York alleging breach
of fiduciary duty against DST and Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc., the
investment manager to which DST had delegated investment management
responsibilities, as well as the Plan's Advisory Committee and the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST -- Ferguson
v. Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc., No. 17-cv-06685 (S.D.N.Y.). The
plaintiffs in Ferguson filed a motion for class certification in
April 2020. Counsel for the Plaintiff in the instant case filed a
memorandum of law opposing the motion for class certification on
behalf of the Plaintiff and hundreds of other similarly situated
arbitration claimants.

On March 4, 2021, while the motion for class certification in
Ferguson was pending, the Second Circuit reversed a district court
decision compelling arbitration pursuant to the same DST
Arbitration Agreement at issue in the instant case -- Cooper v.
Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., 990 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2021). The
Second Circuit held that DST's Arbitration Agreement did not cover
ERISA fiduciary duty claims because the Arbitration Agreement
covered only employment-related disputes, not Plan-related
disputes. The Second Circuit also suggested that individual claims
would not be permissible in a suit asserting a breach of DST's
fiduciary duty to the Plan because, based on one of its prior
opinions, such claims must be brought on a representative basis.
DST was not a party to that lawsuit.

On March 8, 2021, the Ferguson court denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion without prejudice and ordered additional
briefing addressing Cooper. The Ferguson plaintiffs thereafter
renewed their class certification motion. DST filed a brief
supporting the class certification motion. The counsel for the
Arbitration Claimants, including the Plaintiff in the instant case,
filed an additional brief in the Ferguson case opposing class
certification, arguing that DST had agreed to arbitrate the claims;
that the Arbitration Claimants had a right to arbitrate their
claims; that the Arbitration Claimants should be permitted to opt
out of any class; that Judge Wimes' decisions in DuCharme precluded
certification of a mandatory class; and that the Southern District
of New York lacked personal jurisdiction over the Arbitration
Claimants.

On Aug. 17, 2021, the Ferguson court certified a Rule 23(b)(1)
mandatory class that includes the Plaintiff. The Ferguson court
stated, "while the Arbitration Claimants argue that they have a
right to arbitrate, the Second Circuit as well as the Court has
found that the claims at issue are not covered by the arbitration
agreement." The class certification decision in Ferguson also noted
secondarily that Second Circuit precedent requires parties suing on
behalf of an ERISA plan "to demonstrate their suitability to serve
as representatives of the interests of other plan stakeholders,"
and it was not clear "how an employee can bring an ERISA fiduciary
claim that satisfies adequacy requirement, while concurrently
complying with the agreement."

On Aug. 23, 2021, DST moved the Ferguson court for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit the
Arbitration Claimants from prosecuting the arbitrations and related
court proceedings in spite of the class certification order. Also,
on Aug. 30, 2021, the Arbitration Claimants, including the
Plaintiff, filed a petition in the Second Circuit pursuant to Rule
23(f) seeking discretionary review of the class certification
order.

On Aug. 31, 2021, the Ferguson court denied DST's motion for a
temporary restraining order, but it ordered the Arbitration
Claimants to show cause as to why they should not be enjoined from
prosecuting this or other actions relating to the class's claims.
The Arbitration Claimants filed their response on Sept. 21, 2021;
DST's response is due in the Southern District of New York on Oct.
12, 2021.

Each Plaintiff has moved to confirm an arbitration award. DST
opposes the motion, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims were not
arbitrable and that the Plaintiff is part of a mandatory class
certified by the District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Discussion

A. Whether the Court Has Jurisdiction

DST does not -- and cannot reasonably -- suggest that the Court
lacks jurisdiction over the parties before it. The Plaintiff was
employed by DST in Kansas City, Missouri, and DST's principal place
of business is in Kansas City, Missouri. The Court clearly has
jurisdiction over the action.

B. The FAA's Requirement that the Court Confirm Arbitration Awards
in the Ordinary Course

Judge Laughrey holds that the "grounds recognized by the FAA" for
vacating an award are "corruption, fraud, partiality or an abuse of
power." In the case, DST has not argued that corruption, fraud, or
partiality affected the award. Absent a finding that the
arbitrators abused their power, then, the Court is compelled to
confirm the award.

C. DST's Argument that the ERISA Claims Cannot Be Brought
Individually

DST argues that ERISA Section 502(a) claims cannot be brought in
individual arbitrations.

Judge Laughrey holds that insofar as this argument does not involve
a suggestion that the arbitrators exceeded their powers, it should
have been directed to, and resolved by, the arbitrators. Insofar as
DST suggests that the arbitrators exceeded their authority because
the claims at issue were not arbitrable, she is not persuaded by
DST's argument. Finally, even if DST is correct that an ERISA claim
must be brought in a collective action, as discussed below, DST is
estopped from benefiting from that rule because it previously
represented to the courts, arbitrators and the Arbitration
Claimants that the ERISA claims at issue here cannot be brought in
a collective action.

D. Judicial Estoppel

Even if this were not a straightforward matter of confirming an
arbitration award where there is no evidence of corruption, fraud,
partiality, or abuse of power, the doctrine of judicial estoppel
alone would warrant confirming the award, Judge Laughrey finds.
Among other things, she holds that there can be no reasonable
dispute that DST has adopted inconsistent positions in the
litigation and arbitration proceedings. DST has taken inconsistent
positions in the Western District of Missouri -- the district in
which it has its principal place of business, in which the
Plaintiff was employed, and in which the arbitrations occurred. DST
has not presented, and the Court is not aware of, any authority to
suggest that a change in Second Circuit law justifies DST's abrupt
reversal in the district.

E. Whether the Class Certification Order in Ferguson Should Affect
the Court's Decision Regarding the Arbitration Award

DST argues that the class certification order in Ferguson enjoins
litigation of the claims that are the subject of the class action,
citing In re Federal Skywalk Cases, 680 F.2d 1175, 1180 (8th Cir.
1982).

Judge Laughrey holds that the language cited by DST from Federal
Skywalk is taken out of context. The Plaintiff and DST initiated
the arbitrations before the class was certified. Indeed, many
Arbitration Claimants' claims were already resolved before the
class was certified. In moving to confirm the arbitration award,
the Plaintiff is merely seeking the equivalent of a formal judgment
on a matter in which Plaintiff already has prevailed. A court
action to confirm the arbitration award is merely the culmination
-- not the commencement -- of the adjudicatory process. To the
extent that the Court's order in the case might create a conflict
in relation to an order of the Southern District of New York, such
conflict will be the product of DST's blatantly contradictory
positions, not any judicial error.

F. DST's Concern About Plaintiff's Counsel's Expenses

Finally, DST argues that the Plaintiff's counsel impermissibly
seeks to recover multiple times for the same out-of-pocket costs,
despite representing to every arbitrator that they would not
recover the same expenses more than once. However, the issue does
not appear ripe for court intervention, Judge Laughrey finds. The
Plaintiff's counsel has represented that, as they have agreed
multiple times, they will work with DST to ensure that they recover
no more than 100% of their costs. DST complains that the
Plaintiff's counsel has not explained how such a promise may be
enforced after judgment is entered. However, insofar as the
Plaintiff's counsel breaches an agreement, of course, traditional
contract remedies are available, in addition to remedies available
under federal law and rules for purported misrepresentations by
attorneys.

In any event, this issue does not appear to affect the integrity of
the award itself. Furthermore, DST has not shown in what
arbitration the alleged double recovery has occurred, or in what
amount. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence before the Court
to warrant delaying or refusing entry of a judgment confirming the
arbitration award on this basis.

Conclusion

Judge Laughrey concludes that DST paints the task before the Court
as one that is complex and merits forbearance, but in truth, the
obligation of the Court is plain and unavoidable. The Federal
Arbitration Act compels the Court to confirm the award in the
absence of specified circumstances. No such circumstance exists in
the instant case.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Laughrey granted the
Plaintiff's motion to confirm the arbitration award. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment in each Plaintiff's favor
against DST in the amounts listed below, with post-judgment
interest.

Case Caption                Case No.                     Amount of
Award

     Eisenberger v. DST Systems, Inc.   21-cv-09022-NKL            
         $94,154.05
     Miller v. DST Systems, Inc.        21-cv-09031-NKL   
$193,482.70 $47,449.48, plus $27,510.65 in attorneys' fees
     Arnold v. DST Systems, Inc.        21-cv-09042-NKL   
$32,921.12 in costs $256,754.80, plus $102,701.92 in attorneys'
fees
     Summers v. DST Systems, Inc.       21-cv-09043-NKL   
$6,977.80 in costs $20,884.31, plus $13,544.13 in attorneys' fees
     Gordanier v. DST Systems, Inc.     21-cv-09044-NKL   
$39,586.11 in costs $8,815.41, plus $25,984 in attorneys' fees
     Green v. DST Systems, Inc.         21-cv-09045-NKL   
$26,146.25 in costs $25,326.83, plus $50,668 in attorneys' fees
     Highfill v. DST Systems, Inc.      21-cv-09046-NKL   
$5,963.92 in costs $98,933.48, plus $39,573.39 in attorneys' fees
     Scarbrough v. DST Systems, Inc.    21-cv-09047-NKL   
$34,405.72 in costs $8,601.09, plus $3,440 in attorneys' fees
     Kolakowski v. DST Systems, Inc.    21-cv-09048-NKL   
$6,456.78 in costs $8,755.40, plus $13,262.07 in attorneys' fees
     Brandt v. DST Systems, Inc.        21-cv-09049-NKL   
$39,586.11 in costs $144,750.77, plus $57,900.30 in attorneys'
fees
     Schwartz v. DST Systems, Inc.      21-cv-09050-NKL   
$6,456.78 in costs $3,518, plus $1,407.20 in attorneys' fees
     Eaton v. DST Systems, Inc.         21-cv-09051-NKL   
$9,579.98 in costs

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/uv2tta3f from Leagle.com.


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Sunscreens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges the marketing and advertising for certain
Hawaiian Tropic "Reef Friendly" sunscreens is false and deceptive
in that the products contain chemicals known to harm and/or kill
coral reefs.

The 22-page complaint alleges Hawaiian Tropic "Reef Friendly"
sunscreens, made and sold by defendant Edgewell Personal Care,
contain reef-toxic compounds such as avobenzone, homosalate and
octocrylene, chemical UV filters that can cause coral bleaching and
other damaging effects should they wash off the skin and enter a
body of water.

According to the case, consumers would not have bought Hawaiian
Tropic "Reef Friendly" sunscreens, or would not have paid as much
for them, had they known they contained chemicals potentially
harmful to coral reefs.

Octocrylene is a chemical UV filter that the Haereticus
Environmental Laboratory (HEL), a non-profit organization dedicated
to "increasing the scientific, social, and economic knowledge of
natural habitats," has reported naturally degrades into the
chemical benzophenone, the lawsuit says. Per the case, benzophenone
acts as a potential reproductive toxicant and a metabolic and
endocrine disrupter in coral reefs.

The National Ocean Service has also advocated against the use of
chemical UV filters such as octocrylene given their negative impact
on coral reefs, which can include tissue accumulation, bleaching,
DNA damage, deformation of infant coral, and coral death, according
to the lawsuit.

With regard to avobenzone and homosalate, the filing says the
former may cause mitochondrial dysfunction, kill cells or induce
coral bleaching, while the latter is also included in the HEL's
list of harmful chemicals.

Included in the complaint is the following infographic from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration purporting to
depict how chemicals found in sunscreen can be harmful to marine
life:

According to the lawsuit, lawmakers in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin
Islands have banned certain chemical UV filters from inclusion in
sunscreen due to the damage they can cause to coral reefs and
marine life.

Nowhere on Hawaiian Tropic's packaging does Edgewell Personal Care
disclose that certain chemicals in the sunscreens are not "reef
friendly," the suit says, adding that the company knew or should
have known its advertising claims were false, deceptive and
misleading. [GN]

EPISCOPAL FOUNDATION: Swope Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nyesha Swope, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EPISCOPAL FOUNDATION OF JEFFERSON COUNTY d/b/a ST.
MARTIN IN THE PINES, Case No. 2:21-cv-01392-JHE (N.D. Ala., Oct.
19, 2021), is brought to seek overtime and liquidated damages owed
to them for not being paid overtime as mandated by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In July 2020, Defendant implemented a policy whereby it agreed to
pay employees who worked in the "COVID Ward" – a reference to
residents who were sick with the coronavirus – an additional
$5.00 per hour. The Plaintiff agreed to work in the COVID Ward and
often worked 60-65 hours per week with these residents (in addition
to working other shifts with residents who did not have COVID). In
this manner, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours for Defendant
and many of those hours were worked at the COVID Ward rate of pay,
which was at a rate of $16.40 per hour. However, regardless of
whether Plaintiff was working in the COVID Ward when she worked
overtime for Defendant, Defendant paid all of her overtime hours at
an overtime rate based upon her lower $11.40 rate of pay. In doing
so, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff all overtime pay
which she is owed under the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Certified Nursing
Assistant ("CNA") in May 2020, at St. Martin in the Pines in
Birmingham, Alabama.

St. Martin in the Pines is a nursing home and houses residents who
are unable to care for themselves due to illness, mental capacity
or for other reasons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 414-7467
          Fax: (888) 988-6499
          Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net


ERIE INDEMNITY: Stephenson Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Troy Stephenson, Christina Stephenson, Susan
Rubel, Steven Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Case No. GD-21-010046
was removed from Allegheny County to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01444-CRE to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Erie Indemnity Company -- http://www.erieinsurance.com/-- operates
predominantly as the management services company that provides
sales, underwriting and policy issuance services to the
policyholders of Erie Insurance Exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: ekilpela@lcllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Neal R. Devlin, Esq.
          KNOX, MCLAUGHLIN, GORNALL & SENNETT
          120 West Tenth Street
          Erie, PA 16501
          Phone: (814) 459-2800
          Fax: (814) 453-4530
          Email: ndevlin@kmgslaw.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Feirson
          DECHERT, LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
          Phone: (215) 994-2489
          Email: steven.feirson@dechert.com


ETOH MONITORING: Meade Appeals Judgment in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Hakeem Meade, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled HAKEEM MEADE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PAUL A BONIN, ET AL.
SECTION: "J" (3), Civil Action No. 20-1455, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

The proposed class action arises from an alleged conflict of
interest in the operations of the Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court ("OPCDC"). Former Defendant Paul Bonin was a judge on that
court and at times required defendants released from pretrial
custody to wear ankle monitoring devices. OPCDC does not operate
its own ankle monitoring service; consequently, when a defendant is
ordered to sign up for ankle monitoring, they must choose from
among three ankle monitoring providers operating in Orleans Parish,
one of which is Defendant ETOH.

The Plaintiffs allege that former Judge Bonin had personal,
financial, professional, and political relationships with ETOH's
principals, Leonard L. Levenson and Christian W. Helmke, such that
his practices of requiring defendants to pay ankle monitoring fees
to ETOH and linking custody determinations to the payment of those
fees amounted to unconstitutional judicial bias and conflicts of
interest. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Levenson was
former Judge Bonin's law partner for over a decade before he was
first elected judge, and that Levenson and Helmke donated a total
of $8,650 to former Judge Bonin's three judicial election campaigns
and made one loan of $1,000 to his 2016 campaign for OPCDC.

