/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211109.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 218

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Richards Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
A2 HOSTING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACTS-AVIATION: Alfaro Hits Missed Breaks, Seeks Reimbursements
AETNA INC: Redstone Sues Over Wrongfully Denied Benefits

ALOHAT LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AM SOLAR: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
AMARIN CORPORATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
AMARIN CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
AMAZON.COM: Adams Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Cook Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN FIRST: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates
AMERICAN NEEDLE: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANDREWS MCMEEL: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Orshan Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 15, 2022

ARCHER DANIELS: Time Extension to Oppose AOT Class Cert. Bid Sought
ARGENT TRUST: Placht Sues Over Losses Under Stock Ownership Plan
AUSTRALIA: Boigu and Saibai Residents File Climate Change Suit
BAYER AG: Judge Narrows Claims in Securities Class Action
BAYSIDE CHICKEN: Qi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BEACH ENERGY: Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit Mulled
BENITEZ RMB: Rebar Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
BIC USA: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Reminds of December 21 Deadline

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 22 Deadline
BLACK DOG: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACK OPAL: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Class Action Pending in New York
BLK & BOLD: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BLUEHOST INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline
CAMILLE ROSE: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANVIIY LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAR2GO CANADA: November 24 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

CARGILL MEAT: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Class Action
CEREBRAL INC: Stein Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
CFAP HOLDINGS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLASSPASS INC: Sued in N.Y. Over False Business Partnership Claims
COLLECTO INC: Davis Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 21, 2022

CREDIT CORP: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah
CROWN JEWELERS: Suleiman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
DELEK LOGISTICS: Sanders Class Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
DOZEN COUSINS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DUDE PERFECT: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELIOR INC: Taitts Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Nov. 22 Class Cert Hearing in DiMercurio
FREDERICK HART: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Elliott Sues Over Defective Vehicle Headlights

GENEWIZ LLC: Reca-Hernandez Sues Over Lost Wages
GEO GROUP: Perez Sues Over Failure to Lawfully Pay Owed Wages
GIBSON OVERSEAS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: February 24, 2022 Settlement Hearing Set
GREGORY FUNDING: Charges Improper Forbearance Fees, Sabherwal Says

HARLO ELMHURST: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
HEARTLAND COCA-COLA: Wilcoxson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HELLOFRESH SE: Court Approves $14MM Class Action Settlement
HOEGH LNG: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of December 27 Deadline
HORIZON HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Moncton Oxytocin Class Action

HORIZON HOUSE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Cyberattack
HOSTGATOR.COM LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INGRAMS WATER: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INMOTION HOSTING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

J.B. HUNT: Wilson Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
JOE BRANDS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOSEPH P. DIPINO: Umar Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JUAN CARLOS ARRIETA: Lawrence Files Medical Malpractice Suit
JUUL LABS: Cypress School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction

JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Coronado School Says
JUUL LABS: Vista School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in California
KARI GRAN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KASPERSKY LAB: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KATE QUINN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

KINDER MORGAN: Pedersen Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
LAGRANGE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAXMI BEAUTY: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Parpariam Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida
LEMON PERFECT: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LRN CORP: Prickett Jones Seeks Counsel Role in Class Action
LUCKIN COFFEE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $175MM
MADE MODERN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARATHON REFINING: Stipulated Class Cert. Deadlines in Wood OK'd
METALS CO: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline

METROPOLITAN COLLEGE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MG BILLING: Vandiver Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Card Charges
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Tyler Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
MIDLAND CREDIT: Fennell Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
MIDLAND FUNDING: Pereda-Masson Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

MONICA AND ANDY: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MRS BPO: Ct. Extends Time to File Class Cert. Response in Rosenberg
MY GREEN MATTRESS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAIL KITCHEN: Boothe Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Kovich Class Status Bid Filing Due Nov. 22

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Dunn Files Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Employees File Suit Over Vaccine Mandate
O'REILLLY AUTOMOTIVE: Aguilar Suit Removed to E.D. California
OPTIC GAMING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORGANIC MATTRESS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ORGANIC MATTRESSES: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OSIRIS MARKETING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Cal.
PACIFIC SHAVING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Still Defends Rebolledo Suit
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Haston Bid to Certify Class Junked as Moot

POOLTOGETHER INC: Kent Sues Over Illegal Lottery Operations
RAYTHEON TECH: Class Action Over UTC Equity Awards Underway
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
RITE AID: Burch Suit Removed to C.D. California

ROBERT C. ELDRED: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Traders Sue Over Repeated Trading Outages
RODNEY MESRIANI: Manvelian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RUGBY FOOTBALL: Former Players to Launch Concussion Class Action
SEAWORLD PARKS: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Refund Class Action

SECURITY PAVING: Midstate Barrier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SHARE NOW: Settles Class Action Suit Over Driver Protection Fee
SOLLIS HEALTH: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPEED FANATIX: Olejniczak Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPYGLASS LLC: Loera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Court Enters Class Cert. Sched in Munguia
STATE FARM: Pedersen Has Until Feb. 18, 2022 to File Class Cert Bid
STOP & SHOP: OLeary Files Suit in S.D. New York
SUBARU CORP: Class Action Over Tree Air Fresh Freshener Tossed
SWADDLEDESIGNS LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SYVROS RESTAURANT: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TEA LIVING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TILT HOLDINGS: November 29 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
TNT CRANE: Sanchez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TWITTER INC: Class Action Settlement Hits Third Quarter Results

UNITED STATES: Hanford Site Workers to Sue Over Vaccine Mandate
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Settles Class Suit Over Hiring Scheme
UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VAIL RESORTS: Employees Join FLSA Class Action in Colorado
VIATRIS INC: Gill Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme to Maintain Monopoly

VIATRIS INC: Ipson Sues Over Monopoly in EpiPen Autoinjector Market
WISE MEDICAL: Fortin Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
YOGAFORCE LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Salazar Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
ZERO FLAKES: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

[*] Class Action Industry in Australia Fights New Bill
[*] IADC Files Submissions on Class Action Reform in Canada
[*] Sault Ste. Marie Waits for Certification of Opioid Class Suit

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03625-RMG
(D.S.C., November 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Richards Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Allan Richards, 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-03447-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 20,
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 testicular 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


A2 HOSTING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A2 Hosting, Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. A2 Hosting, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09004 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

A2 Hosting -- https://www.a2hosting.com/ -- is a web hosting
company in Pittsfield Charter Township, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


ACTS-AVIATION: Alfaro Hits Missed Breaks, Seeks Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elmer Alfaro and Christine Williams, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACTS-Aviation Security,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STOV39474 (Cal. Super., October 26, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and
interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related
expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Alfaro and Williams worked for ACTS-Aviation as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
      Sydney A. Adams, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310)531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             tagore@maternlawgroup.com
             sadams@maternlawgroup.com


AETNA INC: Redstone Sues Over Wrongfully Denied Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Redstone, M.D., as an authorized representative and
attorney-in-fact of his patient D.R., and WAYNE LEE, M.D., as an
authorized representative and attorney-in-fact of his patient C.F.,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AETNA, INC. and AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-19434 (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2021), is brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of
similarly situated members of Aetna Plans whose claims for benefits
were wrongfully denied based on Aetna's failure to reimburse NAP
Providers at the NAP Rates for services rendered to Aetna members
covered under NAP Plans.

Many of Aetna's Plans participate in the National Advantage Program
("NAP"). Through NAP, Aetna contracts with several national
third-party "NAP Vendors" to access their provider networks and
contracted rates. These NAP Vendors include Multiplan and Beech
Street, who administer third-party "rental" or "wrapper" networks.
This case solely involves Aetna's plans that purport to reduce
costs for plan sponsors and members by providing access to
providers and contracted rates through NAP Vendors (Aetna's "NAP
Plans").

For its NAP Plans, Aetna is required to pay providers who contract
with its NAP Vendors ("NAP Providers") at the rates set forth in
the contracts between those providers and the NAP Vendor (the "NAP
Rates") as a priority over any other payment methodology used by
that Plan to calculate benefits for ONET services. NAP Rates are
generally a negotiated percentage based reduction from the
provider's normal charges. In consideration for accepting payment
at the NAP Rates from Aetna for covered services, NAP Providers
must agree to not bill the patient for the difference between the
provider's normal charge and the NAP Rate (i.e., no balance
billing). To qualify for Aetna's contracted NAP Rates, the expense
must be covered under the plan and the provider must submit the
charge to process at the NAP Rate before billing the member
directly.

Nevertheless, Aetna routinely and consistently fails to reimburse
NAP Providers at the NAP Rates for services rendered to Aetna
members covered under NAP Plans. Through this conduct, Aetna
violated its obligations under ERISA. This results in NAP providers
being underpaid, insureds having increased monetary responsibility
for the services at issue, and Aetna (and in some instances, its
self-insured clients) benefitting financially from the underpayment
of these claims. Further, Aetna charges its plan sponsor clients
"access fees" for the NAP program, which Aetna fails to properly
administer for plan sponsors and their members. Based on its role
in both administering benefits and benefitting financially from the
underpayment of claims, Aetna has an inherent conflict of interest
requiring heightened scrutiny of its actions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Dr. Redstone is a board-certified plastic surgeon
who's patient D.R. was insured through a NAP Plan administered by
Aetna.

Aetna is in the business of insuring and administering health
plans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Leardi, Esq.
          Nicole P. Allocca, Esq.
          Frank X. Wukovits, Esq.
          BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER LLC
          212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: 609-799-5150

               - and -

          Leslie Howard, Esq.
          COHEN HOWARD, LLP
          766 Shrewsbury Ave., Suite 200
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Phone: 732-747-5202'


ALOHAT LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alohat, LLC. The case
is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alohat, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08950
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Alohat, LLC doing business as melin HYDRO is designed for those
outdoor enthusiasts who want a hat that they can wear to the beach,
the mountains, and everywhere in between.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


AM SOLAR: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that so here's a quick
"litigation from beyond the grave" story for Halloween week.

A class action was certified against a company selling solar
products back in 2017.

Apparently the company used a ViciDial predictive dialer to make
897,534 calls to 220,007 different cell phone numbers. All of these
calls were made without consent.

The class representative was looking at a great case (about
$500,000,000.00 in damages) until he died in 2019, making it tough
to pursue the litigation.

His lawyers, however, sought to substitute class representatives.
And in Estate of O'Shea v. Am. Solar Sols., Inc., Case No.:
14cv894-L-RBB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199171 (S.D. Cal. October 15,
2021) the Court approved his wife to take over as the new class
representative.

While some courts have concluded that a TCPA case expires with the
person bringing it, the O'Shea court concluded that the TCPA is
remedial in nature - notwithstanding the plainly punitive nature of
the statutory damages - and that TCPA claims, therefore, survive
the death of the called party.

Notably, the case is in the midst of a class action settlement
proceeding (apparently on very favorable terms) and the motion to
substitute was a joint motion. As a result the Court rather readily
found the new Plaintiff also met the typicality and adequacy
requirements. (Not sure that would happen on an opposed motion.)

So there you go, another court finds that TCPA cases live on after
the demise of the Plaintiff. [GN]

AMARIN CORPORATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 26 disclosed that
purchasers of Amarin Corporation plc (NASDAQ: AMRN) securities
between December 5, 2018 and June 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until December 23, 2021 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Amarin class action lawsuit. Commenced on October
21, 2021 in the District of New Jersey, the Amarin class action
lawsuit - Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, No. 21-cv-19212 - charges
Amarin and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Amarin class action
lawsuit, 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 Amarin class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than December
23, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company whose lead
product since 2008 is Vascepa(R) (AMR-101). Going into the Class
Period, Vascepa stood to have patent protection until 2030, when
the last patent was set to expire. At the same time, Amarin was
engaged in patent litigation against applicants who submitted
Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDA") for generic drug
products of Vascepa - exposing the Company to real risks related to
the validity and scope of coverage in its patent portfolio.

The Amarin class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) there was an increasingly high risk that
certain of Amarin's patents would be invalidated; (ii) once the
court invalidated certain of Amarin's patents, there was little to
no chance of reversing that ruling; (iii) Amarin's litigation was
preventing it from effectuating a successful takeover; (iv)
defendants were downplaying the true threat the ongoing ANDA
litigation posed to Amarin's business and future prospects; and (v)
as a result, Amarin's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 30, 2020, Amarin announced that "the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada[] rul[ed] in favor of the
generic companies in the company's patent litigation against two
filers of abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, for Amarin's
VASCEPA(R) (icosapent ethyl) capsule franchise." On this news,
Amarin's share price fell by more than 70%.