The Plaintiffs contend that former Judge Bonin's failure to
disclose these relationships amounts to, at minimum, the appearance
of judicial bias and conflicts of interest in violation of their
due process rights. Further, because ETOH imposed and collected
fees from them without disclosing these relationships and because
former Judge Bonin conditioned the Plaintiffs' custody
determinations on their ability to pay ETOH, the Plaintiffs argue
that ETOH should be ordered to return any fees collected from the
class members and to cancel any outstanding fees.

The Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit on May 14, 2020, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against ETOH. ETOH moved to
dismiss the complaint, but the Court denied the motion, finding
ETOH to be a state actor in these circumstances. ETOH moved for
judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed
to state a claim that it violated their constitutional rights.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 28, 2021, Judge
Carl J. Barbier granted Defendant ETOH Monitoring, LLC's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of that order.

The appellate case is captioned as Meade v. Bonin, Case No.
21-30620, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on Oct. 6, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Hakeem Meade, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; and Marshall Sookram are represented
by:

          William Brock Most, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 509-5023
          E-mail: williammost@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Paul A. Bonin, Judge of the Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, is represented by:

          James M. Garner, Esq.
          SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C.
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 299-2100
          E-mail: jgarner@shergarner.com    

Defendant-Appellee ETOH Monitoring, L.L.C. is represented by:

          Leonard L. Levenson, Esq.
          LEONARD L. LEVENSON & ASSOCIATES
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 586-0066
          E-mail: lenlawyer@aol.com

FARMERS INSURANCE: Chance Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jaelea Chance, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance
Company, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, Case No. 6:21-cv-00314-KEW
(E.D. Okla., Oct. 19, 2021).

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

Farmers Insurance Group (informally Farmers) --
https://www.farmers.com/ -- is an American insurer group of
automobiles, homes and small businesses and also provides other
insurance and financial services products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

FEDERAL INSURANCE: Faces SXSW Suit Over Class Action Funding
------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Lewis, writing for TheTicketingBusines.com, reports that
South by Southwest, otherwise known as SXSW, a festival that takes
place each year in Austin, Texas, is suing its insurance company
for not funding its defence in a class action lawsuit.

SXSW was hit with the class action lawsuit in April last year, on
behalf of ticket holders that were not offered a refund for the
event, which was cancelled by the city due to COVID-19.

At the time, SXSW was one of the first major events to be cancelled
in March 2020 due to the pandemic.

Organisers said they could not provide refunds because the festival
spends a lot of money on preparing to host a festival. Instead,
organisers offered ticket holders the option to defer credentials
to a later date, as well as the right to purchase tickets for
another year at 50%.

Around 80% of ticket holders accepted this offer, but some
attendees were not happy with this and filed a lawsuit against
South by Southwest in April last year. This was filed by attendees
Steven Leventhal, Maria Bromley and Kleber Pauta.

According to recent reports from Pitchfork, the festival and the
plaintiffs have reached a settlement for the lawsuit brought by
plaintiffs Bromley and Pauta.

It is also reported that a district court judge granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on September 30.

Austin attorney Peter D. Kennedy filed a complaint in the US
District Court for Western Texas, arguing that SXSW purchased a $1m
(GBP735,000/EUR864,500) policy from Federal Insurance in August
2019 and has said that the company is not following through with
its obligation to defend and indemnify the event.

Kennedy is also arguing that SXSW's Federal Insurance policy
includes liability coverage, and requires the business to pay for
the festival's legal defence in the class action lawsuit.

Federal Insurance said that there is language in the policy which
excludes coverage relating to contractual disputes and professional
services. Kennedy also said that Federal Insurance is still
obligated to defend the organisers against conversion and unjust
enrichment claims.

Kennedy has asked a district court judge to force Federal Insurance
to pay for SXSW's legal defence and pay any occurring damages,
interests and legal costs.

TheTicketingBusines.com has contacted SXSW for comment but has not
received a response at the time of writing. [GN]

FIRST NATIONAL: Leidner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Boruch Leidner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-08342-KMK
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2021).

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

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. -- http://www.fncbinc.com/
-- is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a variety of
creditor clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Sub-classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN and CYNTHIA
PROVENCIO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRSTGROUP
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class and sub-classes as follows:

      -- Off-the-Clock Work Class

         "All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
         drivers by Defendants in California who were not paid
         for all hours worked during the period four years
         before the filing of the complaint;"

      -- Bus Clock-In/Clock-Out Sub-Class

         "All Off-the-Clock Work Class members who clocked
         in/out at the bus who were not paid for (1) walk time
         to/from the dispatch office; and/or (2) post-trip
         inspections;"

      -- Scheduled Shift Sub-Class

         "All Off-the-Clock Work Class members who were not
         paid based upon their actual punch records, and were
         paid based on either their scheduled start and/or end
         times or some arbitrary start and/or end times which
         resulted in them being not paid all hours reflected
         by their punch records;"

      -- Split Shift Class

         "All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
         drivers by Defendants in California and who worked
         more than one shift in the same workday separated by
         more than an hour between shifts during the period four
         years before the filing of the complaint;"

      -- Meal Period Class

         "All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
         drivers by Defendants in California and who worked a
         shift in excess of five hours during the period four
         years before the filing of the complaint;"

      -- Additional Shifts Sub-Class

         "All Meal Period Sub-Class members who were either
         assigned an additional shift and/or who agreed to take
         on an additional shifts during their split shifts;"

      -- Rest Break Class

         "All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
         drivers by Defendants in California and who worked a
         shift in excess of three and one-half hours during the
         period four years before the filing of the complaint;"
         and

      -- Expense Reimbursement Class

         "All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
         drivers by Defendants in California who incurred
         business  expenses during the period four years before
         the filing of the complaint;"

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Galvan and Provencio as class
      representatives of the classes and sub-classes proposed
      and/or later proposed and approved by the Court; and

   3. approving Shaun Setareh, William M. Pao, and Nolan Dilts
      of Setareh Law Group; and Joseph Lavi and Vincent
      Granberry of Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g).

First Student provides bus transportation services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jw2qWR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Nolan E. Dilts, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  nolan@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  aburton@lelawfirm.com

FORD MOTOR: Jones Files Suit in D. Maryland
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case styled as Mark Jones, Michael McKee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ford Motor
Company, Defendant; Berla Corporation, Movant; Case No.
1:21-cv-02706-SAG (D. Md., Oct. 20, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Quash.

Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan, United States.[BN]

The Movant is represented by:

          Timothy J McEvoy, Esq.
          CAMERON MCEVOY PLLC
          4100 Monument Corner Drive, Suite 420
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 273-8898
          Fax: (703) 273-8897
          Email: tmcevoy@cameronmcevoy.com



GEO GROUP: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The GEO Group, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Nickolas Ortiz, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ms. Andrews, The GEO
Group, Inc., Geo Secure Services, Case No. BCV-21-102469 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 20, 2021).

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

The GEO Group, Inc., headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida --
https://www.geogroup.com/ -- is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust that invests in private prisons and mental health
facilities in North America, Australia, South Africa, and the
United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LSE GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
          Phone: 310-438-5555
          Fax: 310-300-1705
          Email: jeff@tomorrowlaw.com


GKN GROUP: Parker Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Parker, Donald B. Losey, and Shelley Weatherford,
individually and on behalf of themselves, the GKN Group Retirement
Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated v. GKN NORTH
AMERICA SERVICES, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GKN NORTH AMERICA
SERVICES, INC., the BENEFIT COMMITTEE, and John Does 1-30, Case No.
2:21-cv-12468-SFC-JJCG (E.D. Mich., Oct. 19, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for
breach of fiduciary duty against the Plan's fiduciaries, which
include GKN North America Services, Inc., the Board of Directors of
GKN, the Benefit Committee, and Jane and John Does 1-30.

As of December 31, 2018, the Plan had more than $820 million in net
assets, and as of December 31, 2019, the Plan had more than $895
million in net assets. Thus, the Plan's assets qualify it as a
large plan. The Plan's assets are entrusted to the care of the
Plan's fiduciaries. As a large plan, the Plan had substantial
bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged
against participants' investments. Defendants, however, did not try
to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to
scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to
ensure it was prudent.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, as Plan "fiduciaries,"
breached their duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the
other participants and beneficiaries of the Plan in violation of
the ERISA, by, among other things, (1) failing to review
objectively and adequately the Plan's investment portfolio with due
care to ensure that each investment option was prudent,
particularly in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds as
investment options in the Plan despite the availability of
virtually identical or similar investment options with lower costs
and/or better performance histories.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan because they and their
beneficiaries are eligible to receive benefits under the Plan.

GKN North American Services, Inc. is engaged in the business of
automotive components and supply and is the Plan Sponsor and Plan
Administrator.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Phone: (248) 971-2500
          Fax: (248) 971-2600
          Email: dfink@finkbressack.com
                 nfink@finkbressack.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
                 medelson@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Todd Collins, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: tcollins@bm.net
                 nlesser@bm.net


GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-05146-LHK-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting their motion for class certification:

      "All Google Chrome users in the United States who did not
      enable "Sync" while browsing the web using Chrome ("Not
      Synced Chrome Users") or who disabled "Sync" while
      browsing using Chrome ("Unsynced Users"), at any time
      between July 27, 2016 to the present (the "Class Period").
      Browsing using the Chrome browser in Incognito mode is
      excluded from the Class;"

      Excluded from the proposed Class is Defendant Google LLC,
      its ultimate parent Alphabet, Inc. or any intermediate
      parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors;
      any entity in which Google has a controlling interest; and
      all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation,
      as well as their staff and immediate family members. For
      the statutory larceny claim, to the extent the Court
      determines that individual damages calculations cannot be
      efficiently calculated on a class-wide basis, Plaintiffs
      in the alternative seek certification pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(c)(4) as to liability only;

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Lesley E. Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP,
      David A. Straite of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and Jason
      "Jay" Barnes of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Google's uniform Chrome
contract of adhesion drafted by Google and governed by California
and federal law nationwide. Contract claims are typically
well-suited for class treatment. This case is no different. Google
promises Chrome users that they "don't need to provide any personal
information to use Chrome" and "[t]he personal information that
Chrome stores won't be sent to Google unless you choose to store
that data in your Google Account by turning on sync."

These promises are identical or "very similar" in each version of
the contract from July 27, 2016 to the present. Chrome also
promises that the default state is not synced ("Sync is only
enabled if you choose"). The default is that Chrome will not send
and Google is not permitted to collect users' personal information
unless the user finds the Sync toggle and enables it. Thus, no
action is needed for the promised privacy protections to apply.
These promises apply by operation of contract and law regardless of
any individual action and whether an individual was even aware of
the Sync feature.

Despite these promises, Google admits, categorically, that it
"collects and uses data from [Chrome] Users who have not enabled
sync[.]" Ex. T, Google's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatory No. 20. The Plaintiffs' experts Richard Smith and
Zubair Shafiq confirm that this practice is ongoing and a common
function of Chrome's design. Google says that it will not "cease
collecting and using such data."

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3niSyAF
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lesley Weaver, Esq.
          Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
          Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 994607
          Telephone: (415) 445-4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
          E-mail: weaver@bfalaw.com
                  aornelas@bfalaw.com
                  jsamra@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Straite, Esq.
          Amy Keller, Esq.
          Adam Prom, Esq.
          Sharon Cruz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  aprom@dicellolevitt.com
                  scruz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Jay Barnes, Esq.
          An Truong, Esq.
          Eric Johnson, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
                  atruong@simmonsfirm.com
                  ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 16 announced that
purchasers of InnovAge Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: INNV) common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with InnovAge's March 2021 initial public offering
("IPO") have until December 13, 2021 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the InnovAge class action lawsuit. The InnovAge class
action lawsuit -- captioned McLeod v. InnovAge Holding Corp., No.
21-cv-02770 -- charges InnovAge, certain of its officers, and the
underwriters of InnovAge's IPO with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933. The InnovAge class action lawsuit was commenced on
October 14, 2021 in the District of Colorado.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the InnovAge class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the InnovAge class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than December 13, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: InnovAge operates a healthcare delivery platform
that purportedly takes a patient-centered care approach to improve
the quality of care that participants receive. In its IPO, InnovAge
sold approximately 18,995,901 shares of common stock at a price of
$21.00 per share. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be
used to repay certain debt and for general corporate purposes,
including working capital, operating expenses, and capital
expenditures.

The InnovAge class action lawsuit alleges that InnovAge's
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted that: (i) certain of InnovAge's facilities failed to
provide covered services, provide accessible and adequate services,
manage participants' medical situations, and oversee use of
specialists; (ii) as a result, InnovAge was reasonably likely to be
subject to regulatory scrutiny, including by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"); (iii) thus, there was a
significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments pending an
audit of InnovAge's services; and (iv) given the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about InnovAge's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On September 21, 2021, InnovAge revealed that the CMS had
"determined to suspend new enrollments at [the Company's]
Sacramento center based on deficiencies detected in [a recent]
audit." The Company stated that these deficiencies "related to
participant quality of care." On this news, InnovAge's stock price
fell approximately 25%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased InnovAge
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the InnovAge class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the InnovAge
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the InnovAge class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
InnovAge class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information.

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. [GN]

INT'L BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that International
Business Machines Corporation (IBM) has been hit with a proposed
class action lawsuit over its alleged practice of capping sales
representatives' commissions despite representing that the earnings
would never be capped.

According to the suit filed on August 27, IBM has maintained that
it is not obligated to pay commissions at all given it has no
contract with sales reps ensuring the payment of such wages. The
case argues that the defendant, therefore, has run afoul of a
California Labor Code provision that mandates that employers
provide sales reps who earn commissions with an enforceable written
contract that specifies how commissions will be computed and paid.

"IBM employs hundreds, if not thousands, of sales representatives
and managers throughout California who earn sales commissions," the
complaint states. "However, IBM does not provide those employees
with a written, signed, enforceable contract regarding their
commissions."

The lawsuit contends that IBM's alleged "bait-and-switch" scheme,
whereby sales reps are led to believe their commissions will be
uncapped only to discover later that IBM routinely pays them less
than they earned, is "precisely the type of conduct that the
California Labor Code seeks to deter."

Global technology company IBM employs sales representatives to sell
its hardware, software and cloud-based and cognitive computing
services, the suit begins. Per the case, IBM offers seven types of
commission plans and provides each sales representative at the
beginning of each sales period with a "substantially similar,
standardized document," called an incentive plan letter, in which
the employees are given "limited information" regarding their sales
quota, territory and commissions rate.

According to the lawsuit, the majority of the incentive plan letter
is devoted to disclaimers that, prior to the first half of 2018,
included a statement indicating that the letter "is not an express
or implied contract or a promise by IBM" to pay commissions to the
employee.

The case alleges that although IBM has repeatedly represented to
employees that sales commissions are uncapped, the defendant has
nevertheless "routinely failed" to pay sales reps their full
commissions as reflected in their incentive plan letter and "other
inputs shown in IBM's online commissions workplace." As a result,
IBM has been sued over two dozen times by sales representatives and
managers who claim to be owed unpaid commissions, the complaint
says. In each case, IBM has maintained that it "owes nothing"
because it has no enforceable contract with the workers for the
payment of commissions, according to the suit.

The case argues that because IBM has "openly admitted" that it does
not have an enforceable written contract for the payment of
commissions to its sales employees, its commissions program fails
to comply with the California Labor Code's requirement that such a
contract be provided. Section 2751 of the California Labor Code,
which went into effect on January 1, 2013, is a mandate, the
lawsuit stresses, "not some gentle suggestion to employers that
causes no harm when it is ignored."

The plaintiff, a manager who has worked with IBM since 1995, claims
to have been financially harmed by the defendant's alleged failure
to pay his direct report's commissions. The sales rep who reported
to the plaintiff allegedly closed two deals for IBM in 2016 with
Oracle and Sabre, Inc. that resulted in total sales of upward of $3
million of IBM products and services. As such, the sales rep's
commissions on the deals should have totaled $966,316, the suit
says.

Instead, the worker was informed by IBM that the company had capped
his commissions at 250 percent because "it was simply too much
money" to pay him in full, according to the complaint. Because his
report's commissions were capped, the plaintiff's commissions were
"similarly limited," the suit says.

While the plaintiff's direct report filed a lawsuit to recover the
unpaid portion of his commissions, his claims were ultimately
resolved with IBM, the filing notes. The plaintiff, however, has
still not been paid the commissions he claims to be owed for the
2016 deals, according to the complaint.

The plaintiff looks to represent anyone who resided in California
while working for IBM on a commissions incentive plan at any time
since November 4, 2015. Also proposed is a subclass of those who
fit the same criteria and were not paid the amount of commissions
reflected in their commissions formula. [GN]

JENNMAR CORPORATION: Stacy Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLIE STACY and CLIFFORD
ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. JENNMAR CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, INC., ET AL., Case No.
1:21-cv-00015-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge James P. Jones
entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for conditional certification and
      court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C section
      216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);

      -- Conditionally certified collective action is defined as
         follows:

         "All individuals who are, were, or will be employed by
         Defendants in Virginia as non-exempt employees who were
         not compensated for all their hours worked, including,
         but not limited to, above (40) per week, at anytime
         during the three years prior to the commencement of
         this action, to the date of final disposition of this
         action;" and

   2. directing the defendants to provide to plaintiffs' counsel
      a list, in alphabetical order by last name, with job
      title, last known mailing address, dates of employment,
      and location of employment of all potential members of
      this certified collective action;

      -- The list shall be provided electronically in a manner
         requested by plaintiffs' counsel within 15 days of this
         Order;

      -- A copy of the notice, Exhibit C, ECF No. 28-3, and the
         opt-in form, Exhibit E, ECF No. 28-5, shall be provided
         via first-class mail to all members of the
         conditionally certified collective; and

      -- A properly signed copy of the opt-in form must be
         returned or postmarked no later than 60 days from the
         mailing of the notice.

Judge Jones said, "Based on the evidence presented, I find that the
plaintiffs have satisfied their evidentiary burden under the
"similarly situated" analysis at this conditional certification
stage. The plaintiffs have made a "modest factual showing
sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs
together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the
law," and that there is "some factual nexus connecting them to
other potential plaintiffs as victims of an unlawful policy."

The Plaintiffs Charlie Stacy and Clifford Allen filed this class
and collective action on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, alleging that the defendants violated the FLSA
by not paying overtime or minimum wage to its workers and failing
to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

The plaintiffs Charlie Stacy and Clifford Allen are former
production and crane workers at the Cedar Bluff, Virginia
facility.

The Defendants manufacture and assemble products for use in
agricultural, construction, energy, and mining industries
throughout western Virginia and the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vACfTu at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          Silver Spring, MD

               - and -

          Francisco Mundaca
          THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Arlington, VA

The Defendants are represented by:

          K. Maxwell Bernas, Esq.
          Benjamin P. Fryer, Esq.
          FORD HARRISON LLP
          Washington, DC

KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Action Over Strawberry Pop-Tarts Pastries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambrose Leung, writing for Hypebeast, reports that Kellogg's is
facing a class-action lawsuit -- allegedly in the $5 million USD
range -- for not having enough strawberries in their whole-grain
frosted strawberry Pop-Tarts pastries.

As a popular quick breakfast snack, the sugary Pop-Tarts treat has
been known to many for not being the most healthy choice of food,
but that's not the issue. The issue is in the name "Strawberry
Pop-Tarts," where when you read the list of ingredients at the back
of the box, you find that the filling is made with "2% or less" of
pears, apples, and strawberries -- making the "Strawberry" part of
the name inaccurate.

The lawsuit is asking that Kellogg's update its packaging and
choice of wording to prevent misinformation. [GN]

KELLOGG SALES: Russett Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Russett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kellogg Sales Company, Case No. 7:21-cv-08572
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2021), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to its "Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries"
under its Pop-tarts brand.

The complaint alleges that the packaging only depicts strawberries,
in words and images, and shows the Product's bright red filling,
matching the color of strawberries. The strawberry representations
are misleading because the Product has less strawberries than
consumers expect based on the labeling. The Product's common or
usual name of "Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries," is
false, deceptive, and misleading, because it contains mostly
non-strawberry fruit ingredients.

Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly
identify and describe the components, attributes, and features of a
product, relative to itself and other comparable products or
alternatives. By labeling the Product in this manner, Defendant
gained an advantage against other companies, and against consumers
seeking to purchase a product with more of the named ingredient
than it contained. The value of the Product that plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by
defendant.

The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had the Plaintiff
and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have
bought the Product or would have paid less for it. The Product is
sold for a price premium compared to other similar products, no
less than approximately $4.79 per box of six pouches of two
pastries six pastries (20.3 oz or 576g), a higher price than it
would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations
and omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on at least one occasion within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action.

Kellogg Sales Company manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
"Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries" under its
Pop-tarts brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Brooks Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marion Edwards Brooks, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No.
5:21-cv-00318 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01419-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          Andrea Barient, Esq.
          24110 EDEN ST
          PO DRAWER 71
          PLAQUEMINE, LA 70764
          Phone: (225) 687-6396
          Fax: (225) 687-6398
          Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                 abarient@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Derek Chad Nuce, Esq.
          300 W GORDON ST
          PO DRAWER 1168
          THOMASTON, GA 30286
          Phone: (706) 646-3200
          Fax: (706) 646-2147
          Email: cnuce@pnlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John M. Deakle, Esq.
          Ronald Johnson, IV, Esq.
          Russell Lamar Johnson, Esq.
          PO BOX 2072
          HATTIESBURG, MS 39403
          Phone: (601) 544-0631
          Fax: (601) 544-0666
          Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
                 rvjohnson@djlawms.com
                 rljohnson@djlawms.com

               - and -

          Richard H. Bishoff, Esq.
          1269 WOODLAND RD
          PO BOX 1269
          THOMASTON, GA 30286
          Phone: (404) 272-1901
          Fax: (706) 646-2147
          Email: rbishoff@bishofflaw.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Kolodin Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott R. Kolodin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03621 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01431-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff P. Shiver, Esq.
          3340 Peachtree Rd., Ste. 950
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Email: jeff@shiverhamilton.com

               - and -

          Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
          SHIVER HAMILTON, LLC
          One Securities Centre
          3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Fax: (888) 501-9536
          Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas J. Mazziotti, Esq.
          191 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 2900
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1775
          Phone: (404) 954-6941
          Fax: (404) 954-5020
          Email: tmazziotti@hallboothsmith.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Norman Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James H. Norman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00131 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01423-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
          SHIVER HAMILTON, LLC
          One Securities Centre
          3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Fax: (888) 501-9536
          Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com

               - and -

          Robert T. Homlar, Esq.
          ROBERT T. HOMLAR P.C.
          601 N. Belair Square, Suite 14
          Evans, GA 30809
          Phone: (706) 831-0859
          Fax: (706) 432-1722
          Email: robert@homlarlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          M. Beth Boone, Esq.
          HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC
          3528 Darien Hwy., Suite 300
          Brunswick, GA 31525
          Phone: (912) 554-0093
          Fax: (912) 554-1973
          Email: bboone@hallboothsmith.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Vincent Wong Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Philips") (NYSE: PHG) between February
25, 2020 and June 11, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/koninklijke-philips-n-v-loss-submission-form?prid=20483&wire=5

Cannot view this image? Visit:
https://orders.newsfilecorp.com/files/7094/99893_153392_logo.jpg

Allegations against PHG include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (ii) as a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP
devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (iii) accordingly, the Company's sales
revenues from the foregoing products were unsustainable; (iv) the
foregoing also subjected the Company to a substantial risk of a
product recall, in addition to potential legal and/or regulatory
action; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Philips you have until October 15, 2021
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

LANCE CAMPER: Prado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Prado, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v.
LANCE CAMPER MFG. CORP.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV38626 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 20, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Labor Code due
to failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants' violations of the Labor Code based on Defendant's
failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the employees' minimum
wage rate; overtime hours worked at the overtime rate; failure to
provide all legally required and/or legally compliant meal and rest
periods; failure to timely pay earned wages during employment;
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure
to timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment;
and failure to provide suitable seating, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as non-exempt hourly
employee in California.

The Defendant is doing business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, California 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 ppatel@lelawfirm.com
                 whteam@lelawfirm.com

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Moab Partners Appeals Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Moab Partners, L.P. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3608, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

In the action, Lead Plaintiff Moab Partners, L.P. asserts various
securities law claims against Defendant Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp. ("MIC"), Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc.
("MIMUSA"), Barclays Capital Inc., the Officer Defendants (James
Hooke, Jay Davis, Liam Stewart, Richard D. Courtney), Robert Choi,
Martin Stanley, Norman H. Brown, Jr., George W. Carmany III, Henry
E. Lentz, Ouma Sananikone, and William H. Webb (together with the
Officer Defendants, "Individual Defendants"). The Plaintiff's
claims center on its assertion that MIC and the other Individual
Defendants made "material misrepresentations and omissions" about
potential risks facing what it characterizes as MIC's "most
important operating division," and specifically that the Defendants
were "actively concealing MIC's exposure" to a soon-to-be-effective
environmental regulation.

On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff City of Riviera Beach General
Employees Retirement System began the securities fraud class action
by filing its complaint. On Jan. 30, 2019, Judge Broderick granted
a motion to consolidate the action with the related action numbered
18-cv-3744 because it "set forth substantially identical questions
of law and fact," and the Judge appointed Moab as the Lead
Plaintiff. Moab then filed the Consolidated Complaint on Feb. 20,
2019.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against
MIC and the Officer Defendants - Count I; (ii) Section 20(a) of the
'34 Act against MIMUSA and the Officer Defendants - Count II; (iii)
Section 20A of the '34 Act against MIMUSA - Count III; (iv) Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against MIC, Barclays, and the
Individual Defendants - Count IV; (v) Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act against MIC and Barclays - Count V; and (vi) Section
15 of the Securities Act against MIMUSA and the Individual
Defendants - Count VI.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sep. 23, 2021, Judge
Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Consolidated Complaint.

Plaintiff Moab Partners now seeks a review of the dismissal order
entered by Judge Broderick, and Court's Judgment dated Oct. 7,
2021

The appellate case is captioned as City of Riveria Beach General
Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corporation, Case No. 21-2524, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Oct. 7, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Moab Partners, L.P. is represented by:

          Lauren Amy Ormsbee, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1593

Defendants-Appellees Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, James
Hooke, Jay Davis, Liam Stewart, Richard D. Courtney, Robert Choi,
Martin Stanley, Norman H. Brown, Jr., George W. Carmany, III, Henry
E. Lentz, Ouma Sananikone, William H. Webb, Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., and Barclay Capital Inc. are
represented by:

          John E. Schreiber, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          E-mail: jschreiber@winston.com  

               - and -

          Susanna M. Buergel, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000

MATTEL INC: Shaffer et al., Seek OK of Amended Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their amended motion to certify
class.

The nature of suit states contract product liability.

The Plaintiffs are Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton, Linda Black,
Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Samantha Drover-Mundy, Megan Fieker,
Karen Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan
Kaden, Kerry Mandley, Zachary Mundy, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Brianna Persons, Jessie Poppe,
Katharine Shaffer, Emily Simmonds, Josie Willis, Renee Wray.

Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in 1945 with headquarters in El Segundo, California. The
products and brands it produces include Barbie, Hot Wheels,
Fisher-Price, American Girl, UNO, Mega, Thomas & Friends, Polly
Pocket, Masters of the Universe, and Monster High. [CC]

NATIONAL GENERAL: Griffin Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Betty J. Torress, Maria Chavez, Tyler Thompson,
Pablo Hernandez, Yolanda Salamanca Diaz, Ascencion Galarza, Frankie
Lee Taylor, Susana Moreno Arias, Marco Arango Jeronimo, Julie
Miller, Ricardo Ruiz, Carlos Armando Ruiz Rivera, Mary Luz Marquez
Lobo, Roberto Villasenor Cardenas, Joni Cisowki, Satin Weaver,
Walter Salazar Martinez, Antonio Benito Arellano, Cornelius L.
Shivers, Christian Scheffler, Jose Augustin Paz Mendoza, Jesse,
Miramontes, Leticia Bermejo, Maya Gaiterbriton, Matias Bravo
Herrera, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National General Insurance Company, Integon National
Insurance Company, DOES 1 through 120, Case No. CIVSB2124803 was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 19,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01774-FLA-KK to
the proceeding.

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

National General Insurance -- https://nationalgeneral.com/ --
offers Auto, RV, and Home Insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Hamilton King
          LAW OFFCCES OF JUSTIN H. KING
          8301 Utica Avenue
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Phone: (909) 297-5001
          Fax: (909) 297-5126
          Email: jking@justinkinglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tyler R Austin, Esq.
          HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON GUSLANI SIMONSON AND CLAUSE
LLP
          999 Skyway Road Suite 310
          San Carlos, CA 94070
          Phone: (650) 637-9100
          Fax: (650) 637-8071
          Email: taustin@hayesscott.com


NESTLE PURINA: Salinas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Salinas, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved
Employees v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY; NESTLE USA, INC.; Case
No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-AGS (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 8,
2021), is brought to collect statutory penalties as a result of the
Defendants' systematic violations of California labor law with
respect to the Defendants' non-exempt, hourly workers employed in
California.

This action stems from the Defendants' policies and practices of:
failing to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all
hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
minimum wage for all hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees overtime wages; failing to authorize and permit
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to take meal and rest breaks to
which they are entitled by law, and failing to pay premium
compensation for missed meal and rest breaks; failing to provide
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees true and accurate itemized wage
statements; and failing to timely pay Aggrieved Employees full
wages during employment and upon separation from employment, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants for various
projects as a forklift operator.

Nestle Purina is a Missouri corporation headquartered in St. Louis,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Andrew Weaver, Esq.
          Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneideiwallace.com
                 oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                 aweaver@schneiderwaJlace.com
                 pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com


NEUTROGENA CORP: Lavalle Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Lavalle, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Neutrogena
Corporation, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No.
7:21-cv-06091, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Oct. 19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-62153-AHS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Neutrogena Corporation trading as Neutrogena --
http://www.neutrogena.com/-- is an American company that markets
skincare, hair care and cosmetics owned by parent company Johnson &
Johnson and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          David C. Magagna, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 dmagagna@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

NEUTROGENA CORP: Sued Over Dangerous Levels of Benzene in Sunscreen
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelli French, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEUTROGENA CORPORATION, Case No. 0:21-cv-62151-AHS
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2021), is brought regarding the Defendant's
manufacturing, distribution and sale of Neutrogena sunscreen
products that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers.