Then, on September 2, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit held an oral argument for Amarin's patent
litigation. The following day, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
district court's ruling. As the oral argument had progressed and
the Federal Circuit's ruling had become known to investors,
Amarin's share price fell by more than 34%.

Thereafter, on April 12, 2021, Amarin announced the retirement of
Amarin's President and CEO, defendant John F. Thero. On this news,
Amarin's share price fell by more than 14%.

Finally, on June 21, 2021, investors learned "that the Supreme
Court rejected the company's bid to revive Vascepa patents." On
this news, Amarin's share price fell an additional 8.3%, further
damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Amarin
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Amarin 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 Amarin class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Amarin class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Amarin 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
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

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

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

AMARIN CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 26
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Amarin Corporation plc (NASDAQ:
AMRN) between December 5, 2018 and June 21, 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 23, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Amarin 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 Amarin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2186.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 23, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an increasingly high
risk that certain of Amarin's patents would be invalidated; (2)
defendants were downplaying the true threat the ongoing Abbreviated
New Drug Applications ("ANDA") litigation posed to the Company's
business and future prospects; (3) the Company's litigation was
preventing it from effectuating a successful takeover; (4) once the
District Court invalidated certain of Amarin's patents, there was
little to no chance of reversing that ruling; and (5) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Amarin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2186.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.

Contacts:
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]

AMAZON.COM: Adams Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.Com, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Anthony Adams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon.com
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05858 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Amazon.com, Inc. -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICAHEL D. SMITH P.C.
          231 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 546-6138
          Email: msmith@smithlawchicago.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Cook Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express. The
case is styled as Jessica Cook, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. American Express, Case No. 1:21-cv-08935
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The American Express Company -- http://www.americanexpress.com/--
is a multinational corporation specialized in payment card services
headquartered at 200 Vesey Street in the Battery Park City
neighborhood of Lower Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


AMERICAN FIRST: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
American First Finance is an unlicensed lender that deceives
consumers into receiving loans with interest rates that exceed the
maximum legal limit, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Larry Facio claims American First Finance is not licensed
to provide loans in California and fails to disclose the essential
terms of the loans they unlawfully offer.

Facio wants to represent a California Class of consumers who
purchased goods or services from retail businesses affiliated with
the lender who are, or who the company claims to be bound to its
security agreement.

American First Finance Hid Terms, Charged 'Exorbitant' Interest,
Claims Class Action
The plaintiff says he was never informed his purchase was being
financed by American First Finance or what the financing terms
would be when he bought tires for his car at Roseville Wheels &
Tires in 2017.

Facio claims he was told he would not have to pay any interest on
the tires if he paid in full within 100 days, however, he ended up
being charged an "exorbitant" interest rate for his purchase and
was only informed his loan had been assigned to American First
Finance after he contacted the retailer.

"Had he known of the interest rates and other terms of the
financing, Mr. Facio would have refused to complete the
transaction," states the class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff says he was made to sign a security agreement at the
time of his purchase, but that he was never shown the financing
terms.

"Mr. Facio was not informed about AFF and believed that his
payments would be made to Roseville Wheels & Tires," states the
class action lawsuit. "He was not shown the face of the computer to
know what he was authorizing by e-signing on the small electronic
pad."

American First Finance later provided documents to Facio which
showed the purchase contract was not manually assigned, but instead
was computer generated, according to the class action lawsuit.

The documents also stipulated that he could only contact the lender
to discuss the terms of his loan, the class action lawsuit
alleges.

Facio claims retailers go along with the "fraudulent and illegal"
scheme because it helps them sell their products or services to
customers who want to use a payment plan the company wouldn't
otherwise be able to offer.

"AFF recruits new merchants with the claim that merchants who offer
AFF loans can 'supercharge sales' and AFF decisions to finance
loans will be 'super fast!'," states the class action lawsuit.

Facio claims AFF is in violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and the Unruh Act, Civil Code
Sec. 1801.

Facio is demanding a jury trial and is requesting monetary damages,
statutory or punitive damages, and restitution for himself and all
Class Members.

A separate class action lawsuit revolving around allegedly unsavory
loans was filed in California in September by consumers who argue
that Wells Fargo and other lenders offer loans to first time home
buyers that are designed to fail.

American First Finance competitor Affirm Holdings was accused of
tricking consumers into purchasing more, and paying high fees
later, with "buy now, pay later" payment plans, in a class action
lawsuit filed earlier this year.

The plaintiff is represented by Robert S. Green, James Robert
Noblin, and Emrah M. Sumer of Green & Noblin, P.C., Alicia L.
Hinton of the Law Office of A.L. Hinton, and James C. Sturdevant of
The Sturdevant Law Firm, APC.

The American First Finance Loans Class Action Lawsuit is Facio v.
American First Finance, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-08184, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

AMERICAN NEEDLE: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Needle Inc.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American Needle Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08948 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

American Needle Inc. -- https://americanneedle.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of quality headwear and apparel for over 100
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


ANDREWS MCMEEL: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrews McMeel
Universal. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Andrews McMeel
Universal, Case No. 1:21-cv-09013 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Andrews McMeel Publishing -- https://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/ -- is a
company that publishes books, calendars, and related toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


APPLE INC: Orshan Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 15, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL ORSHAN, CHRISTOPHER
ENDARA, DAVID HENDERSON, and STEVEN NEOCLEOUS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting the Parties' joint stipulation and extending briefing
schedule for class certification motion by 60 days, such that:

   (1) Plaintiffs shall file their class certification Motion on
       or before March 15, 2022;

   (2) Apple shall have until May 17, 2022 to file any
       opposition to the Motion;

   (3) Plaintiffs shall file any reply to the Motion on or
       before June 16, 2022; and

   (4) a hearing shall be held as soon July 14, 2022. at 9:00
        a.m.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, computer software and online
services. Apple is the world's largest technology company by
revenue and, since January 2021, the world's most valuable
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GOhCbK  at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
          Boulder, CO 80305
          Telephone: (303) 800-9109
          Facsimile: (844) 300-1852
          E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Amy Boyle, Esq.
          Christopher Moreland, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          80 South Eighth Street, Suite #1650
          Minneopolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  boyle@halunenlaw.com
                  moreland@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
          BARON & HERSKOWITZ
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 670-0101
          Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
          E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com
                  kkessler@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          Stephen Pearson, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Seventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (303) 800-9109
          E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
                  spearson@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (303) 800-9109
          E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
          C. William Frick, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
                  bill@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

The Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc., are:

          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: mpowers@omm.com

ARCHER DANIELS: Time Extension to Oppose AOT Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AOT HOLDING AG and MAIZE
CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-02240-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Parties have provided a
proposal for modifying the schedule to accommodate extension of
time for ADM to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification as follows:

         Deadline               Current            Proposal
                                Schedule    

  Defendant's Opposition      Nov 8, 2021       Nov. 22, 2021
  to Class Cert;
  Defendant's Daubert
  Motions

  Deposition of Defendant's   Dec. 22, 2021     Jan. 14, 2022
  Experts

  Plaintiffs' Reply ISO       Jan. 14, 2022     Feb. 4, 2022
  Class Cert;
  Plaintiffs' Response
  to Daubert Motions;
  Plaintiffs' Daubert
  Motions

  Defendant's Reply ISO       Jan. 28, 2022     Feb. 18, 2022
  Daubert Motions

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CPUmrl at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen V. D'Amore, Esq.
          Maureen L. Rurka, Esq.
          Samantha M. Lerner, Esq.
          Reid F. Smith, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: sdamore@winston.com
                  mrurka@winston.com
                  slerner@winston.com
                  rfsmith@winston.com

ARGENT TRUST: Placht Sues Over Losses Under Stock Ownership Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Placht, on behalf of the Symbria Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY; JILL KRUEGER, THOMAS
NOESEN, JR., JOHN R. CALLEN, CENTRAL BAPTIST VILLAGE, COVENANT
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF CHICAGO SERVICE
CORPORATION, LIFELINK CORPORATION, LUTHERAN HOME AND SERVICES FOR
THE AGED, INC., MATHER LIFEWAYS, NORWEGIAN LUTHERAN BETHESDA HOME
ASSOCIATION, NORWOOD LIFE CARE FOUNDATION, FRIENDSHIP SENIOR
OPTIONS, NFP, REST HAVEN ILLIANA CHRISTIAN CONVALESCENT HOME, ST.
PAUL'S HOUSE & HEALTHCARE CENTER, and UNITED METHODIST HOMES &
SERVICES, Case No. 1:21-cv-05783 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2021), is
brought against Argent Trust Company, the trustee for the Symbria
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan when the Plan acquired shares of
Symbria, Inc. in an October 31, 2015 transaction; and the Selling
Shareholders; and brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, for losses suffered by the Plan and its
participants caused by Argent when it caused the Plan to buy shares
of  Symbria for more than fair market value, and other relief.

The Plan has been injured and its participants have been deprived
of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants'
violations of ERISA. Symbria was a privately held company and was
the Plan's sponsor. Symbria adopted the Plan effective April 1,
2015. On October 31, 2015, the Selling Shareholders sold, directly
or indirectly, 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of Symbria
common stock to the Plan and its Trust (the Symbria Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Trust) for $66,500,000, using the proceeds of a
Symbria loan guaranteed by Symbria and a loan with the Selling
Shareholders that was then assigned to and assumed by Symbria (the
stock and loan transactions together, the "ESOP Transaction" or
"Transaction"). The term notes payable to Symbria provided for the
loans to be repaid over 40 years and bore interest at 2.64%.

As a result of the ESOP Transaction, Symbria became 100%
employee-owned. Argent represented the Plan and its participants as
Trustee in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive
authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction and to
authorize the Transaction on the Plan's behalf. The ESOP
Transaction allowed the Selling Shareholders to unload their
interests in Symbria above fair market value, for the reasons
explained below, and saddle the Plan with tens of millions of
dollars of debt over a 40-year repayment period to finance the
Transaction. Argent failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee
and fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including
Plaintiff. The Selling Shareholders are parties in interest who
sold shares in the ESOP Transaction. The Selling Shareholders are
liable under ERISA for participating in prohibited transactions and
the Trustee's breach of fiduciary duty.

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

The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan.

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

          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1606
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 500-8680
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          Email: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                 gporter@baileyglasser.com


AUSTRALIA: Boigu and Saibai Residents File Climate Change Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SBS News reports that Paul Kabai's ancestors have lived on the
islands of Boigu and Saibai for over 65,000 years. Now, he fears an
escalating climate crisis could flood the islands, forcing local
communities to leave.

"Becoming climate refugees means losing everything: our homes, our
culture, our stories and our identity," he said.

"If you take away our homelands, we don't know who we are. We have
a cultural responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen and to
protect Country and our communities, culture and spirituality from
climate change."

Pabai Pabai also fears being forced to leave Boigu, with the island
being core to his identity and cultural history.

"There are 65,000 years of wealth and experience here. Losing Boigu
will mean losing that," he said.

"If you take us away from this island then we're nothing. It's like
the Stolen Generation, you take people away from their tribal land,
they become nobodies."

The two Wadhuam men are taking the Australian Federal Government to
court in a bid to prevent the destruction of their communities by
climate change.

A group of Torres Strait Islander people living off Australia's
north coast filed a court claim against the Australian government
on Oct. 26, alleging it has failed to protect them from climate
change which now threatens their homes.

The case brought on behalf of the remote islands of Boigu and
Saibai in the Torres Strait is the first climate class action
brought by Australia's First Nations people, its backers said.

It happened to be filed the same day that Canberra adopted a target
of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The case is being modelled on one that environmental group Urgenda
Foundation led against the government of the Netherlands, saying it
had a legal responsibility to protect Dutch citizens from climate
change.

That case resulted in the Dutch High Court ordering the government
to cut carbon emissions faster than planned.

The Torres Strait Islands, dotted north of Australia, face the
threat of floods and salt ruining their soil as global warming
leads to more storms and rising sea levels.

"There is high confidence that Torres Strait Island communities and
livelihoods are vulnerable to major impacts of climate change from
even small sea level rises," the claim filed with the Federal Court
said.