According to the complaint, Benzene is a component of crude oil,
gasoline, and cigarette smoke, and is one of the elementary
petrochemicals. The Department of Health and Human Services has
determined that benzene causes cancer in humans. Yet the Defendant
has not taken any action to remove the Products from the market,
and to this day dangerous sunscreen products are continuing to be
sold to unsuspecting consumers. The Defendant's failure to control
for benzene contamination and continued sale of its adulterated
products constitutes actionable fraud. The Plaintiff and the Class
were injured by the full purchase price of the Products because the
Products are worthless, as they are adulterated and contain harmful
levels of benzene, and Defendant has failed to warn consumers of
this fact.

The Plaintiff and class members bargained for a sunscreen product
free of contaminants and dangerous substances, and were deprived
the basis of their bargain when the Defendant sold them a sunscreen
product containing the dangerous substance benzene, which rendered
the Products unmerchantable and unfit for use. As the Products
expose consumers to benzene well above the legal limit, the
Products are not fit for use by humans. The Plaintiff is further
entitled to damages for the injury sustained in being exposed to
high levels of acutely-toxic benzene, damages related to
Defendant's conduct, and injunctive relief.

In sum, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages because the Products
are adulterated, defective, worthless, and unfit for human use due
to the presence of benzene, a carcinogenic and toxic chemical
impurity. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution
for: (i) breach of express warranty; (ii) breach of implied
warranty; (iii) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUPTA"); (iv) fraudulent concealment; and (v)
unjust enrichment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Defendant's Neutrogena Beach
Defense Oil-Free Body Sunscreen Spray SPF 100 approximately every
three months for the past five years.

Neutrogena Corp. is one of the world's leading brands of skincare
hair care and cosmetics that distributes its products, including
Neutrogena sunscreen products, throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. CA Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com


PFIZER INC: Duff Sues Over Unapproved Varenicline-Containing Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Duff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01350-WSH (W.D. Pa.,
Oct. 8, 2021), is brought arising from adulterated, misbranded, and
unapproved varenicline-containing drugs ("VCDs") that were
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or
ultimately sold by the Defendant Pfizer, Inc., in the United States
under the brand name Chantix. These VCDs are non-merchantable, and
are not of the quality represented by the Defendant.

The complaint alleges that Defendant represented and warranted to
consumers that its VCDs were therapeutically equivalent to and
otherwise the same as the FDA-approved brand name drug Chantix.
Specifically, Defendant represented and warranted that the VCDs
were fit for their ordinary uses, met the specifications of
Defendant's FDA-approved labeling materials, and were manufactured
and distributed in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations. However, Defendant willfully ignored warnings about
the operating standards, and knowingly and fraudulently
manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, and/or distributed
adulterated and/or misbranded VCDs for purchase in the United
States by consumers.

The Defendant VCDs were adulterated and/or misbranded (and thereby
rendered worthless) through contamination with a probable human
carcinogen known as n-nitroso-varenicline. Additionally, Defendant
was on notice of other potential nitrosamines as well, such as
n-nitrosdimethylamine ("NDMA") and n-nitrosodiethlamine ("NDEA").
According to the FDA and other global health authorities,
nitrosamines are dangerous probable human carcinogens.

Ironically, the Defendant's wrongful acts resulted in persons who
sought to use smoking products less end up with a Chantix pill that
contained a carcinogen. The Class Plaintiffs paid for VCDs that
were illegally and willfully introduced into the market by
Defendants, which caused them and the millions of other VCD
consumers, to sustain economic damages. Defendant's VCDs were not
fit for their ordinary use and the Defendant has been unjustly
enriched through the sale of these knowingly adulterated and/or
misbranded drugs. The Defendant's conduct also constitutes
actionable common law fraud, consumer fraud, and other violations
of state and federal law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, and paid money for one or more of the Defendant's
VCDs.

Pfizer has been engaged in the manufacturing, sale,
and distribution of adulterated and/or misbranded generic VCDs in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          HONIK LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 267-435-1300
          Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
                 david@honiklaw.com


PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Veterans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JAMES D. ROSARIO, ROBERT J.
RADITZ, MARIA L. GARCIA-REYES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, CHRISTINE
WORMUTH, THOMAS W. HARKER, JOHN P. ROTH, and PHYSICAL DISABILITY
BOARD OF REVIEW, Case No. 1:21-cv-01928-CKK (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a
class action, with a class consisting of:

   "all veterans of any branch of the United States military who
   were: (1) retroactively placed on the Temporary Disability
   Retired List ("TDRL") for only a constructive six month
   period; (2) retroactively removed from the TDRL with a less
   than 30 percent rating for a mental health condition incurred
   as a result of a traumatic event; and (3) not afforded any of
   the protections provided under 38 C.F.R. section 4.129 and 10
   U.S.C. sections 1202, 1210, and 1214 (the "Proposed Class")."

According to the complaint, under the policies of all the service
branches whose civilian leaders are Defendants in this suit, the
Proposed Class members were denied the pre-separation medical
examinations and opportunity to request a formal hearing that
federal law and regulation require be afforded to service members
on the TDRL.

Defendants' policies prevented Proposed Class members from having
their disabilities fully and fairly evaluated for permanent
retirement, a status which would have entitled Proposed Class
members to significant benefits not given to veterans who, like
Plaintiffs and Proposed Class members, are merely medically
separated from service, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) is a special board
that reviews military disability ratings awarded to service members
while they were still in the military, before medical separation
from the service. Congress created this board in 2008 because of
findings that the military was awarding lower ratings for medical
conditions for which the Department of Veterans Affairs was
awarding higher ratings.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vPgsrD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen M. Gardner, Esq.
          Sarah A. Tomkowiak, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
          E-mail: Allen.Gardner@lw.com
                  Sarah.Tomkowiak@lw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Giblin, Esq.
          Justin S. Kirschner, Esq.
          Saffa M. Khan, Esq.
          Emilie C. Schwarz, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
          E-mail: Thomas.Giblin@lw.com
                  Justin.Kirschner@lw.com
                  Saffa.Khan@lw.com
                  Emilie.Schwarz@lw.com

               - and -

          Barton F. Stichman, Esq.
          Rochelle Bobroff, Esq.
          Esther Leibfarth, Esq.
          David Sonenshine, Esq.
          NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
          SERVICES PROGRAM
          1600 K Street, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 621-5677
          Facsimile: (202) 328-0063
          E-mail: bart@nvlsp.org
                  rochelle@nvlsp.org
                  esther@nvlsp.com
                  david@nvlsp.org

PRECISION CONSTRUCTION: Nava Sues Over Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Nava, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. PRECISION CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. d/b/a PRECISION
CONCRETE, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV36999 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 7, 2021), is
brought to seek civil penalties for the Defendant acts and
policies, which violate the California Labor Code, both
individually and under the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy or practice of: failing
to provide employees with timely payment of earned wages for all
hours worked each pay period; permitting, encouraging, and/or
requiring employees to work in excess of 8 hours per day and/or in
excess of 40 hours per week without paying them overtime
compensation; failing to provide employees with timely, complete,
uninterrupted and fully off-duty meal periods or meal period
premium compensation for missed, shortened, late, on-duty and/or
interrupted meal periods; failing to provide employees with timely,
complete, uninterrupted and fully off-duty rest periods or rest
period premium compensation for missed, shortened, late, on-duty
and/or interrupted rest periods; knowingly and intentionally
failing to furnish timely, legally compliant itemized wage
statements to employees; willfully failing to pay compensation owed
to employees whose employment with the Defendant separated or
terminated, and willfully failing to pay waiting-time penalties in
connection with such unpaid and overdue compensation; and knowingly
and intentionally failing to maintain complete and accurate payroll
records for employees, all in violation of California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order(s),
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Carpenter from May 20,
2020 through July 31, 2020.

PCGI is a California corporation purportedly authorized to do
business within the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lonny Osterman, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
          4100 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Phone: (323) 720-8835
          Fax: (323)306-0551
          Email: Losterman@lfecr.com


PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that insurance
provider Progressive conspired with the company that values its
automobile property damage loss claims to illegally decrease the
amount it pays its policyholders for vehicles deemed total losses,
a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Keddrick Brown filed the class action complaint against
Progressive Mountain Insurance Company and Mitchell International,
Inc. Oct. 11 in a Georgia federal court, alleging the companies
made arbitrary deductions when assessing claims for totaled
vehicles.

Brown says, when Progressive is assessing a claim for a vehicle
deemed a "total loss," it sends the claim to Mitchell, which then
sends back a valuation report with deductions to the value of the
car which are "arbitrary and unexplained."

Specifically, Mitchell makes what it calls a "Project Sold
Adjustment" deduction. First, it looks at the comparable prices to
replace a car of that make and model. And then it reduces the
amount a policyholder is to get in its unexplained "Project Sold
Adjustment."

When looking at the fine print of the report, Brown says he
realized the deduction was an adjustment made "to reflect consumer
purchasing behavior (negotiating a different price than the listed
price)."

Brown argues that Mitchell should not be allowed to simply reduce
the price he and others are paid out by estimating how much would
be taken off the value of the car through people trying to
negotiate the price down.

In his case, Mitchell and Progressive reduced the amount he was
paid out after his 2014 Dodge Charger was totaled in May 2021 by
$830.50. The payout was reduced due to Mitchell's "arbitrary"
Project Sold Adjustment, he says.

"By aiding Progressive's violation of Georgia law and its breach of
its contractual duties with its insureds, Mitchell has interfered
with the contractual relationship between Progressive and
Progressive's insureds and has engaged in a civil conspiracy with
Progressive to artificially reduce the claims payments to
Progressive insureds.

He's looking to represent anyone living in Georgia who made a total
loss claim with Progressive in the past six years. Brown is suing
for breach of contract and interference with contractual relations,
and seeking certification of the class action damages, an
injunction, and a jury trial.

This case follows another similar case filed in Pennsylvania this
week. In that case, Progressive is accused of systematically
lowering the cash value of loss vehicles in Pennsylvania by
applying erroneous adjustments in order to pay less for total loss
claims. [GN]

RTI SURGICAL: January 24, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
USA DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA LOWRY, individually and in
on behalf of all others in a similar situation,

Applicant,

-against-

RTI SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC., CLASS ACTION
CAMILLE I. FARHAT, BRIAN K.
HUTCHISON, JONATHON M. CANTANTE,
ROBERT P. JORDHEIMand JOHANNES
W. LOUW,

Defendants,

Civil Action No. 20 C 01939 (MFK)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, LAWYER'S FEES AND
EXPENSES MOTION, AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
RTI SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON ACTIONS OF MARCH 7, 2016 THROUGH
MARCH 27, 2020BOTH DATES INCLUDE (CLASS PERIOD) AND WERE DAMAGED BY
THAT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROCEDURES OF THIS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a hearing will be
held on January 24, 2022, to 09 am, before the Honorable Matthew F.
Kennelly at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Evert McKinley Dirksen Building, USA
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 or via
Zoom or some other video platform, to determine: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against Defendants by
$10,500,000 it must be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether the Assignment Plan is fair and reasonable, and must be
approved; (3) whether the Principal Counsel's request for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether a
reimbursement should be made for the Claimant's costs and expenses;
and (5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement filed with the Court.

If you purchased or acquired common stock of RTI Surgical Holdings,
Inc. between March 7, 2016 and March 27, 2020, your rights may be
affected by the Agreement of this Action. If you have not received
a Detailed Notice of the Proposed Class Settlement, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: RTI
securities settlement, Claims Administrator, PO BOX 6819, Portland,
OR 97228-6819, email: info@RTISecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a Class member and want to share the Settlement money,
you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than January 14, 2022
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. As further
described in the Notice, you will be subject to any judgment
rendered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of
Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later than
January 10, 2022. Any objection to the Agreement, Assignment Plan
or attorneys' fees and expenses must be presented and notified, in
accordance with the procedures established in the Notice, no later
than January 10, 2022.

Queries, in addition to notification requests, can be made to the
group's attorneys: Louis C. Ludwig, Esq., Pomerantz LLP, 10 South
La Salle Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603,
lcludwig@pomlaw.com, or Velvel freedman, Roche Freedman LLP, 1 SE
3rd Ave., Suite 1250, Miami Florida 33131, vel@rcfllp.com.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED TO THE COURT,
THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, THE DEFENDANTS, OR THE COUNSEL OF THE
DEFENDANTS.

Dated: September 27, 2021

USA DISTRICT COURT
NORTH DISTRICT ILLINOIS [GN]

SEVENTY SEVEN: Court Narrows Claims in Snider ERISA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER SNIDER, on behalf of the Seventy Seven
Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan and a class of similarly
situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiff v. ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY, INC. RETIREMENT & SAVINGS PLAN; et
al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-20-977-D (W.D. Okla.), Judge Timothy
D. DeGiusti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Defendants assert that Plaintiff Snider's
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., fail for the same
reasons previously found in a related case, Myers v. Administrative
Committee, Case No. CIV-17-200-D (W.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 2017), and
for additional reasons, including untimeliness. The Plaintiff has
opposed the Motion.

The Plaintiff brings the ERISA action as a participant in the
Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan to obtain
relief on behalf of the Plan and other participants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The Defendants are administrators and
fiduciaries of the Plan, which was a "defined contribution plan"
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(34) sponsored by Seventy Seven Energy
Inc. ("SSE") for its employees.

The Plaintiff filed the action on Sept. 28, 2020, after he was
identified during class-related discovery in Myers as a potential
class member. His complaint is identical to an amended complaint
that had been proffered earlier in Myers but was not allowed
because the Court found that it was unnecessary and futile.
Plaintiff moved to consolidate the two cases, but his motion was
denied.

Briefly stated, SSE was formed in a spinoff from Chesapeake Energy
Corp. on June 30, 2014. The Plan was established on July 1, 2014,
as a spinoff of Chesapeake's retirement plan. It was initially
funded by a transfer of assets from Chesapeake's plan that were
allocated to the accounts of individuals who became SSE employees
and included a substantial amount of Chesapeake common stock. The
Plan retained and increased its investment in Chesapeake stock from
July 1, 2014, until Dec. 31, 2017, when the Plan merged into
another retirement plan with different fiduciaries.

The Plan, like the Chesapeake plan before it, contained two
components: a deferred compensation plan (or 401(k) plan)
consisting of elective contributions by participants to be invested
in funds other than SSE stock; and an employee stock ownership plan
(ESOP) consisting of matching or discretionary contributions by SSE
in the form of SSE common stock. The Chesapeake plan similarly
contained an ESOP of Chesapeake stock that, after the spinoff and
transfer to the SSE Plan, was no longer a "qualifying employer
security" for Plan participants because they were not employees of
Chesapeake. Under the Plan, the Chesapeake stock fund was frozen to
new investment by Plan participants, but they could elect whether
to keep it in their individual accounts.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Chesapeake stock was an imprudent
investment for the Plan because the stock was volatile, risky, and
steadily declining in value, because Chesapeake shared the same
business sector and maintained close ties with SSE, and because a
single-stock fund is not a prudent investment for a 401(k) plan,
particularly given the large percentage of the Plan's holdings
invested in Chesapeake stock.