The case is being supported by a non-profit advocacy group, Grata
Fund, and Urgenda and is being run by class action firm Phi Finney
McDonald.

Grata said it expects the case will be heard in the third quarter
of 2022 with a decision likely to take up to 18 months.

The islanders filed a human rights complaint to the United Nations
two years ago on similar grounds which has yet to be resolved. [GN]

BAYER AG: Judge Narrows Claims in Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
October 19, 2021, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California narrowed the
claims in a putative securities class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical
company and certain of its executives. Sheet Metal Works Nat'l
Pension Fund v. Bayer AG, No. 20-cv-4737, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Oct.
19, 2021), ECF No. 90. Plaintiffs alleged that the company made
misrepresentations relating to its acquisition of Monsanto. The
Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged actionable
misrepresentations and scienter with respect to only some of the
challenged statements, and further held that plaintiffs adequately
alleged loss causation for those statements.

Plaintiffs alleged three categories of misstatements: statements
about the company's due diligence when acquiring Monsanto;
statements about the safety of a particular chemical ingredient
used in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup; and certain legal risks
associated with the herbicide, which various product liability
lawsuits later claimed was carcinogenic.

The Court first assessed whether each category of statement was
adequately alleged to be false. With respect to the due diligence
statements, the complaint alleged that the company's CEO stated
that the company had "confirmed in due diligence" the deal's
"significant potential for sales and cost synergies" and that the
target's employees "went out of their way to provide us with
transparency, data and visibility to the most critical questions we
had." Id. at 5. The CEO went on to say ahead of the deal's closing
that "[t]he acquisition is just as attractive today as we assessed
it to be 2 years ago[,]" and that "internal [target company]
documents [were] sometimes cited out of context" in product
liability lawsuits. Id. Plaintiffs alleged these statements were
misleading because the company "had not reviewed any internal
[target company] documents and had accepted at face value [the
target company's] characterization of its litigation risks." Id. On
this basis, the Court concluded that the challenged statements
could have given reasonable investors the impression that the
company had conducted more due diligence than it actually had. Id.
at 5-6.

With respect to statements about the chemical ingredient,
plaintiffs alleged the company misrepresented that 800 studies
confirmed that the ingredient did not cause cancer, when in fact
the "vast majority" of those studies did not address the issue. Id.
at 6-7. The Court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead facts
establishing that most of the studies did not address
carcinogenicity, and that the company's statements that the 800
studies were "not limited to carcinogenicity" was not an admission
that they were unrelated to the issue. Id. at 7. The Court also
explained that, while plaintiffs alleged that certain of the
studies were cited in an International Agency for Research on
Cancer report concluding the ingredient was a probable cause of
cancer, plaintiffs did not identify which studies were included.
Id. And while plaintiffs argued that 629 of the 800 studies were
carried out by the target company itself, the Court emphasized that
none of the challenged statements related to the "origins or
impartiality" of the studies. Id.

The Court held, however, that the statement by a company executive
that the underlying chemical ingredient was "no different in terms
of carcinogenicity" than the herbicide formulation in the target
company's product was sufficiently alleged to have been false,
based on plaintiffs' allegation that the target company was aware
that the formulation was "possibly more dangerous than the
ingredient." Id. at 6-7.

With respect to statements regarding the risk of litigation losses,
the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the company violated
accounting guidelines by failing to report and reserve for
potential litigation losses arising from litigation concerning the
chemical ingredient. Id. at 7-8. The Court explained that
International Accounting Standard 37 required the company to
account for litigation risks when an "economic outflow" was
"probable" and a "reliable estimate could be made." The Court
concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that a
reliable estimate could have been made until a global settlement
was proposed regarding the herbicide. Id. at 8.

The Court next assessed whether the potentially actionable
statements were made with the requisite scienter. The Court held
that the complaint failed to state with particularity facts giving
rise to a strong inference of scienter regarding the allegations
about the safety of the chemical ingredient and regarding
accounting for the risk of litigation losses. Id. at 10. With
respect to the due diligence allegations, however, the Court
determined that plaintiffs adequately raised an inference that
defendants "knew their statements were misleading, or were
deliberately reckless to the possibility," based on allegations
that the CEO had "a history of reckless due diligence practices,"
that he was focused on acquiring the target company before he
became CEO, and that the company had an opportunity to review
internal target company documents before the merger closed. Id. at
9-10. The Court further rejected defendants' argument that it was
"not plausible" that they would "choose to fool investors about
risks of the acquisition rather than making an informed judgment
about them." The Court concluded that this argument was "undercut
by the array of negative opinions on the acquisition at the time of
the deal, not just in hindsight" and therefore that defendants were
alleged to have proceeded with the merger while being aware of
"significant risks" and "assuring investors they had fully assessed
those risks themselves." Id.

In addition, the Court assessed whether plaintiffs had adequately
alleged loss causation based on six alleged corrective disclosures.
The Court determined that one alleged corrective disclosure, a news
report that allegedly "assembled for the first time several
critical facts suggesting that [the acquired company's] exposure in
the . . . litigation was greater than [d]efendants had claimed,"
did not actually constitute a corrective disclosure because other
news outlets had already reported on the same documents. Id. at
11-12. However, the Court held that the remaining alleged
corrective disclosures --concerning adverse litigation outcomes and
settlement developments -- were adequately alleged. Id. at 12-13.
While defendants argued that these events did not constitute
"factual findings" that could serve as a corrective disclosure, the
Court explained that they nonetheless constituted "new information
to investors" in that they disclosed the company's "serious risk in
litigation" and suggested that the links between the target
company's product and cancer -- which the target had denied -- were
not merely "unproven, untested allegations." Id. [GN]

BAYSIDE CHICKEN: Qi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xinsheng Qi and Jiajun Zhao, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated employees v. BAYSIDE CHICKEN LOVERS INC d/b/a
CHICKEN LOVERS and SELINA LAU, Case No. 1:21-cv-06018 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 29, 2021), is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from the
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices of failing to pay wages and overtime
wages.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
unpaid wages, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 hours for each workweek, and unpaid "spread of hours" premium
for each day they worked 10 or more hours, and failure to provide
undisrupted and adequate meal breaks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as a Chef and as a delivery person by
Chicken Lovers.

Chicken Lovers owns and operates a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carter R. Qi, Esq.
          QI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          38-08 Union Street, Suite 12C
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Phone: (646) 491-6688
          Email: cqi@qilawpc.com


BEACH ENERGY: Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Nichols, writing for Business news Australia, reports that a
pullback in flows from a South Australian oilfield could provide
more than a production headache for Beach Energy (ASX: BPT) as
investors gear up for a potential class action against the
company.

Beach Energy shares suffered a 40 per cent price slump in April
after the company downgraded its forecast earnings from its Western
Flank oilfield in the Cooper Basin by up to $100 million.

The company had been expecting underlying EBITDA of between $900
million and $950 million just eight months earlier. However, the
April update pulled back expectations to between $850 million and
$900 million, accompanied by a $20 million increase in capital
expenditure.

The news sent Beach shares tumbling 25 per cent following the
announcement, leading to a low of $1.01 in September, down from a
high of $1.70 prior to the downgrade.

Shine Justice (ASX: SHJ) says it is acting on behalf of Beach
Energy shareholders following a $900 million slump in the value of
Beach Energy's market value in the aftermath of the April
announcement.

"Investors must have been in disbelief as the company's market
capitalisation plummeted more than 40 per cent in 2021," says Craig
Allsopp, Shine's class actions practice leader.

"Shine Lawyers is investigating whether Beach Energy knew or ought
to have known about the decline in its Western Flank business at
the time it issued its bullish earnings guidance last August
(2020)."

Shine's investigation will explore whether Beach Energy engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct as well as potential breaches of
its disclosure obligations.

Since the share slump, Beach Energy shares have since recovered
much of their lost ground, trading as high as $1.52 in recent
weeks.

Beach added to its Western Flank oilfield by acquiring existing
assets from Senex Energy (ASX: SXY) last year. The company says the
acquisition had partially offset reserve downgrade for the field.

"The past five years has seen the Western Flank outperform our
expectations, but we are now witnessing material decline from a
number of fields," Beach CEO Matt Kay told shareholders in April
when announcing the downgrade.

"This has had a negative impact on our recent production results,
as well our FY21 production guidance and Western Flank 2P oil and
gas reserves."

Shine has yet to indicate the damages it will be seeking from a
potential class action. [GN]

BENITEZ RMB: Rebar Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Rodriguez, Andres Gomez Palacios, Gabriel Jesus Avila
Escamilla, Jesus Gregorio Gomez Cortes, Jose Hector Valdez, Julio
Cesar Aquino, Oscar Martinez Campos, Pablo Campos Espinal, Pablo
Lezama and Sergio Lezama, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Benitez RMB Corp., Flintlock
Construction Services LLC, BMNY Construction Corp., Jose Benitez
Argueta and Cupo Benedetto, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08715 (S.D.
N.Y., October 25, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control three construction companies in
Baldwin, NY where Plaintiffs worked as rebar workers in their
Manhattan projects. They claim to have generally worked in excess
of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours
per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays
exceeding 10 hours. They also claim to have never received wage
statements and appropriate minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIC USA: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bic USA Inc. The case
is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bic USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09011
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

BIC USA Inc. -- https://us.bic.com/en_us -- manufactures stationery
products. The Company offers pens and pencils, markers, sketch pen,
and writing instruments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Oct. 25 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. ("BioMarin" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) from January 13, 2020 through September
3, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

On November 7, 2018, BioMarin shared pre-clinical data of their BMN
307, an AAV5 mediated gene therapy, which demonstrated lifetime
blood phenylalanine ("Phe") corrections in mouse models, and
announced that the Company was planning to file an investigational
new drug application ("IND") for BMN 307 with the United States
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in the second half of 2019. On
January 13, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA granted IND
status for BMN 307 for the treatment of phenylketonuria ("PKU"). On
September 24, 2020, the Company announced that it had dosed the
first human participant in the global Phearless Phase 1/2 study of
BMN 307.

According to the complaint, the Defendant was materially false and
misleading and omitted to state: (i) BMN 307 was less safe than
BioMarin had led investors to believe; (ii) BMN 307's safety
profile made it likely that the FDA would place a clinical hold on
the Phearless Phase 1/2 study; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
overstated BMN 307's clinical and commercial prospects; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 5, 2021, the Defendant issued a press release
announcing, "that the [FDA] placed a clinical hold on the BMN 307
Phearless Phase 1/2 study", which "is evaluating BMN 307, an
investigational AAV5-phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) gene therapy,
in adults with [PKU]." BioMarin advised investors that "[t]he FDA's
clinical hold was based on interim safety findings from a
pre-clinical, non-GLP pharmacology study."

On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $7.14 per share, or 8.4%,
to close at $77.81 per share on September 7, 2021, the next trading
day, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased BioMarin securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/biomarinpharmaceuticalinc-bmrn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-448/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com

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

Contact Information:

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

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Reminds of December 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Oct. 25 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
("BioMarin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
those who purchased BioMarin common stock between January 13, 2020
and September 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) BMN 307 was less
safe than BioMarin had led investors to believe; (ii) BMN 307's
safety profile made it likely that the FDA would place a clinical
hold on the Phearless Phase 1/2 study; (iii) accordingly, the
Company had overstated BMN 307's clinical and commercial prospects;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 5, 2021, the Company issued a press release announcing
"that the [FDA] placed a clinical hold on the BMN 307 Phearless
Phase 1/2 study", which "is evaluating BMN 307, an investigational
AAV5-phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) gene therapy, in adults with
[PKU]." The Company advised investors that "[t]he FDA's clinical
hold was based on interim safety findings from a pre-clinical,
non-GLP pharmacology study." On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $7.14 per share, or 8.4%, to close at $77.81 per share
on September 7, 2021, the next trading day.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of BioMarin
should contact the Firm prior to the December 21, 2021 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.

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

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 26
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
(NASDAQ: BMRN) between January 13, 2020 and September 3, 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 22, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased BioMarin 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 BioMarin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2185.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 22, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMN 307, an AAV5 mediated gene
therapy, was less safe than BioMarin had led investors to believe;
(2) BMN 307's safety profile made it likely that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) would place a clinical hold on the
Phearless Phase 1/2 study; (3) accordingly, the Company had
overstated BMN 307's clinical and commercial prospects; and (4) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the BioMarin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2185.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]

BLACK DOG: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Black Dog Tavern
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Black Dog
Tavern Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08943 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1,
2021).