By his Complaint, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a) in three
ways: 1) by "wrongfully allowing the Plan to continue to invest in
Chesapeake stock" in violation of the duty of prudence because the
Defendants "erroneously believed it was a 'qualifying employer
security' for Plan participants" and ignored "plain information
that including Chesapeake stock as a Plan investment was not a
prudent choice"; 2) by "failing to liquidate the Chesapeake stock
and map it to other, diversified Plan options" in violation of the
duty to diversify the Plan's assets; and 3) by "failing to conduct
an appropriate investigation of the merits of continued investment
in Chesapeake" in violation of the duty to monitor and determine
prudent investments recognized in Tibble v. Edison International,
575 U.S. 523, 530-31 (2015).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Plan suffered substantial losses
"because Plan assets were imprudently invested in the stock of one
company, Chesapeake, in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties"
and because "the Plan should have divested itself of Chesapeake
stock immediately following the spin-off and avoided any purchase
of Chesapeake stock throughout the Class Period" ending Dec. 31,
2017.

The Defendants assert: 1) the Court should reach the same decision
as in Myers and dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for breach of the
duty of prudent investment under Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), because Chesapeake common stock
was publicly traded and the Plaintiff's factual allegations are
based on public information; 2) the Court should revisit its
decision in Myers and find that the Defendants cannot be held
liable for a failure to diversify the Plan's holdings because
participants had a range of investment options and they decided
whether to retain Chesapeake stock in their individual accounts; 3)
the Court should follow its decision in Myers not to permit a claim
for breach of a duty to monitor investments because the procedural
duty discussed in Tibble does not provide an independent claim for
relief; and 4) the Court should dismiss all claims as time barred
by the two-year limitations period provided by the Plan or the
three-year statutory period provided by ERISA, Section 1113(2) or,
alternatively, should dismiss any parts of the Plaintiff's claims
that are based on conduct beyond the six-year period of Section
1113(1).

The alleged facts of the case are familiar to the parties and the
Court and were described in detail in prior orders in Myers. They
are related in the Order only as necessary to address the parties'
arguments.

Judge DeGiusti holds that the Complaint adequately states claims
against the Defendants for breaching fiduciary duties under 29
U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(B) and (C) to act with prudence and to
diversify the Plan's investments but that the Complaint fails to
state a separate claim that they breached a duty to monitor the
Plan's investments.

Judge DeGiusti finds that (i) by its terms, the two-year
limitations provision of the Plan does not apply to the case; (ii)
the Defendants have failed to establish the Plaintiff's action
should be dismissed at the pleading stage as time barred; (iii) the
Defendants are not entitled to a dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim
for breach of the duty of prudence; (iv) the Complaint states a
plausible claim that the Defendants breached the duty of
diversification; and (v) the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a
plausible claim based on a duty under Tibble to monitor the Plan's
investments.

For these reasons, Judge DeGiusti granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/txk8mwvw from Leagle.com.


SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Fralish Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solidquote LLC, et
al. The case is styled as John Fralish, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Solidquote LLC, Boomsourcing
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00761-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind., Oct. 9, 2021).

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

SolidQuote.com -- https://www.solidquote.com/ -- has a network of
car insurance companies that are all competing to supply customers'
policy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Dismisses Dixon Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, dismissed the case, DAVID
DIXON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF (E.D. Mo.), without prejudice.

Background

The Court notes that it is well-established that the incarceration
of those who cannot afford to pay money bail, without meaningful
consideration of other possible alternatives, infringes on both due
process and equal protection requirements. Named Plaintiffs David
Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and Richard Robards were
detained in St. Louis jails because they were unable to afford the
bail set for them after their arrests. The Defendants are the City
of St. Louis and its Sheriff and Commissioner of Corrections
(together, the City) and several judges of the 22nd Circuit (the
Judges).

On Jan. 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 asserting that the Defendants violated
their constitutional rights, and the rights of class members, to
equal protection and substantive and procedural due process by
effectively detaining them after arrest without an opportunity to
challenge the conditions of their release. At issue in the case is
whether the Defendants operated a wealth-based bail system
resulting in the detention of arrestees solely due to the inability
to pay, and whether the Defendants continue to do so.

In Count I of their complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted that the
Defendants violated their rights to equal protection and due
process through a policy or practice that jails individuals solely
due to their poverty. In Count II, the Plaintiffs asserted that the
Defendants violated their rights to substantive due process by
failing to consider whether an individual arrestee is a flight risk
or danger to the public before imposing bail in an amount that
equates to de facto detention.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants violated
their rights to procedural due process by failing to conduct
meaningful bail hearings. In each count, the Plaintiffs asserted
that the City's sheriff and jail commissioner violated their rights
by enforcing unconstitutional bail/detention orders and, in Count
III, by directing arrestees not to speak at their initial
appearance. The Plaintiffs asserted these claims on behalf of a
class comprised of "all arrestees who are or will be detained in
the Medium Security Institution (the Workhouse) or the City Justice
Center (CJC), operated by the City of St. Louis, post-arrest
because they are unable to afford to pay a monetary release
condition."

The Plaintiffs requested the following forms of relief:

     1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the
Plaintiffs' and class members' rights by issuing de facto detention
orders without due process;

     2. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the
Plaintiffs' and class members' rights by operating a system of
wealth-based detention that keeps them in jail because they cannot
afford to pay monetary conditions of release, without an inquiry or
findings concerning their ability to pay, the necessity of
detention, and alternative release conditions;

     3. A declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs and the class
members are entitled to an individualized hearing regarding release
conditions and including: Notice that financial information will be
collected, and the significance thereof; an individualized
determination of the arrestee's ability to pay and how much; an
opportunity to be heard concerning one's ability to pay and the
necessity of non-monetary release conditions, including an
opportunity to present and rebut evidence and argue the issues;
substantive findings by the court on the record as to why detention
is warranted and why less restrictive alternatives are
insufficient; and free legal counsel;

     4. A declaratory judgment that the sheriff and jail
commissioner must not enforce any order requiring secured money
bail or a monetary release condition that was imposed prior to an
individualized hearing and that is not accompanied by a record
reflecting the foregoing procedures and findings;

     5. An order permanently enjoining the Defendants from
operating and enforcing a system of wealth-based detention that
keeps the Plaintiffs and the class members in jail because they
cannot afford to pay monetary release conditions, without an
inquiry or findings concerning their ability to pay, alternative
release conditions, and the necessity of detention;

     6. An order permanently enjoining the Defendants from
operating and enforcing pretrial detention without constitutionally
valid process as described; and

     7. An order directing the sheriff not to instruct arrestees to
remain silent during their hearings.

The matter is now before the Court on the parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment. Tracking the three counts of their complaint,
the Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to summary judgment
because the record conclusively establishes that Defendants'
practices violate class members' (I) equal protection rights to be
free from wealth-based detention, (II) substantive due process
rights to liberty, and (III) procedural due process rights. They
assert that the facts relevant to the Court's determination on the
merits are those existing at the time of the complaint, and that
Defendants' subsequent changes are relevant only to a defense of
mootness. On that issue, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants
have not expressly asserted a defense based on mootness and cannot
satisfy the high burden of proof to demonstrate that their past
unconstitutional conduct will not recur.

The Judges, in support of their motion for summary judgment,
contend that (1) the Court should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction in the interest of comity; (2) the Plaintiffs'
exclusive remedy is a writ of habeas corpus; and (3) the Judges'
implementation of the new Rule 33.01 surpasses constitutional
requirements. Although the Judges do not explicitly assert that the
Plaintiffs' claims are moot in light of their new procedures, but
appear to do so implicitly, the Court will address mootness below
as a jurisdictional prerequisite.

The City Defendants move for summary judgment on Count III of the
Plaintiffs' complaint, which alleges that the City, through its
sheriff's deputies, violated the Plaintiffs' procedural due process
rights by routinely directing arrestees not to speak during their
bail hearings. The City argues that: (1) the record lacks evidence
of any widespread practice of deputies silencing arrestees, much
less that the Sheriff was aware of the practice so as to reflect
deliberate indifference; (2) any such conduct by City Defendants
was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs' detention; (3) the
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction against future
injury; and (4) Plaintiffs' claim is moot by virtue of new
procedures now followed in the 22nd Circuit.

Discussion

Judge Fleissig notes that the facts in the case are essentially
uncontroverted insofar as the record provides voluminous evidence
of the Defendants' past and current practices. She says, the
Defendants' revised practices since implementation of the new Rule
33.01 are evidenced in the form of pre-trial release reports,
hearing transcripts, court orders, docket sheets, and other
internal documents. Plaintiffs also do not dispute the facts of
Defendants' institutional changes with respect to judicial
training, the creation of the bench book, increased funding and
social work staffing, enhanced supervision technologies, and the
provision of appointed counsel.

Defendant Judges

The Judges contend that their new practices exceed constitutional
standards and that the Court should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction in the interest of comity under Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971), R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496
(1941), and other abstention doctrines. They also contend that the
proper remedy for the Plaintiffs' grievances lies in state court
through writ proceedings.

The Court rejected these arguments in earlier stages of the case
and also rejected the Defendants' earlier contention that the case
was moot, reasoning that the Defendants' operational capacity to
comply with revised Rule 33.01 had yet to be tested. Despite the
Defendants' accomplishments in this regard, the Judges do not
explicitly frame their summary judgment argument in terms of
mootness. Rather, they assert on the merits that their new
procedures are constitutionally sound. Regardless of the Judges'
characterization, because mootness relates to justiciability and
the Court's power to hear a case, Judge Fleissig must consider it
even when the parties have not raised it. Based on a full record,
she now concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed
further in the Court.

First, it is true that voluntary cessation of a challenged practice
does not necessarily moot a case where a defendant could later
resume the practice. But this exception to mootness is applicable
only to voluntary activity, where there is reason to be skeptical
the cessation will end the controversy. Second, the standard for
mootness is somewhat less onerous when it is the government that
has ceased the challenged conduct. Governmental officials have more
leeway than private parties in the presumption that they are
unlikely to resume illegal activities.

Judge Fleissig also holds that the record demonstrates that the
changes in the Defendants' bail procedures resulted from
substantial deliberation and concerted effort by the Judges and
staff leadership within the 22nd Circuit to comply with the new
mandates of Rule 33.01, which are now in effect and govern the
Defendants' conduct. While the lawsuit certainly influenced the
evolution of the Defendants' practices, it cannot be said that the
Defendants' collective response was merely an attempt to manipulate
the litigation. Rather, the Defendants' new processes reflect an
effort to comply with the new rules. With regard to the argument
that the provision of counsel was a discretionary act of the chief
judge, the Defendants themselves acknowledge the importance of
counsel as a critical component.

Moreover, the intended permanency of Defendants' new procedures is
evidenced by the institutionalization of a new court division, new
forms, and additional staff and resources. These are not ephemeral
fixes for any government office; rather, they are permanent changes
designed to comply with the mandates of the new rules. Also, the
Defendants have demonstrated a commitment to comply with new Rule
33.01 since its adoption, and the record illustrates the
Defendants' efforts in this regard notwithstanding Plaintiffs'
dissatisfaction with certain particulars.

Notably, the Plaintiffs do not present questions regarding the
constitutional sufficiency of the revised rules. The record
confirms that the procedures have, in the main, been implemented,
rendering moot the claims asserted in the Plaintiffs' original
complaint and any corresponding declaratory relief they seek based
on past practices. To the extent the Plaintiffs lament deficiencies
in the details and degree of the Defendants' compliance with new
Rule 33.01, Judge Fleissig holds that this forms an entirely
different lawsuit.

The Defendants have implemented new processes to comply with Rule
33.01 and designed to address the prior deficiencies described in
the Plaintiffs' complaint, rendering moot the claims asserted
against the Defendant Judges. Following the Eighth Circuit's
guidance, Judge Fleissig concludes that she should refrain from any
further scrutiny that the parties invite into the Defendants'
current practices.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant
Judges will be dismissed without prejudice as moot.

City Defendants

The City moves for summary judgment on Count III with respect to
the Plaintiffs' claim that sheriff's deputies had a custom or
practice of instructing arrestees not to speak at their initial
appearances. Of the City's numerous theories in support of the
motion, Judge Fleissig finds mootness to be dispositive.

As asserted at earlier stages, the City again contends, now on a
fuller record, that the Plaintiffs' claim is moot because the City
has ceased the alleged violation since the time of the complaint.
More specifically, the City emphasizes that it agreed by
stipulation in this case to instruct its deputies not to silence
arrestees at their bail hearings, and there is no evidence that any
such conduct is still occurring. In response, the Plaintiffs argue
that the City has supplied no evidence, such as training materials
or deposition testimony, demonstrating the City's full cessation of
the practice.

Judge Fleissig finds that though the Plaintiffs argue that the
record lacks any evidence that the City revised its written
policies, conducted training, or issued other directives on the
issue, the Plaintiffs do not supply any evidence of violations
occurring after the City undertook to eliminate the problem -- this
in a circuit where 2,000 to 4,000 felonies are processed annually.
The Plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery in the case and had
ample opportunity to collect additional arrestee statements
post-dating the City's stipulation.

Even viewing the record in a light favorable to the Plaintiffs,
Judge Fleissig must conclude that the City is entitled to the
presumption that its officials are unlikely to resume any alleged
past practice of silencing arrestees.  The cases cited in
Plaintiffs' responsive brief urging a different result involve
either private parties or government entities defending the
constitutionality of their actions. The City did not defend its
deputies' alleged prior conduct but instead assured the Court that
it would cease. Nothing in the record invites the inference that
violations continue or are likely to resume. As such, Judge
Fleissig finds that the Plaintiffs' claim against the City in Count
III is moot and must be dismissed.

Conclusion

Judge Fleissig concludes that the Plaintiffs are to be commended
for their efforts in raising legitimate concerns with respect to
the constitutionality of the Defendants' previous bail-setting
practices as described in the complaint and for advancing
meaningful change in the 22nd Circuit. However, she finds that the
Defendants' practices have evolved dramatically such that further
proceedings on the merits in the Court would offend doctrines of
mootness and comity. To the extent there remain shortcomings in
certain judges' application of new Rule 33.01, she trusts that the
Missouri appellate courts are capable of policing their own lower
courts.

For these reasons, Judge Fleissig dismissed the case without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6bne6k23 from Leagle.com.


STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Money-Laundering Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Toscano, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that Australian
casino giant Star Entertainment is facing the threat of a class
action lawsuit after revelations of its alleged failures to
confront money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks wiped out
nearly $1 billion in shareholder value.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has begun preparing a class action on
behalf of Star's investors following revelations in The Age, The
Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes that the ASX-listed Star has
been enabling suspected money laundering and organised crime in its
Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast casinos for years.

"Shareholders rightfully expect casino operators to rigorously
comply with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing
laws because casinos are unmistakably targets for criminal
activity," Maurice Blackburn principal Vavaa Mawuli said.