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

The Black Dog -- https://www.theblackdog.com/ -- is a restaurant
and tavern in Vineyard Haven on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
The restaurant was founded in 1971, and became well known for its
souvenir T-shirts, featuring its logo of the eponymous black dog.
They subsequently expanded to sell other products with the same
logo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



BLACK OPAL: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Opal LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Black Opal LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08946
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Black Opal -- https://blackopalbeauty.com/ -- offers the finest
collection of beauty products and cosmetics for men and women of
color with dark skin tones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Class Action Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MARVIN PEARLSTEIN, Individually And On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BLACKBERRY LIMITED (formerly known as RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED),
THORSTEN HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA, and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-7060-CM-KHP


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of BlackBerry Limited ("BlackBerry") on the NASDAQ (ticker "BBRY")
during a Class Period from March 28, 2013, through and including
September 20, 2013 (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired BlackBerry common stock during the Class
Period, but only between March 28, 2013 and April 10, 2013 and who
sold all of their BlackBerry common stock prior to April 11, 2013,
as well as the Defendants, officers and directors of BlackBerry,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

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

This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered
January 26, 2021, certifying the above-captioned Action as a class
action. This Action has not been settled and continues to be
litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time.

If you are a Class Member your rights are affected by this action
and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also
have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance
with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes
in more detail this Class Action and your rights with respect
thereto.

If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please
contact:

BlackBerry US Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box. 91399
Seattle, WA 98111
www.BlackBerryUSSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice may be made to Class
Counsel:

Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras Avenue, Suite 3200
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York [GN]

BLK & BOLD: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blk & Bold, LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blk & Bold, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08945 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Blk & Bold -- https://blkandbold.com/ -- offers freshly roasted
specialty coffees & loose leaf teas delivered straight to the
customers' door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


BLUEHOST INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluehost Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bluehost Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08866-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Bluehost -- https://www.bluehost.com/ -- is a web hosting company
owned by Endurance International Group. It is one of the 20 largest
web hosts, collectively hosting well over 2 million domains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation that has been filed
against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("Bristol-Myers" or the
"Company") on behalf of former shareholders of Celgene Corporation
("Celgene") (Nasdaq: CELG) who received Contingent Value Rights
("CVRs") (NYSE: BMY.RT) in exchange for their shares pursuant to
Bristol-Myers's $74 billion acquisition of Celgene on November 20,
2019 ("Merger").

If you are a former Celgene shareholder who acquired CVRs in
exchange for your Celgene shares pursuant to the Merger, you may
move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than
December 6, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by
your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You
may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in
the action.

Bristol-Myers CVR holders who wish to learn more about the
litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should
click here, or text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon
M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Bristol-Myers Securities Class Litigation

Bristol-Myers, headquartered in New York City, is one of the
world's largest pharmaceutical companies.

The action arises from Bristol-Myers's alleged subversion of the
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval process for a cancer
therapy known as "Liso-cel" in order to avoid paying $6.4 billion
to CVR holders. The CVR payout required FDA approval of three
therapies, including Liso-Cel, by specified dates (the
"Milestones").

The action alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts in the Joint
Proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Merger. The Joint Proxy stated that upon
completion of the Merger, Celgene shareholders would receive CVRs
that could be exchanged for payment of $9.00 per share upon
completion of certain "Milestones." One of the Milestones was
obtaining FDA approval for Liso-cel by December 31, 2020. To avoid
paying CVR holders, Bristol-Myers made defective filings to the FDA
to ensure delay in the FDA's review, inspection and approval of
Liso-cel, which caused it to miss the Liso-cel Milestone.
Accordingly, defendants' 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.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

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

CONTACT: Source/Contact for Media Inquiries Only

Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]

CAMILLE ROSE: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camille Rose LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Camille Rose LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08964 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Camille Rose -- https://www.camillerose.com/ -- is a brand that
continues to provide their audience with a line of beauty products
for all hair types.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


CANVIIY LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canviiy, LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Canviiy, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08997
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Canviiy -- https://canviiy.com/ -- is located in Tampa, Florida and
is part of the Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation
Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


CAR2GO CANADA: November 24 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
All individuals residing in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec who purchased car-sharing services from Car2go Canada Ltd.
for personal, family or household purposes and paid a Driver
Protection Fee between June 1, 2015 and February 29, 2020 ("Class
Members").

The parties have reached a settlement of the Action, without an
admission of liability on the part of the Defendants which has been
approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia ("Settlement" or
"Settlement Agreement").

Opt-Out Procedure

If you do not want to participate in the Action, you must complete
and send an Opt-Out Form by November 24, 2021 (the "Opt-Out
Deadline") to the Class Counsel at the addresses above.

If you opt-out by the Opt-Out Deadline, you may be able to bring
your own lawsuit against the Defendants, but you will not be
entitled to participate in the Settlement.

Opt-Out Forms are available here or by contacting Class Counsel at
the contact information provided above. All Class Members will be
bound by the terms of the Settlement, unless they opt-out of the
Class Action.

Questions and completed forms can be forwarded to
car2go@hammerco.ca or car2gosettlement@mnp.ca.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why am I included in this class action?
For class actions that commence in British Columbia, individuals
that fall within the described class are automatically included in
the class action.

However, those that do not wish to participate may opt-out.

The link to the opt-out form can be found on MNP's website for this
class action settlement.

2. Am I eligible for payment?
Receipt of the email does not mean you will receive payment.

All the car2go users that fall within the described class (i.e.,
those that paid a Driver Protection Fee [DPFs] during the
applicable class period) would have received an email from MNP.

However, to ensure that the distribution of funds will be
economical (i.e., the cost of distribution will not exceed the
amount being distributed), the Court has approved a minimum
threshold of $10. Hence, only those that have paid $10 in DPFs or
more during the applicable class period will be entitled to a
distribution.

Those that are entitled to receive distribution will receive a
further email in a month to inform them on the claims procedure.

3. How much will I receive?
The amount that eligible claimants will receive will depend on how
many people submit a claim. Any distribution will also not exceed
the total amount of DPFs that you paid during the applicable class
period.

4. What do I need to do to make a claim?
You will receive further claims information in about a month.

We anticipate that the claims procedure and distribution will
finish in the first half of 2022.

All distributions will be by way of Interac e-transfer.

5. What if I no longer have access to the email address that I used
to register for Car2Go?
Unfortunately, you will not be entitled to participate unless you
have access to that email address.

To minimize the risk of ineligible claims, the Court approved a
distribution protocol that requires distributions and claims to
originate from the email address that Car2Go had on file. This is
necessary to protect the interest of class members overall. [GN]

CARGILL MEAT: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the thorny issue of what constitutes "working
time" is always causing headaches for employers and the pandemic
period has increased these concerns greatly, with demands made for
compensation for testing time, vaccination time. A class action has
been recently filed, seeking compensation for workers in a
meatpacking plant who want pay for time spent being looked at for
COVID-19 symptoms prior to the start of their shift and during
lunch time. The case is entitled Villa v. Cargill Meat Solutions
Corp. and was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

The workers allege that the requirement of mandatory testing for
COVID-19 required workers to report before their shifts or miss
their lunches, but they were not paid for that time. The Complaint
asserts that the "plaintiff and production workers were not paid
for significant amounts of time between the start of the required
COVID screening process, and when they were clocked in for pay
purposes. Cargill failed to pay for all hours the production
workers worked, beginning with the time production workers were
required to be on Cargill's premises to undergo the COVID screening
process until they were clocked in, in violation of Pennsylvania
law."

As has been written about many times, the nature of the meatpacking
business required the plant and employees to keep working as the
pandemic raged. In addition, the workers were in very close
proximity to each other on the lines. No social distancing at all.
Thus, after an outbreak, the Company began mandating that all
workers be checked for symptoms prior to evert shift and again at
the end of the lunch breaks. There were often long lines for these
checks, the Complaint alleges.

The Complaint alleges, significantly, that "production workers
could be subject to discipline if they did not arrive ready at the
workstation in time for their production work to start.
Accordingly, the addition of the COVID screening process required
production workers to arrive at work earlier than they had before
the implementation of the examinations. Such time was
uncompensated." The workers had to cut short their lunch periods so
they could get tested and be back on the line at the assigned
time.

The suit claims that since this screening process was a required
and an essential component of the employees' job duties, the time
became compensable. If the screening time pushed the worker(s) to
beyond forty hours in the week, then overtime would be due. The
plaintiffs also referenced a July 2021 Pennsylvania Supreme Court
decision (Heimbach v. Amazon) which concluded that mandatory
security screenings prior/after each shift were compensable.

The Takeaway

To me, the fact of whether there was or was not employer compulsion
is the key issue here. As I have written several times–when it
comes to working time issues, especially preliminary or
postliminary activity, any element of employer compulsion or
requirement will convert that time into working time. Also, there
is the cogent argument that the activity is for the benefit of the
employer, to ensure smooth production and operation, rather than
for the employees, although there is naturally some benefit to the
workers knowing they do not have COVID.

Good case to settle quickly . . . [GN]

CEREBRAL INC: Stein Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., Case No. 21-005049-CI (Fla. 6th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Oct. 21, 2021), is brought under
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act with regards to the
Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls to consumers.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's
telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members
harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory
damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of himself and the Class members and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful
actions of the Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party" that received
the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

The Defendant is a telehealth company specializing in mental health
diagnosis and treatment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CFAP HOLDINGS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CFAP Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CFAP Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08998 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

CFAP Holdings LLC is part of the Management of Companies and
Enterprises Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


CLASSPASS INC: Sued in N.Y. Over False Business Partnership Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Sonnemaker, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that ClassPass, a
fitness and beauty services aggregator, is facing a new
class-action lawsuit accusing it of falsely claiming to have
partnerships with "countless" businesses.

Leeah Nails, a New Jersey-based nail salon that brought the suit,
said that it "discovered dozens of businesses in at least 20
different states whose services were being listed on ClassPass
without their knowledge or consent."

The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 22 in a federal court in New York,
accused ClassPass of false advertising and affiliation, as well as
unfair competition by deceiving "potential customers into
purchasing ClassPass memberships instead of directly purchasing
services" from the businesses themselves.

ClassPass did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

ClassPass works by giving paying subscribers credits each month
that they can use to book fitness classes or other services,
through the ClassPass app, with businesses that are ostensibly part
of the company's "partner network."

But Leeah Nails claimed that ClassPass had listed the salon as one
of those partners without its knowledge or consent.

According to the lawsuit, Leeah Nails only found out that it was
listed on ClassPass after a customer tried to use services that
they had booked through ClassPass.

ClassPass' listing for Leeah Nails showed a company description,
appointment times, services offered, and an option to "see pricing"
for those services. The only issue, according to the lawsuit: Leeah
Nails didn't write that description, or list its available
appointments or services, and the "see pricing" link went not to
its own website, but to ClassPass's membership sign-up page.

Leeah Nails said it contacted ClassPass about the listing multiple
times, but that its customer service team refused to help because
the company didn't have an account with ClassPass.

"There are thousands of falsely listed ClassPass Partners online.
And just a simple search of the ClassPass website demonstrates that
in all major markets, and even smaller locations, ClassPass
contains dozens of false listings of partners," often times with
stock photos and copycat company descriptions, the lawsuit
claimed.

An attorney for Leeah Nails told Vice News, which earlier reported
the lawsuit, that he believes ClassPass bypassed its typical
outreach to potential partners in an effort to paint a rosier
picture of its growth -- which had taken a hit during the
pandemic.

"All of a sudden, ClassPass looks like it has a huge network of
wellness services," Janove told Vice, adding: "But in truth, they
don't actually have association with countless [numbers] of these
businesses." [GN]

COLLECTO INC: Davis Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 21, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA DAVIS and CLARENCE
DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No.
3:21-cv-00044 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers
entered an order that:

   1. the Joint Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to File
      their Motion for Class Certification is granted;
      and

   2. the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification
      by January 21, 2022.

Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mKMXUI at no extra charge.[CC]

CREDIT CORP: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp
Solutions. The case is styled as Julie Moore, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Corp Solutions
doing business as: Tasman Credit, Case No. 2:21-cv-00651-JNP (D.
Utah., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Credit Corp Solutions -- https://www.creditcorponline.com/ -- is a
receivables management company that purchases and collects consumer
debt including unpaid retail finance and sales finance credit cards
and personal loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Trigsted, Esq.
          TRIGSTED LAW GROUP PC
          5200 SW MEADOWS RD STE 150
          LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
          Phone: (888) 247-4126
          Email: josh@tlgconsumerlaw.com


CROWN JEWELERS: Suleiman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Jewelers &
Pawnbrokers, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Suleiman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Crown Jewelers & Pawnbrokers, Inc., Case No. 2021-31398-CICI (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., Nov. 2, 2021).

The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT."

Crown Jewelers & Pawnbrokers is a pawn shop in Ormond Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          1200 N FEDERAL HWY STE 312
          BOCA RATON Florida 33432


D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi
a/k/a D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading d/b/a Hepsiburada
("Hepsiburada") (NASDAQ:HEPS). The action charges the company with
violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and
fraudulent misrepresentations involving its American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with Hepsiburada's July 2021
initial public offering ("IPO"). Hepsiburada's materially
misleading statements regarding their business, operations, and
prospects caused investors to suffer significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 20, 2021

CLASS PERIOD: Pursuant and/or Traceable to July 1, 2021 IPO through
October 21, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com

HEPSIBURADA'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Hepsiburada operates an ecommerce platform in Turkey, regarded as
the "Amazon of Turkey." On July 1, 2021, Hepsiburada filed its
prospectus on a Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. In the IPO, Hepsiburada sold approximately 62,251,000
ADRs at a price of $12 per ADR and received proceeds of
approximately $783 million from the Offering. The Registration
Statement touted Hepsiburada's purported growth attributable to
"meticulous execution." The Registration Statement also touted the
increase in gross merchandise value ("GMV"), which "refers to the
total value of orders/products sold through [the] platform over a
given period of time," including shipping fees but excluding other
service revenues and transaction fees.

The truth regarding Hepsiburada was revealed on August 26, 2021,
when it announced its second quarter 2021 financial results (the
quarter which had ended before the IPO closed) reporting that
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or
EBITDA, was "negative TRY 188.6 million in Q2 2021 compared to
positive TRY 71.1 million in Q2 2020 . . . due to lower gross
contribution driven primarily by investments to fortify our
position in electronics, investments to penetrate in high frequency
categories as well as higher customer demand for low margin
products." The company also reported a "shift in GMV mix in favor
of Marketplace."

Following this news, Hepsiburada's ADR price fell $3.05, or 25%, to
close at $8.97 per ADR on August 26, 2021. At the time the class
action lawsuit was filed, Hepsiburada's ADRs were trading as low as
$5.30 per ADR, a nearly 56% decline from the $12 per ADR IPO
price.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Hepsiburada investors may, no later than December 20, 2021, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLPor other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Hepsiburada investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

DELEK LOGISTICS: Sanders Class Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NICHOLAS SANDERS, COREY WILLIAMS, CRYSTAL OWENS,
AMANDA CUNNINGHAM, MARGARET TERRY, RHONDA WILSON, COREY HILL, and
ANQUINNATTA JAMES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. DELEK LOGISTICS OPERATING, LLC and LION OIL COMPANY,
LLC, Case No. 70CV-21-124, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Union County, Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas on November 3, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Arkansas assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01052-SOH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, nuisance,
and trespass following the emission of toxic substances during a
fire occurred at the Defendants' oil refinery located in El Dorado,
Arkansas on February 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs seek damages for
personal injuries that they sustained from the incident.

Delek Logistics Operating, LLC is a transportation services company
headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.

Lion Oil Company, LLC is a producer of petroleum and oil products
based in El Dorado, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
         Forrest C. Stobaugh, Esq.
         M. Christine Dillard, Esq.
         PPGMR LAW, PLLC
         P.O. Box 3446
         Little Rock, AR 72203
         Telephone: (501) 603-9000
         Facsimile: (501) 603-0556
         E-mail: alan@ppgmrlaw.com
                 forrest@ppgmrlaw.com
                 christine@ppgmrlaw.com

DOZEN COUSINS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Dozen Cousins, LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. A Dozen Cousins, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08947 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

A Dozen Cousins -- https://adozencousins.com/ -- is natural food
brand that makes convenience side dishes inspired by traditional
Creole, Caribbean and Latino recipes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


DUDE PERFECT: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dude Perfect, LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dude Perfect, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09008 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Dude Perfect (DP) -- https://dudeperfect.com/ -- is an American
sports and comedy group headquartered in Frisco, Texas, United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


ELIOR INC: Taitts Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rashad Taitts, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Elior, Inc., Preferred Meal
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2020CH03664 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-05590 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations.

Elior Group -- https://www.eliorgroup.com/ -- is a global player in
the contract catering and support services industry, provides food
service solutions and services in the world of business, education,
healthcare and leisure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Megan Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN, ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jamie L Filipovic, Esq.
          Matthew Edward Szwajkowski, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC
          One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 422-6100
          Email: jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com
                 mszwajkowski@ohaganmeyer.com



EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Nov. 22 Class Cert Hearing in DiMercurio
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO DIMERCURIO, CHARLES
GAETH, JOHN LANGLITZ, and MALCOLM SYNIGAL on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA SHELL
OIL PRODUCTS US, and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No.
3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley entered an order that the Further Case Management Conference
and hearing on class certification on Plaintiffs' waiting time
penalties claim be heard on November 22, 2021.

Equilon Enterprises LLC is an oil refining and marketing company.

A copy of Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nQPts4 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
          Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
          Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          A Professional Corporation
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 337-1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
                  khillman@unioncounsel.net
                  jmanansala@unioncounsel.net
                  anazarov@unioncounsel.net

               - and

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
          Brian H. Chun, Esq.
          Saisruthi S. Paspulati, Esq.
          LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 357-4600
          Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
          E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
                  bchun@lkclaw.com
                  spaspulati@lkclaw.com

FREDERICK HART: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frederick Hart Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frederick Hart Co.,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08944-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Frederick Hart Company, Inc. -- http://www.compacind.com/-- offers
the following services: Baby Accessories Bathroom Accessories
Cleaning Supplies Dental Supplies General Merchandise Home
Furnishings Kitchen Accessories Pet Supplies Plumbing Supplies Skin
Care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Elliott Sues Over Defective Vehicle Headlights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Elliott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12561-GCS-KGA
(E.D. Mich., Oct. 29, 2021), arises from the Defendant's conduct of
failing to disclose to the Plaintiff the defect on the 2016
Cadillac SRX headlights which is a breach of its implied
warranties, and in breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud,
and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and serviced thousands of
2016 Cadillac SRX vehicles. Each of the Vehicles contain a defect
in which the Vehicles' low beam headlights experience damage to the
assembly components, resulting in diminished light output or
catastrophic failure. As a result of the Headlight Defect,
Plaintiff and Class Members are unable to operate their Vehicles
safely before dawn, after dusk, or in inclement weather because of
the decrease in drivers' visibility. Plaintiff and Class Members
have resorted to using their high beams as their main source of
light when driving at night, blinding drivers in front of them,
raising the risk of accidents, or not operating their Vehicles at
all.

The Defect is a significant safety concern, and, though numerous
consumers have specifically complained about it, GM has failed to
adequately address the Defect. GM had knowledge of the Headlight
Defect, issuing the first in a series of technical service
bulletins ("TSBs") on February 8, 2016. In fact, GM has known of
this defect since at least May 2010 because the same defect
affected the low beam headlamps in the 2010-2015 SRX models and, as
a result, GM released multiple TSBs to its dealers identifying the
defect. The Plaintiff has given GM reasonable opportunities to
honor its contractual obligations and cure the Headlight Defect,
but GM has refused to and/or is unable to do so within a reasonable
period of time.

GM has and will continue to benefit from its unlawful conduct—by
selling and leasing more Vehicles, while consumers are harmed at
the point of sale because their vehicles suffer from the Headlight
Defect. Had Plaintiff and other proposed Class Members known that
the defect existed at the time of purchase or lease, they would not
have bought or leased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid
substantially less for them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a used 2016 Cadillac SRX from Suttle Motors
in Newport News, Virginia, an authorized GM dealership.

GM sells Cadillac vehicles to its authorized distributors and
dealerships, which in turn sell those vehicles to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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 -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          Email: mram@forthepeople.com
                 mappel@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Sam Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703-3515
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (509) 4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com


GENEWIZ LLC: Reca-Hernandez Sues Over Lost Wages
------------------------------------------------
Wilfredo Reca-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GENEWIZ, LLC, GUOJUAN LIAO, and JASON W.
JOSEPH, Case No. 2184CV02393 (Mass. Commonwealth, Oct. 20, 2021),
is brought against the Defendants for misclassification as an
independent contractor and lost wages and other damages in
violation of state law.

The Defendant classified the Plaintiff as independent contractors
even though they were plainly employees of the company, resulting
in significant financial harm to couriers in the form of lose
wages, transportation expenses, and other damages, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was engaged by the Defendant as a courier from
February 26, 2018 to January 2021.

Genewiz is a genomic services company that operated a courier
programs through which it utilized couriers it classified s
independent contractors to deliver biologic materials to and from
Genewiz's laboratory.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Colin D. Creager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street. Suite 304
          Boston, M A 02110
          Phone: (617) 338-9400
          Email: rm@mass-legal.com


GEO GROUP: Perez Sues Over Failure to Lawfully Pay Owed Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. D/B/ A GEO GROUP CALIFORNIA, INC.;
GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC; GEO CORRECTIONS AND DETENTIONS, LLC; GEO
CORRECTIONS HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01846-BAS-BLM (S.D.
Cal., Nov. 1, 2021), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
against the Defendants for wage and hours claims premise upon the
Defendants' failure to include cash-in-lieu of benefits payments in
the "regular rate of pay" used to lawfully calculate and pay
certain wages and premiums to employees under state and federal
employment laws.

As a result of this practice, the Defendants has underpaid overtime
wages and meal and rest period premiums to and overtime wages to
the Plaintiff. The Defendants' failure to include these forms of
non-excludable remuneration in the regular rate of pay for purposed
of overtime pay and meal and rest period premiums was unlawful and
resulted in underpayments of overtime wages to the FLSA Collective
and underpayments of overtime wages and Labor Code premiums to the
California Class Members. The Defendants are thus liable for the
unpaid meal and rest period premiums and overtimes, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, prejudgement interests, post
judgement interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by GEO as a Correctional Officer from
1998 through December 2020.

THE GEO GROUP, INC. which does business in California, is a Florida
corporation corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
          FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
          3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, California 92108
          Phone: (619) 693-7727
          Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
          Email: lauren@ferrarovega.com
                 nick@ferrarovega.com

               - and -

          Rick Waltman, Esq.
          RICK WALTMAN LAW, APC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: (619) 320-5666
          Email: rick@rickwaltmanlaw.com


GIBSON OVERSEAS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gibson Overseas, Inc.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Gibson Overseas, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08902 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Gibson -- https://www.gibsonusa.com/ -- is the nation's leading
producer of dinnerware, flatware, cookware, glassware, coffee and
tea accessories, kitchen tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: February 24, 2022 Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
ST. LOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 3:19-cv-04744-WHA

Plaintiff,

v.

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
INCORPORATED, JAMES H. ROBERTS,
JIGISHA DESAI, and LAUREL J.
KRZEMINSKI

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

Dept.: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
("GRANITE") COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 17, 2017 THROUGH OCTOBER 24,
2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT IN A LAWSUIT PENDING IN FEDERAL COURT (THE
"LITIGATION"). PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on February 24,
2022, at 8:00 a.m., before the Honorable William Alsup, United
States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Court"), 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement in the Stipulation
of Settlement, dated April 30, 2021, of the Litigation for
$129,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members; (2) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Amount is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the applications by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and
(4) whether the proposed Judgment should be entered.

The Litigation has been certified as a class action on behalf of
all investors (individuals and entities) who purchased or acquired
Granite common stock from February 17, 2017 through October 24,
2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby ("Class Members").
The Litigation asserts claims against Granite and certain
individual defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A
detailed description of the Litigation, including the parties, the
claims and defenses, and other important information about your
rights and options are in the detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").