"The fact that these concerns were raised in 2018 and not disclosed
to the market raises real concerns about Star's governance and
shareholders should be rightfully concerned."

It was revealed that two confidential reports were provided in 2018
to Star's board, which included chief executive Matt Bekier and
chairman John O'Neill, warning the company's anti-money-laundering
risk-assessment system "does not consider terrorism financing as
required by the AML-CTF [anti-money-laundering and
counter-terrorism financing] Act." [GN]

STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Slater and Gordon Investigates Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Slater and Gordon is investigating Star Entertainment Group Limited
(SGR.AX) (Star).

Who are Slater and Gordon investigating?
Star Entertainment Group Limited (SGR.AX) (Star)

Is this relevant to me?
If you purchased or held shares in Star at any point in the last 6
years you are invited to register your interest.

What does investigating mean?
Slater and Gordon are investigating the merits of a claim against
Star but have not yet formally commenced a class action by issuing
proceedings in court. If a class action against Star is commenced
and you have registered your interest, we will get in touch with
you closer to that time and provide you with more information,
including whether you may be able to participate in the claim.

How do I express my interest?
To keep updated as the investigation progresses, register your
interest through the form below. It does not and will not cost you
anything.

Allegations
On the basis of Slater and Gordon's investigations to date, we
consider there may be a proper basis to allege that Star has been
in breach of its continuous disclosure obligations, and further
that it has made misleading or deceptive statements to the ASX.

Funding arrangements
Slater and Gordon has not finalised any funding arrangements for
this proposed proceeding. However, we can confirm that you will not
be exposed to any out of pocket costs as a result of your potential
participation at a later date, or by registering your interest in
the potential claim now.[GN]

STETSON COURIER: Hames Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hames Jr., Michael E. Hames and James Kenley, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
STETSON COURIER, INC., and JOHN STETSON, Case No. 3:21-cv-00218-KGB
(E.D. Ark., Oct. 20, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act as a result of Defendants' policy and practice of failing
to pay the Plaintiffs proper minimum wage and overtime compensation
under the FLSA and AMWA within the applicable statutory limitations
period.

The Plaintiffs and other Medical Courier Drivers were required to
drive their own vehicles to deliver pharmaceuticals. The Defendants
did not reimburse the Plaintiffs and other Medical Courier Drivers
for gas, mileage, and automobile expenses. The Plaintiffs regularly
worked more than forty hours in a week. The Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiffs and other Medical Courier Drivers 1.5x their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 each week. The
Plaintiffs and other Medical Courier Drivers were and are entitled
to lawful minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for
all hours worked over forty per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant Medical Courier
Drivers.

Stetson Courier, Inc. is a for-profit corporation registered in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Locklin Sues Over Unlawful Advertising Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Locklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a corporation; and FRUIT OF THE
EARTH, INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-07936-TSH (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 8, 2021), arises from the Defendants' unlawful labeling and
advertising of their sun care products and to dispel the public's
misconception by enjoining the Defendants' unlawful advertising
practices for the benefit of consumers.

To obtain an unfair competitive advantage in the billion-dollar
sunscreen market, the Defendants are exposing consumers and the
environment to harmful chemical active ingredients in their sun
care products by falsely labeling them as: "reef-conscious
formula." The Defendants have reaped millions of dollars through
this fraudulent scheme based on a calculated business decision to
put profits over people and the environment. Specifically, the
Defendants deceptively labels certain of their Up & Up brand kids'
and sport sunscreen products with the "reef-conscious formula"
claim to deliberately lead reasonable consumers, including
Plaintiff, to believe that the Products only contain ingredients
that are reef-safe and otherwise cannot harm reefs, including the
coral reefs and marine life that inhabits or depends on them.

The Challenged Representation has misled reasonable consumers,
including Plaintiff, into believing that the Products only contain
ingredients that are reef-safe or otherwise cannot harm reefs,
including the coral reefs and the marine life that inhabits or
depends on them. However, contrary to this labeling, the Products
actually contain Harmful Ingredients (including avobenzone,
homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene), which are chemical
ingredients that are not safe for reefs because they can harm
and/or kill reefs, including the coral reefs and the marine life
that inhabits or depends on them. Through falsely, misleadingly,
and deceptively labeling the Products, the Defendants sought to
take advantage of consumers' desire for sunscreens that are
friendly to or safe for reefs (coral reefs and marine life and
related ecosystems that inhabit or depend on coral reefs), while
reaping the financial benefits of using less desirable, harmful,
and/or less costly chemicals in the Products. The Defendants have
done so at the expense of unwitting consumers, as well as the
Defendants' lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendants
maintain an unfair competitive advantage, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products from the Defendants.

The Defendant is one of the owners, manufacturers, and/or
distributors of the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com


TRINITY OPERATING: Price Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Merlin Price, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
TRINITY OPERATING (USG), LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-03442 (S.D. Tex.,
Oct. 19, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Workers regularly worked for the
Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But the Defendant did
not pay them overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by
the FLSA, the Defendant improperly paid Price and the Day Rate
Workers a daily rate with no overtime compensation, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Safety Consultant.

Trinity is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in
the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of
hydrocarbons from multiple basins throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


UNITED GUARD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Barnes Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Barnes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED GUARD SECURITY INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 21STCV38670 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Oct. 20, 2021), is brought to seek civil penalties for
the Defendants' failure to pay wages, including overtime wages,
which violate the California Labor Code, under the Private
Attorneys General Act

The Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages,
including overtime wages, to the Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees in the State of California, as a result of requiring
employees to work off-the-clock before and after scheduled work
shifts and performing work during meal periods, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard in
the State of California.

United Guard Security Inc. provides security guard services within
the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310)553-3603


UNITED MEDICAL: Norwood Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Medical
Recovery, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Patrice Norwood,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Medical Recovery, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
4:21-cv-00134-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., Oct. 19, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

United Medical Recovery, LLC -- http://www.umrllc.com/-- is a
collection agency located in Jackson, Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEEHAN AND RAMSEY, PLLC
          429 Porter Ave
          Ocean Springs, MS 39564
          Phone: (228) 875-0572
          Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com


UNITED STATES: Class Action v. Navy Over Vaccine Mandate Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
G News reports that on Oct. 13, the Navy released its latest
administrative document stating that all active-duty Navy personnel
who have not completed vaccinations or have been granted medical or
religious exemptions by Nov. 28 will be required to retire from
active duty. Reserves in the Navy will be required to complete
their vaccinations by Dec. 28. Those who do not comply will be
transferred from their positions and will have their military
careers affected.

On Aug. 17, two months ago, Army Staff Sgt. Dan Robert, and Marine
Corps Staff Sgt. Hollie Mulvihill, filed a class action lawsuit in
Colorado District Court, naming Department of Defense officials,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as defendants. The
lawsuit makes clear that the DOD's vaccine mandate openly violates
the military's authority and is unconstitutional. In the following
week, attorneys in charge of the lawsuit stepped up efforts to add
a request for a judge to order that a temporary injunction be
issued against the program, halting all COVID vaccinations.

As the lawsuit proceeded, the Navy Administration, fearing that the
upcoming results would adversely affect the mandated vaccination
program, again pressured service members who had not received the
toxic vaccine. Meanwhile, government-level injunctions continued to
advance across industries, causing employees in the restaurant,
retail, airline service industries, teachers, police officers, and
medical personnel to leave their jobs, dealing a huge blow to the
stable social order.

Even as the deadline approaches, awakened American servicemen and
women will still choose to stand up for their beliefs and refuse to
submit to government injunctions to be vaccinated. As Cardinal
Vigano said, the COVID vaccines are still in the experimental
stage. It not only fails to provide immune protection for the human
body, but also causes a variety of serious side effects. Forcing
people to receive an experimental vaccine is a grave sin against
humanity. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Defense Department Sued Over Vaccine Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Becker, writing for Becker News, reports that the Department
of Defense is now facing a major class action lawsuit over its
Covid vaccine mandate, which forces service members, employees, and
contractors to get vaccinated or face disciplinary action or even
termination.

The class action lawsuit was filed by the Liberty Counsel in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. It lists
President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as defendants.

"Plaintiffs are United States Armed Forces servicemembers, federal
employees, and federal civilian contractors who face a deadline
under the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to receive a COVID-19
vaccine that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, and
have been refused any religious exemption or accommodation," the
lawsuit states. "United States Navy and United States Marine Corps
servicemembers have until November 28 to become fully vaccinated.
United States Army and United States Air Force servicemembers have
until December 15. United States Coast Guard servicemembers have
until November 22. And civilian federal employees and contractors
have until November 22."

"These are the terminal dates after which discipline will
unquestionably be imposed, but the effective due date for the
one-dose Johnson and Johnson (J&J) shot is earlier, and earlier
still for the first of two Pfizer or Moderna shots," the lawsuit
brief goes on. "Missing the earlier due dates will necessarily
result in discipline at the terminal dates. Moreover, the pressure
and abuse are intense, and disciplinary actions have already
commenced for some. Relief is needed now to prevent these military
heroes, federal employees, and federal contractors from facing
punishments including dishonorable discharge, court martial, other
life-altering disciplinary procedures, and termination."

"They all have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States, to sacrificially lay down their lives for
their fellow citizens against enemies both foreign and domestic,
and to preserve for our progeny the heritage and treasure passed
down to them by Veterans of old," the plaintiffs' argument
continues. "And, for that ultimate sacrifice in defense of the
Constitution and our freedoms, Defendants are threatening these
military heroes with dishonorable discharge for even requesting a
religious exemption from the COVID-19 shots. Dishonorable discharge
is worse than criminal conviction for these servicemembers because
it is a badge of disgrace that follows them for the rest of their
lives. Having sacrificed everything to defend America and its
citizenry—and while carrying the images and sounds of war with
them throughout their lives -- America, the 'land of the free and
the home of the brave,' would betray them with the worst punishment
of dishonorable discharge. And for what cause? Simply because they
seek an accommodation from the COVID-19 shots on account of their
sincerely held religious beliefs."

The lawsuit then presents the testimony of 24 military members,
contractors, and federal employees who oppose the Pentagon's
mandate. It is not the first time that the Department of Defense
was sued over the vaccine order. In August, soldiers preemptively
filed a lawsuit in court against the impending military vaccination
mandate. Those listed on the lawsuit as defendants were Secretary
of Defense Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Health & Human Services
Xavier Becerra, and Janet Woodock, Acting Commissioner of the Food
& Drug Administration.

"Plaintiffs Staff Sergeant Daniel Robert, U.S. Army, and Staff
Sergeant Holli Mulvihill, USMC, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated active duty, National Guard, and Reserve
servicemembers, as documented survivors of COVID-19, file this
action against the Department of Defense ("DoD"), seeking a
declaratory judgment that the DoD cannot force them to take a
COVID-19 vaccination under existing military regulations, federal
regulations, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution," the
plaintiffs' legal complaint states.

"The Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin (the "SECDEF") has publicly
notified Plaintiffs, via Memo, that he will seek authorization from
the President of the United States of America (the "President"), to
mandate the COVID-19 vaccine on or about September 15, 2021," the
plaintiffs note. "Upon information and belief, the DoD is already
vaccinating military members in flagrant violation of its legal
obligations and the rights of servicemembers under federal law and
the Constitution."

"Army Regulation 40-562 provides documented survivors of an
infection, a presumptive medical exemption from vaccination because
of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the
infection," the legal complaint added.

One of the doctors whose testimony was cited in the lawsuit was Dr.
Peter McCullough, M.D., who is board certified in internal medicine
and was the Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital. He stated
that in his expert opinion, vaccinating patients who already have
natural immunity does "more harm than good."

The Biden administration has quietly conceded that serious side
effects are a concern with its still-unissued federal vaccine
mandate. The Division of Federal Employees' Compensation has set up
special authorization to compensate those who are harmed by
vaccines, even as no such liability exists for private
citizens.[GN]

UNITED STATES: Kaiser Appeals Ruling in Common Ground Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Common
Ground Healthcare v. U.S., Case No. 1:17-cv-00877-KCD, in the
United States Court of Federal Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative contends, for itself and on
behalf of those similarly situated, that the federal government
ceased making the cost-sharing reduction payments to which it and
other insurers are entitled to under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act ("Affordable Care Act"), Pub. L. No. 111-148,
124 Stat. 119 (2010), and its implementing regulations.

On September 16, 2021, the Court approved in part and denied in
part Class Counsel's requests involving the approval of an
attorney's fee award of five percent, approximately $185 million of
the combined $3.7 billion judgment recovered on the Non-Dispute
Subclasses' risk corridors claims and approval of $100,000
incentive awards to both Health Republic Insurance Co. and Common
Ground Healthcare Cooperative as representatives of their
respective classes, to be paid from Class Counsel's fee.

The Objecting Class Members now seek a review of that Court order.

The appellate case is captioned as COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE
COOPERATIVE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC., KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN OF GEORGIA, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE
MID-ATLANTIC STATES, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC. OF
COLO., KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTHPLAN OF THE NW, GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE, HARKEN HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH PLAN OF
NEVADA, INC., OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NJ), INC., ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH
MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION, INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE BENEFITS
PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, UNITEDHEALTHCARE COMMUNITY PLAN, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF ALABAMA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF
COLORADO, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF FLORIDA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE
OF GEORGIA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF KENTUCKY, LTD.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF LOUISIANA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF
MISSISSIPPI, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NEW ENGLAND, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NEW YORK, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF OKLAHOMA, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE
MID-ATLANTIC, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE MIDLANDS, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE MIDWEST, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF UTAH,
INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF WASHINGTON, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF
OHIO, INC., ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE OPTIONS, INC., ALL SAVERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 22-1019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, filed on Oct. 6, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan of Georgia, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of
the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.
of Colo., Kaiser Foundation Healthplan of the NW, Group Health
Cooperative, Harken Health Insurance Company, Health Plan of
Nevada, Inc., Oxford Health Plans (NJ), Inc., Rocky Mountain Health
Maintenance Organization, Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare Benefits
Plan of California, UnitedHealthcare Community Plan, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, UnitedHealthcare Life Insurance
Company, UnitedHealthcare of Alabama, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Colorado, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc., UnitedHealthcare
of Georgia, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Kentucky, Ltd.,
UnitedHealthcare of Louisiana, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Mississippi, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New England, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of North
Carolina, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Oklahoma, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of the
Mid-Atlantic, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of the Midlands, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Utah,
Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Washington, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Ohio, Inc., Rocky Mountain HealthCare Options, Inc., All Savers
Insurance Company, and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company Inc. are
represented by:

          Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jack Burns, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6588
          E-mail: JBurns@sheppardmullin.com

UNITED STATES: Kaiser Appeals Ruling in Health Republic Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled HEALTH
REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, Case No.
16-cv-259C, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks full payment of the risk corridor payments it is entitled to
under the Affordable Care Act and the Government currently owes.

A "risk corridor" is a program designed to mitigate risk for
participants in a new insurance market by limiting both
unexpectedly high gains and losses. Modeled after a similar program
enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act that was signed into law in 2003 under President
George W. Bush, the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program
helped entice insurers to participate by offering Qualified Health
Plans ("QHPs") on the ACA's new insurance exchanges. Section 1342
of the Affordable Care Act contained two related mandatory terms
for all QHP issuers: (1) any QHP issuer/insurer agreeing to operate
on an exchange would receive compensation from the Government if
its losses exceeded a certain defined amount due to high
utilization and high medical costs; and (2) the QHP
issuers/insurers were required to pay the government a percentage
of any profits they made over similarly-defined amounts.

On September 16, 2021, the Court approved in part and denied in
part Class Counsel's requests involving the approval of an
attorney's fee award of five percent, approximately $185 million of
the combined $3.7 billion judgment recovered on the Non-Dispute
Subclasses' risk corridors claims and approval of $100,000
incentive awards to both Health Republic Insurance Co. and Common
Ground Healthcare Cooperative as representatives of their
respective classes, to be paid from Class Counsel's fee.

The Objecting Class Members now seek a review of that Court order.

The appellate case is captioned as HEALTH REPUBLIC INSURANCE
COMPANY, Plaintiff KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC., KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF GEORGIA, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF
THE MID-ATLANTIC STATES, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.
OF COLO., KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTHPLAN OF THE NW, GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE, HARKEN HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH PLAN OF
NEVADA, INC., OXFORD HEALTH PLANS (NJ), INC., ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH
MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION, INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE BENEFITS
PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, UNITEDHEALTHCARE COMMUNITY PLAN, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF ALABAMA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF
COLORADO, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF FLORIDA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE
OF GEORGIA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF KENTUCKY, LTD.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF LOUISIANA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF
MISSISSIPPI, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NEW ENGLAND, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NEW YORK, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF OKLAHOMA, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE
MID-ATLANTIC, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE MIDLANDS, INC.,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF THE MIDWEST, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF UTAH,
INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF WASHINGTON, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF
OHIO, INC., ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE OPTIONS, INC., ALL SAVERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 22-1018, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, filed on Oct. 6, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan of Georgia, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of
the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.
of Colo., Kaiser Foundation Healthplan of the NW, Group Health
Cooperative, Harken Health Insurance Company, Health Plan of
Nevada, Inc., Oxford Health Plans (NJ), Inc., Rocky Mountain Health
Maintenance Organization, Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare Benefits
Plan of California, UnitedHealthcare Community Plan, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, UnitedHealthcare Life Insurance
Company, UnitedHealthcare of Alabama, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Colorado, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc., UnitedHealthcare
of Georgia, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Kentucky, Ltd.,
UnitedHealthcare of Louisiana, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Mississippi, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New England, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of North
Carolina, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Oklahoma, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of the
Mid-Atlantic, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of the Midlands, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Utah,
Inc., UnitedHealthcare of Washington, Inc., UnitedHealthcare of
Ohio, Inc., Rocky Mountain HealthCare Options, Inc., All Savers
Insurance Company, and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company Inc. are
represented by:

          Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jack Burns, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6588
          E-mail: JBurns@sheppardmullin.com

VENUS CONCEPT: Boston Robotic Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Robotic Hair Restoration, PLLC and Melissa R. Schneider,
M.D., PC, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. VENUS CONCEPT INC., a Delaware corporation, as
successor in interest to RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-07933-JST (N.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant based on the deceptive marketing practice of its ARTAS iX
hair restoration system.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant markets and sells the
ARTAS Robotic Hair Restoration System and ARTAS iX, a robotic
device that assists physicians in performing follicular unit
extraction ("FUE") surgery. FUE surgery is a widely practiced hair
transplant procedure. A company called Restoration Robotics, later
acquired by Defendant Venus Concept, first introduced the ARTAS
Robotic Hair Restoration System to alleviate the human shortcomings
of manual FUE surgery. Restoration Robotics' flagship product is a
robot that uses artificial intelligence algorithms to identify the
best hair follicles to transplant and then employs a robotic arm to
harvest them, automating the extraction phase of FUE surgery. In
2018, Restoration Robotics revealed the newest version of its
robotic hair restoration system: the ARTAS iX. Unlike its previous
design, the ARTAS iX promised to perform all three steps of "graft
harvesting, recipient site making, and now, implantation."

Unfortunately, Defendant failed to deliver on its promises. The
ARTAS iX system does not perform the third step of the
surgery—automatic hair implantation—and this key feature of the
device has been unavailable since its release, and continues to be
unavailable for physicians to use today. The highly anticipated
(and heavily advertised) implantation technology has flaws in its
design and/or manufacturing, and these flaws present serious safety
risks to patients, preventing Defendant from fully bringing the
implantation technology to market, as advertised. Worse, Defendant
knew about these flaws in the implantation technology and concealed
them at the time it implemented its national marketing campaign
touting the ARTAS iX system as a comprehensive FUE surgery
solution. To induce physicians to purchase and continue using the
ARTAS iX device, Defendant embarked on a massive cover-up scheme by
making excuses for its inability to train physicians on how to use
the implantation feature of their devices, while knowing that the
feature did not exist or could not be used safely in practice.

As a result, physicians who purchased the ARTAS iX, like the
Plaintiffs, cannot use the ARTAS iX to perform comprehensive FUE
surgery, despite promising this to their patients through marketing
materials provided by the Defendant. They have not been able to
increase their procedure revenues as promised by Defendant and many
are on the brink of financial ruin, having paid an exorbitant
up-front payment on technology that cannot be used. Consequently,
these physicians look to their legal remedies in the hopes of
obtaining the compensation they are rightfully and legally entitled
to recover for the injuries they have suffered as a result of the
Defendant's deceptive marketing scheme. The Defendant must be held
accountable for its deceptive practices and false promises. This
class action complaint seeks to compensate purchasers of the ARTAS
iX system for their overpayments, lost revenue, and reputational
damage caused by the Defendant's malfunctioning robot, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff Boston Robotic Hair Restoration, PLLC is a
professional limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of Massachusetts.

The Defendant is a medical technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Lily Hough, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415.212.9300
          Fax: 415.373.9435
          Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                 lhough@edelson.com



VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 13
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Vipshop Holdings Limited (NYSE:
VIPS) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 13, 2021.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Vipshop class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2178.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 13, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Goldman Sachs Group
Inc. and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Vipshop shares
during the Class Period while in possession of material non-public
information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family
office with $10 billion under management) and its need to fully
liquidate its position in Vipshop because of margin call pressure.
As a result of these sales, the defendants in the case, Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley, avoided billions in losses combined.

To join the Vipshop class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2178.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

VIRGINIA: State AG's Summary Judgment Bid in Kenny Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kenny, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wilson, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-2794-MBS (D.S.C.), Judge
Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Charleston Division, denied the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Alan Wilson, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of South Carolina.

The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Plaintiffs Niya Kenny; Taurean Nesmith; Girls Rock Charleston,
Inc.; D.S., by and through her next of kin Juanita Ford; S.P., by
and through her next of kin Melissa Downs, and D.D., by and through
his next of kin, Temika Hemmingway.

Background

The Plaintiffs are or were enrolled in the South Carolina public
school system. Plaintiff Girls Rock Charleston, Inc. is a nonprofit
organization "whose members are directly impacted by and face
ongoing risk of arrest or referral under S.C. Code Section
16-17-420." Together, the Plaintiffs asserted a challenge pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that the Disturbing Schools Law, codified
at S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-17-420, is unconstitutional on its
face and the Disorderly Conduct Law, codified at S.C. Code Ann.
Section 16-17-530, is unconstitutional as applied to children in
public school grades K-12.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2019, at which
time they sought: 1) a declaratory judgment stating that the
Disturbing Schools and Disorderly Conduct Laws violate the
Fourteenth Amendment; 2) a preliminary and permanent injunction
enjoining the Defendant from enforcing both statutes; and 3) an
order enjoining the Defendant from considering and/or retaining
records of individuals prosecuted or charged under the Disturbing
Schools and Disorderly Conduct Laws, "except as would be
permissible following expungement."

Notably, the South Carolina Legislature amended the Disturbing
Schools Law on May 17, 2018. The Disturbing Schools Law in its
current form applies only to nonstudents. The Plaintiffs concede
that the amendment addresses their request "that the Court enjoins
enforcement of S.C. Code Section 16-17-420 and also resolves the
enforcement claims of Niya Kenny and Taurean Nesmith," but assert
that "the legislative amendments did not address the Plaintiffs'
request for relief from the retention of records related to the
Disturbing Schools Law or the Plaintiffs' claims related to the
Disorderly Conduct statute."

In other words, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the Disturbing
Schools Law in its current form. However, they maintain the claim
that the Disturbing Schools Law in its former iteration is
unconstitutionally vague and, on that basis, they seek relief
enjoining the Defendant from considering and/or retaining records
of individuals prosecuted or charged under the former Disturbing
Schools Law. The Plaintiffs' claims and requested remedies are
otherwise unchanged.

On Feb. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to
add D.D., a then-current South Carolina public school student
charged under the Disturbing Schools Law, as a class
representative. The court granted leave to amend, and the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding D.D. as a Plaintiff on
May 16, 2019. The original complaint was otherwise unchanged.

The case was reassigned to the undersigned on April 6, 2018,
following remand from the Fourth Circuit on the district court's
order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of Article
III standing. The district court had dismissed the complaint upon
finding that the Plaintiffs' fear of future arrest and prosecution
under the Disturbing Schools and Disorderly Conduct Laws did not
rise above the level of speculation and therefore did not
constitute an injury in fact.

The Defendant filed a renewed motion to dismiss, which the Court
denied in an order issued March 30, 2020.

On Feb. 24, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class and certified the following class with respect to the
plaintiffs' request for an injunction against enforcement of the
Disorderly Conduct Law: All elementary and secondary school
students in South Carolina, each of whom faces a risk of arrest or
juvenile referral under the broad and overly vague terms of S.C.
Code Section 16-17-530 while attending school (Enforcement Class).

The Court additionally certified two injunctive relief sub-classes
for purposes of obtaining an injunction against retention of
records under both S.C. Code Section 16-17-420 and S.C. Code
Section 16-17-530, as follows: All elementary and secondary school
students in South Carolina for whom a record exists relating to
being taken into custody, charges filed, adjudication, or
disposition under S.C. Code Section 16-17-530 (Disorderly Conduct
Law Sub-Class); and All elementary and secondary school students in
South Carolina for whom a record exists relating to being taken
into custody, charges.

The parties proceeded with discovery and, on July 23, 2021, filed
cross motions for summary judgment. The parties now agree that
Plaintiffs Kenny and Nesmith, who proceed in this lawsuit as
individuals, should be dismissed from the action. The parties
completed the briefing of their summary judgment motions on Sept.
1, 2021, and the Court heard oral argument by telephone on Oct. 4,
2021.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs assert that the former Disturbing Schools Law is
unconstitutionally vague on its face and that the Disorderly
Conduct Law is unconstitutionally vague as applied to elementary
and secondary school students in South Carolina. The Defendant
asserts that "the case is essentially a facial challenge," because,
"although the challenge to the disorderly conduct statute is as
applied to elementary and secondary students, it is applicable to
that very large population rather than to individuals." "In
evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must
consider any limiting construction that a state court or
enforcement agency has proffered." The parties conceded at oral
argument that the outcome of the lawsuit would not change based on
whether the Court characterizes the challenge as one that is facial
or one that is as applied.

The Plaintiffs carry the burden of showing the challenged laws are
void for vagueness; however, that burden does not require a showing
that the laws are incapable of any valid application. The Laws at
issue impose criminal penalties for prohibited conduct and their
scope reaches expression protected by the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the due process doctrine of vagueness requires "a
greater degree of specificity," and the Court applies a stricter
standard to its review.

I. Mootness

As an initial matter, Judge Seymour notes that the Court previously
addressed and dismissed the Defendant's argument that a Plaintiff's
claim becomes moot upon the individual graduating from or otherwise
leaving the school system. It is presently unclear whether D.D.,
D.S., or S.P. are still students enrolled in the South Carolina
school system. However, as the Plaintiffs argued before the court
in opposition to the Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss and
again during oral argument on the cross motions for summary
judgment, the claims herein at issue are inherently transitory such
that Plaintiffs likely do not possess a personal stake in the
lawsuit long enough for litigation to run its course.

The lawsuit has been pending over five years, during which time an
appeal was heard before the Fourth Circuit and the case was
reassigned to a second district court judge. The Court certified
the class and sub-classes as recently as Feb. 24, 2021. Indeed, the
undisputed record reflects that "more than half (58.1%) of youth
charged with disorderly conduct in schools were between the ages of
15 and 16." This statistic, according to Judge Seymour, lends
support to the finding that a student is likely to age out of the
school system before his or her claim could be fully litigated and
resolved. She reaffirms the Court's prior ruling that the named
Plaintiffs' claims are not moot.

II. The Disorderly Conduct Law

The Plaintiffs assert that the terms "disorderly" and "boisterous
manner" render subsection (a) unconstitutionally vague as a matter
of law when applied to elementary and secondary students because
such terms fail "to provide students with notice of when their
behavior will be considered criminal" and they "encourage arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement." The Defendant asserts that the
Disorderly Conduct Law has "been in force for decades," is "applied
to only a tiny percentage of students annually," and is an
important "tool of law enforcement in dealing with disruptive and
fighting students." It asserts that "language alone is not a basis
for charging a person under Section 16-17-530 unless fighting words
are used," and contends that the Law is similar in nature and scope
to "numerous disorderly conduct statutes and ordinances of other
states [that] have been upheld as not unconstitutionally vague." In
reply, the Plaintiffs contend that the "severe and stigmatizing
adverse consequences" for schoolchildren charged under the
Disorderly Conduct Law "are relevant to the Court's consideration,
and due process requires a correspondingly high standard of
certainty in the terms of the laws."

Judge Seymour agrees that the terms "disorderly," "boisterous
manner," and "obscene and profane language" are unconstitutionally
vague on their face as applied to primary and secondary school
students because the statute fails to provide both sufficient
notice of what conduct is prohibited and a standard for
enforcement. The conduct the Defendant references is serious in
nature, as is the State's responsibility to protect the children
and adults who populate its schools. However, the State has a
constitutional responsibility to draft a law that addresses with
specificity the concerns Defendant raises.

Judge Seymour holds that the Disorderly Conduct Law provides no
discernable standard for applying and enforcing it to the State's
elementary and secondary school students. Furthermore, the
undisputed record reflects that the lack of any such standard has
resulted in a disproportionate number of students of color and
students living with a disability being charged under the Law.
Accordingly, Judge Seymour finds that the Law is unconstitutionally
vague on its face as applied to elementary and secondary school
students in South Carolina.

III. The Former Disturbing Schools Law

As with the Disorderly Conduct Law, the Plaintiffs argue that the
terms in subsection (1) to "interfere with or to disturb in any
way," to "loiter," and "to act in an obnoxious manner" render the
former Disturbing Schools Law unconstitutionally vague because the
law provides no objective standard by which to measure what
behavior is criminal and what is not. The Defendant argues that the
challenged terms are not impermissibly vague because they "are all
limited by the requirement that a person engage in these acts
`willfully or unnecessarily,'" and are additionally limited to
conduct that disrupts the learning environment, as construed by the
South Carolina Supreme Court in In re Amir X.S., 639 S.E.2d 144,
148-49 (S.C. 2006).