At the Settlement Hearing, Class Counsel will request that the
Court award attorneys' fees according to the terms of the retainer
agreement between Class Counsel and the Class Representative, the
Police Retirement System of St. Louis. These attorneys' fees are
estimated to be no more than 18% of the Settlement Amount, or
approximately $23,220,000. Class members are not personally liable
for any such fees or any other expenses (estimated to be $950,000
for litigation expenses, and $550,000 for Notice and Administration
Expenses). The net recovery for Class Members (also referred to as
the "Net Settlement Fund") is estimated to be no less than
$104,280,000 ($129,000,000 minus all of the foregoing estimated
fees and expenses).

Class Counsel states that it has litigated this case on behalf of
the Class Representative and the Class for over eighteen months
against four Defendants represented by four different law firms. On
behalf of the Class, Class Counsel conducted an extensive
investigation and drafted a substantially enhanced amended
complaint that included new theories of liability; defeated
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; obtained class
certification; resolved numerous discovery disputes; and litigated
one such discovery dispute before the Court. Class Counsel also
propounded dozens of document requests and subpoenas and obtained
and analyzed nearly 2 million pages of documents from the
Defendants as well as third parties, including Granite's auditors
and certain construction joint ventures. Additionally, Class
Counsel deposed three current or former Granite employees,
including one 30(b)(6) deposition on seven noticed topics, and, at
the time this settlement was reached, had scheduled, assigned teams
to prepare, and was preparing to take 12 additional fact witness
depositions and a further 30(b)(6) deposition. Class Counsel also
served written interrogatories on Defendant Granite. Based on
extensive investigation, Class Counsel moved for partial summary
judgment for particular elements of certain claims based on
information obtained during the course of discovery. Pursuant to
the Class Representative's retainer agreement with Class Counsel,
which the Court reviewed prior to appointing Class Counsel, Class
Counsel will not receive any compensation for any of its time, and
no reimbursement for any of its expenses, absent a recovery for the
Class Representative and the Class.

To obtain the Notice or a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim and Release"), visit the settlement website
at www.GraniteSecuritiesLitigation.com or write to Granite
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions,
Inc., P.O. Box 5197, Portland, OR 97208-5197.

To get a payment from the Net Settlement Fund you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than January
24, 2022, or electronically no later than January 24, 2022,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Failure to submit
your Proof of Claim and Release by January 24, 2022, will subject
your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from
receiving any payment from the settlement. If you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself by the deadline, you will be
bound by the settlement and any judgment entered in the Litigation,
whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release.

To be excluded from the settlement, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice that is postmarked or received no later than December 3,
2021. All Class Members who do not timely exclude themselves will
be bound by the settlement (assuming it is approved by the Court)
even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release.

To object to any aspect of the settlement, including the Plan of
Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses,
you must submit a written objection in accordance with all the
instructions set forth in the Notice that is received or filed, not
simply postmarked, on or before January 5, 2022. If you object, but
also want to be eligible for a payment from the settlement, you
must still submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

If you have any questions about the settlement you may contact
Class Counsel at the following address:

Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
Peter E. Borkon
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: 888-879-9418

DATED: October 25, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]

GREGORY FUNDING: Charges Improper Forbearance Fees, Sabherwal Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNDEEP SABHERWAL and MARJORIE SABHERWAL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREGORY FUNDING
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01605-SI (D. Ore., November 3,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent misleading
statements to the Plaintiffs and Class members, indicating, inter
alia, that they could be subject to foreclosure if they failed to
cure the delinquencies and improperly assessed late fees that
accrued during their forbearance plans under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act by making a lump sum
payment on their regular due dates—in contravention to the terms
of their forbearances and relevant laws and regulations. Further,
the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiffs and Class Members the
full 180-day forbearance period required under the CARES Act. In
doing so, the Defendant misled its borrowers regarding their
coverage and protections under the CARES Act forbearance programs.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action to recover the unlawfully
charged fees and to enjoin the Defendant from continuing to charge
these unlawful fees and improperly service these accounts, the suit
says.

Gregory Funding LLC is a residential and commercial mortgages
services company, with a principal place of business located in
Portland, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         950 West Bannock Street, Suite 940
         Boise, ID 83702
         Telephone: (208) 342-4411
         Facsimile: (208) 342-4455
         E-mail: bschwartzman@baileyglasser.com

                - and –

         Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
         James L. Kauffman, Esq.
         Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
         Washington, DC 20007
         Telephone: (202) 463-2101
         Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
         E-mail: lederer@baileyglasser.com
                 jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

                - and –

         Brian Mahany, Esq.
         Timothy Granitz, Esq.
         MAHANY LAW
         8112 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 101
         Milwaukee, WI 53213
         Telephone: (414) 258-2375
         E-mail: brian@mahanylaw.com
                 tgranitz@mahanylaw.com

HARLO ELMHURST: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Ariel Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Harlo Elmhurst, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05707,
(N.D. Ill., October 26, 2021) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees,
as a result of Defendant's failure to pay sufficient overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and overtime provisions of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant owns and operates the restaurant Harlo Grill, which has
two locations in Illinois. It employed Diaz as a cook from October
of 2018 until September of 2021. Diaz has been allegedly
misclassified by Harlo as exempt from overtime, despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEARTLAND COCA-COLA: Wilcoxson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kayleen Wilcoxson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HEARTLAND COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, LLC,
Case No. 4:21-cv-01306 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 1, 2021), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the wage laws of the Missouri
Revised Statutes, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff proper overtime wages as required by the FLSA and
the RSMo.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours per week
during the relevant time period. The Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff 1.5x her regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40
each week. The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff or other
Logistics Analysts with a method by which they could keep track of
their time. Most of the work completed by Plaintiff and other
Logistics Analysts was time-stamped. The Defendant knew or should
have known that Plaintiff and other Logistics Analysts were working
hours over 40 in some weeks. The Defendant has deprived Plaintiff
and other Logistics Analysts of regular wages and overtime
compensation for all hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked in the St. Charles distribution center
beginning in December of 2006 through October of 2021 as a
Logistics Analyst.

The Defendant owns and operates multiple Coca-Cola distribution
centers in Missouri, Kansas, and Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HELLOFRESH SE: Court Approves $14MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tierney Smith, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that on October 15, 2021, Judge William G. Young of the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts approved a
$14 million settlement in a national class action lawsuit against
meal-kit delivery service company, HelloFresh, for purported
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). See
Murray v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., No. 1:19-cv-12608.
In the complaint filed against HelloFresh in December 2019, the
plaintiffs, who are former HelloFresh customers, alleged that
HelloFresh inundated them with telemarketing calls without their
prior express written consent, even though they were on the
National Do Not Call Registry.

The settlement class includes U.S. residents from September 5, 2015
to December 31, 2019 to whom HelloFresh or one of its vendors (a)
placed one or more calls to their cell phones via a dialing
platform, (b) made at least two telemarketing calls during any
12-month period where their phone numbers appeared on the National
Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days before the calls, or (c)
received one or more calls after registering the phone number with
HelloFresh's internal do-not-call list.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement Approval, which was filed in
April, stated that the "proposed settlement encompasses 4,831,285
individuals," and that of those, only "100,433 class members filed
timely claim forms." Accordingly, the class members who submitted
timely claim forms "stand to receive at least $89.18 each" as a
result of the settlement, "an amount that far exceeds common
settlements against large corporations alleged to have violated the
TCPA." Only three notified class members -- or 0.00000062% of
settlement class members -- objected to the settlement.

The settlement order requires HelloFresh to pay the $14 million
settlement amount into a settlement fund for distribution. $3.4
million of the settlement amount will be distributed to the
plaintiffs' attorneys for costs and fees. $10,000 will be
distributed to each of two named plaintiffs who brought the class
action forward, and another seven named plaintiffs will receive
amounts ranging from $2,000 to $5,000. The fund administrator will
receive $450,000.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement Approval calls the settlement
"the largest in Massachusetts federal court history in a TCPA
case." [GN]

HOEGH LNG: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of December 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hoegh LNG Partners LP ("Hoegh LNG" or the
"Partnership") (NYSE: HMLP) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-19613, is on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Partnership securities between April 3, 2020 and July 27,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Hoegh LNG securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 27, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

The Partnership was formed by Hoegh LNG Holdings Ltd., a leading
floating liquefied natural gas ("LNG") service provider. The
Partnership's purported strategy is to own, operate, and acquire
floating storage and regasification units ("FSRUs") and associated
LNG infrastructure assets under long-term charters. The Partnership
has interests in five FSRUs, including the PGN FSRU Lampung based
in Indonesia. Through agreements and business structures briefly
described below, the Partnership has a 100% economic interest in
the PGN FSRU Lampung.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Partnership was facing issues with the PGN FSRU Lampung
charter; (2) as a result, the PGN FSRU Lampung charterer would
state that it would commence arbitration to declare the charter
null and void, and/or to terminate the charter, and/or seek
damages; (3) the Partnership would need to find alternative
refinancing for its PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility; (4) the PGN
FSRU Lampung credit facility matured in September 2021, not October
2021 as previously stated; (5) the Partnership would be forced to
accept less favorable refinancing terms with regards to the PGN
FSRU Lampung credit facility; (6) Hoegh LNG would not extend the
revolving credit line to the Partnership past its maturation date;
(7) Hoegh LNG would reveal that it "will have very limited capacity
to extend any additional advances to the Partnership beyond what is
currently drawn under the facility"; (8) as a result of the
foregoing, the Partnership would essentially end distributions to
common units holders; (9) the COVID-19 pandemic was not the sole or
root cause of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia, in 2019,
before the pandemic, there were already a very low amount of demand
in Indonesia for the Partnership's gas; (10) the auditing, tax, nor
maintenance of PGN FSRU Lampung were not the sole or root cause(s)
of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia; and (11) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On July 27, 2021, the Partnership issued a press release which
announced that: (i) the Partnership had reduced its quarterly cash
distribution to $0.01 per common unit, down from a distribution of
$0.44 per common unit in the first quarter of 2021; (ii) the
refinancing of the PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility, which had been
scheduled to close by the end of the second quarter of 2021, was
not yet completed due to the failure by the charterer of the PGN
FSRU Lampung to consent to and countersign certain customary
documents related to the new credit facility; (iii) the PGN FSRU
Lampung charterer stated that it will commence arbitration to
declare the charter null and void, and/or to terminate the charter,
and/or seek damages in relation to the operations of the vessel and
its charter; (iv) the revolving credit line of $85 million from
Hoegh LNG will not be extended when it matures on January 1, 2023;
and (v) Hoegh LNG will have very limited capacity to extend any
additional advances to the Partnership beyond what is currently
drawn under the facility.

On this news, the Partnership's common unit price fell $11.57 per
common unit, or 64%, to close at $6.30 per common unit on July 28,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

HORIZON HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Moncton Oxytocin Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandre Silberman, writing for CBC News, reports that a hearing
began on Oct. 25 to determine if a class-action lawsuit can proceed
on behalf of mothers who believe they were improperly given a
labour-inducing drug by a Moncton nurse.

The certification hearing before a judge in Moncton was expected to
continue until Oct. 29.

The proposed lawsuit alleges Nicole Ruest administered oxytocin to
potentially "hundreds" of pregnant women at the Moncton Hospital
without their consent.

Ruest and Horizon Health Network are named as defendants in the
lawsuit, which was filed by the Halifax-based firm McKiggan Hebert
and Fidelis of Moncton.

A claim was filed on behalf of women who believe they received
oxytocin between September 2010 and March 2019, as a result of
Ruest's actions, and suffered harm as a result. That time frame is
when Ruest worked in the labour and delivery unit, according to the
health network's statement of defence.

The claim alleges Horizon and Ruest committed negligence, systemic
negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty in
allowing for the improper administration of oxytocin.

Horizon fired Ruest in 2019, and the Crown opted not to pursue
criminal charges against her following an investigation by RCMP.

Polley Faith LLP of Toronto is representing Ruest and has filed a
defence statement denying the allegations.

An internal Horizon investigation revealed "strong evidence" the
nurse administered oxytocin to two patients without consent, which
caused the women to require an emergency caesarean section, also
known as a C-section.

The health authority also noted in its filing that staff were
concerned about an increasing number of emergency caesarean
sections and were trying to determine the reason for it.

Nurse won't face criminal charges over oxytocin allegations, police
say

Oxytocin is a drug used in labour and delivery that causes the
uterus to contract and speed up labour. It can be dangerous for
babies because it can cut off oxygen to the fetus and affect fetal
heart rate.