Judge Seymour finds that the former Disturbing Schools Law is
unconstitutionally vague on its face as applied to elementary and
secondary school students in South Carolina. She says, the
Defendant has not overcome the clear absence of an objective
standard necessary to distinguish between typical childhood and
adolescent behavior and the sort of conduct that is criminally
prohibited. And, as with the Disorderly Conduct Law, the undisputed
record reflects that the lack of any such standard has resulted in
a disproportionate number of students of color and students living
with a disability being charged under the former Law.

As a final matter, Judge Seymour notes the Defendant's contention
that, "to take away the tools that law enforcement has and leave
matters up to school disciplinary policy poses a risk to other
students and school personnel." But the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that these tools, insofar as the Defendant refers to
the challenged statutes, abridge the fundamental right held by the
school-aged children to know what conduct is criminally prohibited.
These tools furthermore encourage if not cause arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement, as reflected by the undisputed record,
because they provide law enforcement with no standard for
application. The record further demonstrates that the charge
itself, even absent a conviction, carries long lasting and
deleterious effects. The State is capable of fashioning its law
enforcement tools to address specifically for the school context
what conduct it would criminalize and the standard by which the
prohibition should be applied, and the Constitution requires no
less.

Conclusion

Judge Seymour dismissed Plaintiffs Kenny and Nesmith from the
action. She denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

The State's enforcement of S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-17-530 is
permanently enjoined as to elementary and secondary school students
in South Carolina while they are attending school.

The State is permanently enjoined from retaining the records of the
Disorderly Conduct Law Sub-Class and the Disturbing Schools Law
Sub-Class, relating to being taken into custody, charges filed,
adjudication, or disposition under S.C. Code Ann. Section
16-17-420, prior to May 17, 2018, and under S.C. Code Ann. Section
16-17-530, except as would be permissible following expungement
under S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-1-40.

The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of
addressing issues that should arise with respect to implementation
of the Injunctions and to enforce the Injunctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2kcjnxsj from Leagle.com.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dornay Files Suit in D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Gellert Dornay, Mark Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant; Berla
Corporation, Movant; Case No. 1:21-cv-02698-RDB (D. Md., Oct. 20,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Quash.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. --
https://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/ -- markets and
distributes automobiles and auto parts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Movant is represented by:

          Timothy J McEvoy, Esq.
          CAMERON MCEVOY PLLC
          4100 Monument Corner Drive, Suite 420
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 273-8898
          Fax: (703) 273-8897
          Email: tmcevoy@cameronmcevoy.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO R. GARCIA, DUANE
K. GLOVER, PAUL E. JACOBSON, GAETANO CALISE, MYKHAYLO I.
HOLOVATYUK, BRIAN GARCIA, PAUL THOMSON, and DAVID HARTMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. a/k/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., and
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 1:19-cv-00331-LO-MSN (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following classes and subclasses:

   -- Mileage Fraud Class

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded vehicle
      from an authorized Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the
      United States between January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019,
      for which Volkswagen recorded ten miles of usage on the
      application for original title, but for which the actual
      milage exceeded ten miles at the time of application for
      original titling;"

   -- Mileage Fraud CPO Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle from an authorized Volkswagen or Audi
      dealership in the United States between June 1, 2011, and
      October 31, 2018, for which Volkswagen recorded ten miles
      of usage on the application for original title, but for
      which the actual milage exceeded ten miles at the time of
      application for original titling;"

   -- Certification Class

      All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle from an authorized Volkswagen or Audi
      dealership in the United States between January 1, 2007,
      and March 21, 2019, that was manufactured using steering
      code S99, S98, ST3, SL2, SL3, SJ0, SZ1, SG0, SZ2, SF9,
      S8I, S0B, S0E, S0T or X9X;"

   -- Certification California Subclass

      All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in California from an authorized
      Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the United States between
      January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019, that was
      manufactured using steering code S99, S98, ST3, SL2, SL3,
      SJ0, SZ1, SG0, SZ2, SF9, S8I, S0B, S0E, S0T or X9X.

   -- Certification Colorado Subclass

      All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in Colorado from an authorized
      Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the United States between
      January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019, that was manufactured
      using steering code S99, S98, ST3, SL2, SL3, SJ0, SZ1,
      SG0, SZ2, SF9, S8I, S0B, S0E, S0T or X9X.

   -- Certification Florida Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in Florida from an authorized Volkswagen
      or Audi dealership in the United States between January 1,
      2007, and March 21, 2019, that was manufactured using
      steering code S99, S98, ST3, SL2, SL3, SJ0, SZ1, SG0, SZ2,
      SF9, S8I, S0B, S0E, S0T or X9X.

   -- Certification New Jersey Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in New Jersey from an authorized
      Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the United States between
      January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019, that was manufactured
      using steering code S99, S98, ST3, SL2, SL3, SJ0, SZ1,
      SG0, SZ2, SF9, S8I, S0B, S0E, S0T or X9X;"

   -- Certification Washington Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded
      Certified Pre-Owned vehicle in Washington from an
      authorized Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the United
      States between January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019, that
      was manufactured using steering code S99, S98, ST3, SL2,
      SL3, SJ0, SZ1, SG0, SZ2, SF9, S8I, S0B, S0E, S0T or X9X;"

   -- Alterations Class

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle from an authorized Volkswagen or Audi
      dealership in the United States between January 1, 2007,
      and March 21, 2019, which vehicle was damaged and required
      $1,000 or more in repairs after the date of manufacture
      but prior to sale as a CPO vehicle and that was sold
      without an alterer's certificate.

   -- Alterations California Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in California from an authorized
      Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the United States between
      January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019, which vehicle was
      damaged and required $1,000 or more in repairs after the
      date of manufacture but prior to sale as a CPO vehicle and
      that was sold without an alterer's certificate;"

   -- Alterations Florida Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in Florida from an authorized Volkswagen
      or Audi dealership in the United States between January 1,
      2007, and March 21, 2019, which vehicle was damaged and
      required $1,000 or more in repairs after the date of
      manufacture but prior to sale as a CPO vehicle and that
      was sold without an alterer's certificate;" and

   -- Alterations Washington Subclass

      "All persons who purchased a Volkswagen-branded Certified
      Pre-Owned vehicle in Washington from an authorized
      Volkswagen or Audi dealership in the United States between
      January 1, 2007, and March 21, 2019, which vehicle was
      damaged and required $1,000 or more in repairs after the
      date of manufacture but prior to sale as a CPO vehicle and
      that was sold without an alterer's certificate."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Michael J. Melkersen
and Motley Rice LLC as class counsel.

Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZgiXXp
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Melkersen, Esq.
          5 Surfside Road -- Palmas Del Mar
          Humacao, PR 00791
          Telephone: (540) 435-2375
          Facsimile: (540) 740-8851
          E-mail: mike@mlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9440
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
                  kdean@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Robert Friedman, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Taylor, Esq.
          Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          2001 K Street NW, Suite 850 North
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: robert@guptawessler.com
                  jon@guptawessler.com
                  matt@guptawessler.com

WAYNE, MI: Asks Court to Reconsider Portion of Sept. 30 Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM, STEPHANIE
WILSON, and ROBERT REEVES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No.
2:20-cv-10288-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order reconsidering the portion of the Court's September
30, 2021 Order that permitted Plaintiff Stephanie Wilson to pursue
claims regarding the January 2019 seizure.

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XGacWo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Davidde A. Stella, Esq.
          James W. Heath, Esq.
          WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
          500 Griswold St., 30th Floor
          Detroit MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 224-5030
          E-mail: dstella@waynecounty.com

WELLS FARGO: Echard Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Echard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo &
Company, Case No. 4:21-cv-06984, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Oct. 19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05080-SDM-KAJ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an
American multinational financial services company with corporate
headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters
in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States
and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alyssa Lee Koepfgen, Esq.
          Eric D Lowney, Esq.
          Marc Zemel, Esq.
          Meredith A Crafton, Esq.
          Savannah Rose, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC
          2317 E JOHN ST
          SEATTLE, WA 98112
          Phone: (206) 860-2883
          Fax: (206) 860-4187
          Email: alyssa@smithandlowney.com
                 knoll@smithandlowney.com
                 marc@smithandlowney.com
                 meredith@smithandlowney.com
                 savannah@smithandlowney.com

               - and -

          Bernard Pavel Wolfsdorf, Esq.
          WOLFSDORF ROSENTHAL LLP
          1416 2nd Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 570-4088
          Fax: (310) 570-4080
          Email: bernard@wolfsdorf.com

               - and -

          Knoll Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH AND LOWNEY, PLLC
          2317 East John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Phone: (206) 860-2976
          Email: knoll@smithandlowney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason E Manning, Esq.
          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          222 Central PArk Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Phone: (757) 687-7500
          Email: Jason.Manning@troutman.com
                 john.lynch@troutman.com

               - and -

          Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
          Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 477-5700
          Fax: (415) 477-5710
          Email: kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
                 elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com

               - and -

          Miles C. Bludorn, Esq.
          Franklin Dennis Cordell, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          600 UNIVERSITY STREET, STE 2915
          SEATTLE, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 467-6477
          Fax: (206) 467-6292
          Email: mbludorn@gordontilden.com
                 fcordell@gordontilden.com


[*] Asset Recovery in Class Action Market Continue to Expand
------------------------------------------------------------
Christi Cannon of Broadridge Global Class Action Services reports
that as international securities class action filings continue to
expand, so do opportunities for investor asset recovery through the
global class action market. Unfortunately, most investors fail to
maximize recoveries – or even participate -- due to insufficient
information and the complexities of the claim-filing process.

Overall, we are watching asset recovery trends continue upwards. In
2019, more than 460 securities class action cases were filed across
eight jurisdictions globally. The U.S. -- the world's most active
market -- accounted for a record 428 of those cases, marking the
third consecutive year U.S. filings exceeded 400. In 2020, a
challenging year on all fronts, just 350 securities class actions
were filed in the U.S. -- an 18 percent decrease in filings from
2019. The decline, however, is primarily attributable to a drop in
merger objection cases. Further, despite that dip in filings in
2020, investors still saw the highest median settlement awards
recorded in a full decade, keeping with the trend of increasing
annual median settlement values (and thus increasing individual
case settlement values). Recoveries to investors were material in
both years -- over $4 billion in 2019 and more than $6 billion in
2020.

As investors look for unprecedented recoveries and more countries
embrace group proceedings, there is every indication the securities
class action market will continue to grow, and investors are paying
attention. Here's why.

Class Action asset recovery holds enormous financial potential for
investors. Advisers are increasingly asked to offer a solution to
recover monetary losses tied to class action settlements. And, with
today's global environmental, social and governance issues
frequently litigated through the securities class action mechanism,
many investors view participation in settlement opportunities as a
means to execute on their ESG missions, in addition to recovery of
significant monetary opportunities.

Beyond ESG and financial gains potential, investment advisers are
recognizing what engaged institutional investors like pension funds
have long known: recovering investment assets through the
securities class action settlement process is part of their
stewardship obligation for customer funds.

How Do Advisers Determine Their Obligations in the Class Action
Claims Filing Context?
Courts and regulators have acknowledged a fiduciary duty to provide
investors notice of their right to participate in a class action
settlement but have stopped short of outlining precise obligations
financial institutions have in the class action
portfolio-monitoring and claim contexts.

How, then, do financial institutions evaluate their obligations in
response to global class action opportunities? It comes down to
meeting regulatory and contractual requirements and staying
competitive.

For institutional investors such as RIAs, private equity managers,
pension funds, and hedge funds, obligations may be evaluated in the
context of stated fiduciary duties. The SEC's 2019 Interpretation
Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers defines
fiduciary duty of care to encompass advice and monitoring for the
investment throughout the course of the relationship. Many
institutions view their obligations to recover assets in active
class action matters as inextricably linked to this responsibility.
Further, under recent updates to standard of care obligations,
advisers should consider whether the recovery of an investor's
financial assets is on equal standing to the investor's right to
vote on corporate actions. Where real-dollar asset recovery
opportunities exist, investors expect comparable levels of care and
service will be deployed on their behalf.

Customer contractual obligations also drive adviser evaluations of
their obligations in the class action claims filing and recovery
context. As you would expect, each adviser client brings unique
contractual requirements to its consideration of how to be
compliant in this space.

Perhaps the most compelling intelligence on the duties owed to
investors is rooted in the expectations of the investors
themselves. According to a 2020 survey by Broadridge Financial
Solutions,1 94% of North American investors expect their advisers
to behave like fiduciaries. Investor expectation in this regard is
increasing from already high levels over the past decade. An SEC
study conducted by RAND in 2008 reported that between 42% and 59%
of investors assume their adviser is required by law to act in
their best interests, regardless of the category of adviser or the
actual legal requirements or regulatory schema to which the adviser
is subject.

Thus, customer expectation on its own is a significant driver of
participation in global class action asset recovery. Financial
institutions that hire Broadridge to manage class action recovery
report that their competitors are offering such services. And for
many, that is enough to end the evaluation, driving a commitment to
global class action services to stay competitive and avoid
attrition.

Benefits of a Proactive Approach
While the securities class action recovery environment is shifting,
some segments have remained somewhat reactive. Accordingly, as
advisers move more into this space, they also recognize that
growing volumes, recoveries, and complexities warrant a
centralized, proactive approach.

A well-defined investment recovery policy, proven processes, and
fulsome reporting will promote efficiency, security, and
accountability in class action claims. This is especially important
where internal stakeholders across IT, data management, operations,
finance, and legal/compliance all have an interest in recoveries
obtained via class action claims. Further, if an entity is
providing shareholder communications, account reporting and class
action services via multiple providers, centralizing these services
with one provider may promote best InfoSec and data privacy
practices, as well as serve the needs for stakeholder reporting and
predictability. Given the evolving global data privacy landscape,
security and transparency are critical for institutions managing
personally identifiable information and private financial
information.

For the investment adviser, class action asset recovery efforts
enhance client trust, build loyalty, and promote client retention
and referrals. Recoveries in this context can support performance
indicators, adding to an adviser's assets under management, a key
indicator of success, or directly increasing client account
returns. And clients not only stand to receive substantial monetary
recoveries, but they can rest assured their hard-fought investments
are returned to them, rather than being distributed elsewhere
without their consent.

Ready for Next: Preparing for Proactive Class Action Recovery
As investors recognize the potential for asset recovery and the
demand for class action recovery services grows, advisers can
expect to receive more requests to support these services.
Fortunately, they do not have to build internal workflows, invest
in technology or add headcount to stay compliant and competitive in
this space. But they do have to choose the right partners.

Where possible, advisers should centralize services with a proven
partner that has the right blend of data security, global Fintech
gravitas, shareholder engagement focus, and class action
experience. Look for a partner who understands the intricacies of
complex securities litigation and claims management, and who can
conduct informed and valid cost/benefit analyses of participation
in class action asset recovery opportunities when appropriate.

Today's investors are increasingly interested in working with
financial advisers who are committed to advocating aggressively to
maximize their investment performance. Fund managers, custodian
banks, broker-dealers and other advisers have a unique opportunity
to stay competitive and meet a growing need in the class action
space, creating meaningful market differentiation, building client
loyalty, and outpacing the competition. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***