Seven women have provided affidavits alleging Ruest gave them the
drug without their knowledge, resulting in harm, court heard.

The certification hearing is to determine if the lawsuit can meet
the criteria to move forward as a class-action suit, rather than
litigation on a case-by-case basis. It must prove a class-action
lawsuit provides access to justice for plaintiffs, judicial economy
and could result in behaviour modification.

Jayde Scott is named as the representative plaintiff in the
lawsuit. She is allegedly the last patient to be administered with
oxytocin before Ruest was fired.

John McKiggan of McKiggan Hebert Lawyers, and Mathieu Picard and
Virginia Gillmore of Fidelis Law are representing the women.

McKiggan argued in court that allowing the proposed lawsuit to
proceed would be the most efficient way to address the allegations
of harm and damages brought forth by a significant number of
mothers.

"It would avoid the necessity of having hundreds of individual
losses, having to retain medical experts," he said.

McKiggan said the individual negligence is related to Ruest's
alleged actions, while the systemic negligence claims the health
authority lacked proper procedures to prevent improper use of
oxytocin.

The law firms have heard from more than 200 women so far who
believe they were administered oxytocin, and experienced harm as a
result, he said.

Lawyer Catherine Bowlen of the firm Cox & Palmer, representing
Horizon, argued that any breach of standard of care cannot be
determined on a class basis and that there is no evidence of
negligence. Instead, she said, the allegations should be viewed as
individual instances of malpractice.

"All these issues are individual and can only be looked at by
examining the medical records of each potential class member," she
said.

Bowlen said the allegations in the statement of claim do not
indicate the hospital was aware of any alleged wrongdoing by Ruest,
and there is no evidence a lack of policies at the health authority
resulted in harm.

Bowlen disputed the definition of the class and said there are more
than 10,000 women who gave birth at the Moncton Hospital during the
time frame.

She said there is no objectivity if class members are defined based
on belief, rather than evidence they were administered the drug.

"Anybody who gave birth, within that time frame, could come forward
and say they were a member of the class," she said.

New Brunswick is an opt-out jurisdiction for class-action lawsuits,
meaning everyone who meets the definition of the class is eligible
for compensation, unless they take action to withdraw.

The certification hearing was set to continue on Oct. 26. [GN]

HORIZON HOUSE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Santoni, writing for Law360, reports that Horizon House
Inc., a Philadelphia-based mental health treatment center and
service provider, exposed tens of thousands of current and former
employees and patients to identity theft when the company's
computers felt victim to a cyberattack, according to a proposed
class action filed in Pennsylvania state court. [GN]

HOSTGATOR.COM LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hostgator.com LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hostgator.com LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09006 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

HostGator -- https://www.hostgator.com/ -- is a Houston-based
provider of shared, reseller, virtual private server, and dedicated
web hosting with an additional presence in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


INGRAMS WATER: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingrams Water & Air
Equipment LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ingrams Water &
Air Equipment LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09023 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2,
2021).

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

Ingrams Water & Air Equipment -- https://iwae.com/ -- offers
wholesale central air conditioning & heating systems from top
brands like Goodman, MrCool, GeoCool, Ruud, Gree, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



INMOTION HOSTING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InMotion Hosting,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. InMotion Hosting, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09002 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

InMotion Hosting -- https://www.inmotionhosting.com/ -- is an
industry-leading provider of Shared Hosting, WordPress Hosting, VPS
Hosting, Dedicated Servers and Hosted Private Cloud.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intelligent Nutrients
LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intelligent Nutrients
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09027 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Intelligent Nutrients -- https://www.i-nbeauty.com/ -- is a clean
hair and skincare brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


J.B. HUNT: Wilson Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.B. Hunt Transport,
Inc. The case is styled as George Wilson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case
No. 5:21-cv-05194-TLB (W.D. Ark., Nov. 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. -- https://www.jbhunt.com/ -- is
an American transportation and logistics company based in Lowell,
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates , III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Fax: (501) 312-8505
          Email: hbates@cbplaw.com


JOE BRANDS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joe Brands, LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Joe Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08885 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Joe Brand -- https://joebrand.com/ -- is the premier Luxury
specialty store serving South Texas and Northern Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


JOSEPH P. DIPINO: Umar Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Umar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOSEPH P. DIPINO, Case No. 1:21-cv-05857 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 2, 2021), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards, and
overtime provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law to seek
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs,
and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendant's
policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff sufficient
overtime wages under the FLSA and the IMWL within the applicable
statutory limitations period.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff worked over 40 hours—and therefore incurred damages in
almost every week that she worked for the Defendant. The Defendant
regularly assigned the Plaintiff and other Legal Assistants so much
work that they could not complete their work in under 40 hours in a
week. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff or other Legal
Assistants 1.5x their regular rate for hours worked over 40 each
week. The Defendant did have a timekeeping system whereby the
Plaintiff or other Legal Assistants could record and submit their
time to the Defendant. The Defendant knew or should have known that
the Plaintiff and other Legal Assistants were working hours over
forty each week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Legal Assistant from
December of 2018 until August of 2021.

The Defendant owns and operates Beverly & Pause, a law firm located
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUAN CARLOS ARRIETA: Lawrence Files Medical Malpractice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Lawrence as Administrator of the Estate of Frances Posin,
Deceased and Roberta Lawrence individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated distributees, Plaintiff, v. Juan Carlos Arrieta
MD, Defendant, Case No. 723858/2021, (N.Y. Sup., October 25, 2021),
seeks damages with interest, together with the costs and
disbursements of this action, and such other and further relief
resulting from defendant's negligence, medical malpractice and
departures from good and accepted standards of care that resulted
to severe personal injuries and pre-death terror which ultimately
resulted in the untimely and wrongful death of Plaintiff's
Decedent, Frances Posin.

North Shore University Hospital is a medical facility duly licensed
to operate in the State of New York. Juan Carlos Arrieta MD, was a
physician at North Shore University Hospital who attended to
Frances Posin. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Silverman, Esq.
      SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
      Attorneys for Plaintiff
      42-40 Bell Boulevard, Suite 300
      Bayside, NY 11361
      Tel: (718)352-9760
      Email: DSilverman@saccofillas.com


JUUL LABS: Cypress School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CYPRESS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08544 (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Cypress School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 5816 Corporate Avenue in Cypress, California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Coronado School Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08543 (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Coronado Unified School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 201 Sixth Street in Coronado, California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Vista School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08541 (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Vista Unified School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1234 Arcadia Avenue in Vista, California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KARI GRAN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kari Gran, Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kari Gran, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08961 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Kari Gran -- https://karigran.com/ -- offers natural, clean, and
organic skin care that truly nourishes and hydrates skin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


KASPERSKY LAB: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaspersky Lab, Inc.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09022 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

Kaspersky -- https://www.kaspersky.com/ -- offers premium
protection against all cyber threats for your home and business and
is a global leader in cybersecurity solutions and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


KATE QUINN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kate Quinn Organics,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kate Quinn Organics,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08955 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Kate Quinn -- https://katequinn.com/ -- has been making clothes for
baby (and mom) for more than a decade.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



KINDER MORGAN: Pedersen Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Curtis T. Pedersen, Beverly Leutloff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Kinder Morgan Inc., Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A, T. Mark Smith,
Jesse Arenivas, Unidentified Members of the Kinder Morgan
Retirement Plan A Fiduciary Committee, Kinder Morgan Retirement
Plan B, Adam Forman, Michael Garthwaite, Kenneth Grubb, Mark Huse,
Matthew Wojtalewicz, Case No. 2:21-cv-10388 was transferred from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on Nov. 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-03590 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee
Benefits.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. -- https://www.kindermorgan.com/ -- is one of
the largest energy infrastructure companies in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8400
          Fax: (412) 232-3730

               - and -

          Robert B. June, Esq.
          415 Detroit Street, 2nd Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1117
          Phone: (734) 481-1000
          Fax: (734) 481-1732

               - and -

          Stephen R Bruce, Esq.
          1667 K. St. NW, Suite 410
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 289-1117
          Fax: (202) 289-1583

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 857-0620
          Fax: (202) 659-4503

               - and -

          William B. Forrest, Esq.
          KIENBAUM HARDY VIVIANO PELTON & FORREST, P.L.C.
          280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400
          Birmingham, MI 48009-6255
          Phone: (248) 645-0000



LAGRANGE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LaGrange College. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. LaGrange College, Case No.
1:21-cv-08905 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

LaGrange College -- https://www.lagrange.edu/ -- is a private,
four-year liberal arts and sciences college in LaGrange,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAXMI BEAUTY: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laxmi Beauty, Inc.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Laxmi Beauty, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08962-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Laxmi Beauty -- https://lxmi.com/ -- offers luxury, natural,
organic facial care products made of the purest, rarest ingredient
- Nilotica.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Parpariam Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legends Hospitality,
LLC. The case is styled as Jaymes Parpariam, John Williams, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Legends Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-02540-KKM-CPT (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 29, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Legends -- https://www.legends.net/en-US/hospitality -- is a food,
beverage, merchandise, retail, and stadium operations corporation
serving entertainment venues and companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com


LEMON PERFECT: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lemon Perfect
Company. The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Lemon
Perfect Company doing business as: Lemon Perfect, Case No.
1:21-cv-08898 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Lemon Perfect -- https://lemonperfect.com/ -- is an operator of a
food and drink company intended to produce and sell cold-pressed
lemon water.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


LRN CORP: Prickett Jones Seeks Counsel Role in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Krebs, writing for Law360, reports that Prickett Jones &
Elliott PA has asked the Delaware Chancery Court to appoint it as
counsel for a proposed class of LRN Corporation investors that sued
officers of the corporate ethics and compliance business, seeking
damages over an allegedly unfair and coercive stock buying buyback.
[GN]

LUCKIN COFFEE: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $175MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Luckin Coffee
Inc (LC0Ay.MU), reached a $175 million settlement of shareholder
class-action claims that the Chinese rival to Starbucks
fraudulently inflated its share price by falsifying revenue.

Lawyers for the shareholders called the all-cash settlement, filed
on Oct. 25, an "excellent result," citing Luckin's liquidation
proceeding in the Cayman Islands and its related filing for
protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The accord also covers Luckin officials, and underwriters of the
Xiamen, China-based company's $645 million initial public offering
in 2019 and a later offering of American depositary shares.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan approved the
preliminary settlement on Oct. 26, and scheduled a Jan. 31, 2022
hearing to consider final approval. The settlement also requires
approval by a Cayman Islands court.

Luckin denied wrongdoing. Its U.S.-based lawyers did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Founded in 2017, Luckin ended March with about 5,000 stores.

Shareholders sued Luckin in February 2020, two weeks after
short-seller Muddy Waters Research accused it of inflating
revenue.

Two months later, Luckin's share price sank 81% after the company
said an internal probe found that its chief operating officer and
other staff fabricated about $310 million of sales in 2019, or
about 40% of annual sales projected by analysts.

Luckin agreed last December to pay a $180 million fine to settle
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accounting fraud civil
charges.

The SEC said Luckin raised more than $864 million from equity and
debt investors while the fraud was taking place.

Shareholders in the class actionare led by Swedish pension fund
Sjunde AP-Fonden and the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief
Fund.

Their lawyers, led by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, may seek fees of up to 25% of the
settlement fund. [GN]

MADE MODERN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Made Modern Holdings
LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Made Modern Holdings
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08958 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Kid Made Modern -- https://kidmademodern.com/ -- Inspired by a
collaboration of art and traditional craft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


MARATHON REFINING: Stipulated Class Cert. Deadlines in Wood OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY
ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC,
and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
after having fully considered Plaintiffs Warren Kostenuk, Anthony
Alfaro, Aaron Dietrich, and Defendant Marathon Refining Logistics
Services LLC's Joint Stipulation to set the remaining class
certification motion deadlines, as follows:

   (1) Responsive/opposition brief due by January 31, 2022.

   (2) Reply brief due on February 28, 2022.

   (3) The hearing date for the motion will be set for March 15,
       2022.

No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary and
compelling reasons, says Judge Rogers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wn3vFI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Anthony alfaro, Aaron Dietrich, and Warren
Kostenuk, are:

          Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
          Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
          Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
          Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
          Maximillian D. Casillas, Esq.
          Kara L. Gordon, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          A Professional Corporation
          1375 55th Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (510) 337-1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
                  khillman@unioncounsel.net
                  manansala@unioncounsel.net
                  rperkins@unioncounsel.net
                  anazarov@unioncounsel.net
                  mcasillas@unioncounsel.net
                  kgordon@unioncounsel.net

The Co-Counsel for the Plaintiffs Anthony Alfaro, Aaron Dietrich,
and Warren Kostenuk, are:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

The Attorneys for Defendant Marathon Refining Logistics Service
LLC, are:

          William J. Dritsas, Esq.
          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-Mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com
                  trusche@seyfarth.com
                  mmanesis@seyfarth.com
                  afry@seyfarth.com
                  mkopp@seyfarth.com

METALS CO: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Nov. 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired TMC the metals company Inc.
("TMC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TMC) securities between March 4,
2021 and October 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). TMC
investors have until December 27, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

In September 2021, DeepGreen Inc. combined with Sustainable
Opportunities Acquisition Corporation, a special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the combined company was renamed
TMC.

On September 13, 2021, Bloomberg revealed that two investors failed
to provide $330 million as part of the private investment in public
equity ("PIPE") component of the deal for TMC to go public. The
article posited that "[e]nvironmentalists claim that TMC's
activities will damage sensitive ecosystems and destroy vital
biodiversity" and that "[s]ince the SPAC deal was announced in
March, more than 500 scientists have signed a letter calling for a
moratorium on deep-sea mining until the environmental risks are
better understood."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.45, or over 20%,
over the next two trading days to close at $10.00 per share on
September 15, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on October 6, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that TMC had siphoned $43 million to
insiders by overpaying for Tonga Offshore Mineral License ("TOML").
The license had previously been owned by Nautilus Minerals Inc.,
which "valued the TOML exploration license in its historical annual
reports at zero."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.32, or 7%, to close
at $4.14 per share on October 6, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) the Company had significantly overpaid to acquire
TOML to undisclosed insiders; (2) the Company had artificially
inflated its Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. ("NORI") exploration
expenditures to give investors a false scale of its operations; (3)
the Company's purported 100% interest in NORI was questionable
given prior disclosures to the International Seabed Authority
("ISA" or the "Authority") that NORI was wholly owned by two
Nauruan foundations and that all future income from NORI would be
used in Nauru; (4) defendants had significantly downplayed the
environmental risks of deep-sea mining polymetallic nodules and
failed to adequately warn investors of the regulatory risks faced
by the Company's environmentally risky exploitation plans; (5) the
Company's PIPE financing was not fully committed and, therefore,
the Company would not have the cash necessary for large sale
commercial production; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's valuation was significantly less than defendants
disclosed to investors; and (7) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased TMC securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than December 27, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased TMC securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

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

METROPOLITAN COLLEGE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan College
Of New York. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Metropolitan
College Of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-08903 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29,
2021).

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

Metropolitan College of New York -- https://www.mcny.edu/ --
formerly Audrey Cohen College, is a private, not-for-profit
institution of higher education in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MG BILLING: Vandiver Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Card Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES VANDIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MG BILLING LIMITED dba PROBILLER, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02960 (D. Colo.,
November 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and
fraudulent billing practices. Specifically, Probiller lures
consumers into providing their credit card information based on the
promise of a cheap $2 "trial" membership to an adult entertainment
website, and it represents that users who cancel the trial within
48 hours will incur no further charges. But that representation is
false. Probiller exploits the trial offer to sneak other expensive
monthly subscription charges onto users' credit cards. During the
trial sign-up process, Probiller surreptitiously opts users into
membership for a second, additional adult entertainment membership,
then proceeds to charge consumers monthly subscription fees for the
additional adult entertainment membership even for users who cancel
during the trial period. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers have
suffered damages.

MG Billing Limited, doing business as Probiller, is a provider of
billing services to American consumers, headquartered in Cyprus.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
         KALIELGOLD PLLC
         950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783
         E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Tyler Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid-Century Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Jamie-Denise Tyler, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mid-Century Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-04514-MLB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

MID-Century Insurance Company provides insurance services. The
Company offers property and casualty, life, auto, business, and
other insurance 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

               - and -

          Christopher Baker Hall, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Pkwy., Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 876-8100
          Fax: (404) 876-3477
          Email: chall@hallandlampros.com

               - and -

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Fennell Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Fennell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-01561-MJH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai Zukowsky, Esq.
          ZUKOWSKY LAW LLC
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Pereda-Masson Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding, LLC.
The case is styled as Carlos Pereda-Masson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-19117-MCA-JSA (D.N.J., Oct. 20, 2021).

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

Midland Funding, LLC -- https://www.midlandfunding.com/ -- is one
of the nation's largest owners of unpaid debts. Midland Funding
owns accounts that have been charged off by the original
lender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Phone: (201) 507-6300
          Email: lh@hershlegal.com


MONICA AND ANDY: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monica and Andy, Inc.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Monica and Andy, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08890 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Monica and Andy -- https://monicaandandy.com/ -- is an operator of
an online baby clothing shopping.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


MRS BPO: Ct. Extends Time to File Class Cert. Response in Rosenberg
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rosenberg v. MRS BPO,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-02200 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Pamela K
Chen entered an order that:

   -- The deadline for Defendant to respond to the motion to
      certify class is extended to November 15, 2021; and

   -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply, if any, is
      extended to November 30, 2021.

MRS BPO provides business process outsourcing services.

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

MY GREEN MATTRESS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Green Mattress,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Green Mattress, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08887 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

My Green Mattress, Inc. -- https://www.mygreenmattress.com/ --
offers organic mattresses handcrafted from non-toxic
materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



NAIL KITCHEN: Boothe Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Boothe, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly
situated v. NAIL KITCHEN, INC., Case No. CACE-21-019784 (Fla. 17th
Judicial, Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 1, 2021), is brought under
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act with regards to the
Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls.

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

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant maintains its primary place of business and
headquarters in Durham, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Kovich Class Status Bid Filing Due Nov. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INSUREDS, v. NATIONWIDE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND
CODY MCCONNELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge
Robert Chambers entered an order granting joint motion to extend
briefing schedule as follows:

   -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is now due by
      November 22, 2021;

   -- Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification is due by
      December 13, 2021;

   -- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification is due
      by December 27, 2021.

Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BSEkvT at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent K. Kener, Esq.
          KESNER & KESNER, PLLC
          112 Capitol Street
          P. O. Box 2587
          Charleston, WV 25329
          Telephone: (304) 345-5200
          Facsimile: (304) 345-5265
          E-mail: bkesner@kesnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Berthold, Jr., Esq.
          Robert V. Berthold, III, Esq.
          Berthold Law Firm, PLLC
          P.O. Box 3508 .
          Charleston, WV 25335
          E-mail: rvb@bertholdlaw.com
          rvb3@bertholdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marc E. Williams, Esq.
          J.L. Byrdie, Esq.
          NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY
          AND SCARBOROUGH LLP
          P.O. Box 1856
          Huntington, WV 25719
          E-mail: marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com
                  jl.brydie@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Battle, Esq.
          Michael Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND, LLP
          280 High Street, Suite 1300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Dunn Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of New York.
The case is styled as Jerelle Dunn, Samuel Semple, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The City of New
York, Case No. 1:21-cv-09012 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2021).

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

New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs
sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Bruce Rankin, Esq.
          99 Park Ave 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 490-0400
          Fax: (212) 277-5880
          Email: DRankin@BLHNY.com


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Employees File Suit Over Vaccine Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Borcia, writing for Lake & McHenry County Scanner, reports that
14 employees who are set to be fired for refusing a COVID-19
vaccine mandate at NorthShore University HealthSystem, which
operates hospitals in the Chicago area, have filed a class-action
lawsuit.

14 unnamed employees being represented by Chicago-based Leahu Law
Group and Florida-based Liberty Counsel filed the lawsuit on Oct.
25 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

NorthShore University HealthSystem operates hospitals in Evanston,
Highland Park, Glenview, Arlington Heights, Skokie and Chicago.

The lawsuit seeks to remedy NorthShore's "pattern of unlawful
discrimination" against employees who requested religious
exemptions and accommodations from the hospital system's COVID-19
vaccine mandate.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are asking the court to grant a
temporary restraining order against NorthShore and a preliminary
injunction.

The suit states that the 14 employees will be fired by NorthShore
on November 1 if the court does not grant the order by then.

According to the lawsuit, the termination of the 14 employees will
cause "incalculable and irreparable harm to them and their families
as described herein, including homelessness, lack of medical care,
lack of food and shelter, disrupted education for their children,
financial ruin, and harms to their physical, mental and emotional
health."

The suit said that the plaintiffs are against the COVID-19 vaccines
because they were "either developed from, or tested with, aborted
fetal cells lines" or for other religious reasons.

In a statement to the Chicago Tribune, NorthShore said they
understand "that getting vaccinated may be a difficult decision for
some of our team members."

"We value their committed service and respect their beliefs.
However, COVID-19 has presented unique challenges that continue to
threaten our communities and therefore we must prioritize the
safety of our patients and team members in support of our broader
mission," the statement said. [GN]

O'REILLLY AUTOMOTIVE: Aguilar Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lizabeth Aguilar, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. O'Reilly Automotive Store,
Inc., a foreign corporation; O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; Case No. VCU288765 was removed
from the Tulare County Superior Court, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 29,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01595-DAD-BAM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

O'Reilly Auto Parts -- https://www.oreillyauto.com/ -- is an
American auto parts retailer that provides automotive aftermarket
parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and accessories in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady Briggs, Esq.
          Jared Hague, Esq.
          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
          5200 N. Palm Ave., Suite 203
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Phone: (559) 325-0500
          Email: brady@suttonhague.com
                 jared@suttonhague.com
                 brett@suttonhague.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Michael Peterson, Esq.
          Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Esq.
          HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-7913
          Phone: (619) 236-1551
          Fax: (619) 696-1410
          Email: peterson@higgslaw.com
                 boniske@higglaw.com


OPTIC GAMING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OpTic Gaming LOL,
LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. OpTic Gaming LOL, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08849 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

OpTic Gaming -- https://opticgaming.tv/ -- is an American esports
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


ORGANIC MATTRESS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Organic Mattress,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Organic Mattress,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08963 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

The Organic Mattress, Inc. -- https://www.theorganicmattress.com/
-- sell the finest quality, best edited collection of mattresses,
bedding accessories made from the best organic and natural
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



ORGANIC MATTRESSES: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Organic Mattresses,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Organic Mattresses,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08951 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Organic Mattresses, Inc. (OMI) -- https://www.omimattress.com/ --
is a brand of luxury mattress appealing to the discerning
health-conscious, eco-friendly customer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


OSIRIS MARKETING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osiris Marketing
Group & Sales LLC. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing
Inc., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Osiris Marketing Group & Sales LLC doing business as: SpotOn
Financial, Case No. 3:21-cv-08457 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Osiris Marketing Group & Sales LLC doing business as SpotOn
Financial -- https://spotonfinancial.com/ -- is a financial
services brokerage and professional business consulting
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC SHAVING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Shaving
Company. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Shaving Company,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08938 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Pacific Shaving Company -- https://www.pacificshaving.com/ --
offers shaving care from safe, natural, and plant-derived
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Still Defends Rebolledo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that Philip
Morris Colombia S.A., continues to defend a purported class action
suit in Colombia entitled, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris
Colombia S.A., et al.

In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019, against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of our Platform 1 product.

Plaintiff alleged that the company's subsidiaries advertise the
product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads
consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and
further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic
compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging
second-hand effects.

Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on
a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all Platform 1 consumers in
Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and
personal injuries related to the alleged addiction, and class 2 -
all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly
took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal
advertising).

The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020,
and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the
named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of
Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product
purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an
allegedly harmful product.)

In June 2021, the company's subsidiaries answered the amended
complaint.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Haston Bid to Certify Class Junked as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HASTON v. PHILLIPS & COHEN
ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01069 (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge William S. Stickman entered an order denying as moot
motion to certify class, in light of the filing of order granting
preliminary approval to class action settlement.

Phillips & Cohen is a financial recovery agency.

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


POOLTOGETHER INC: Kent Sues Over Illegal Lottery Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kent, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. POOLTOGETHER, INC.; LEIGHTON CUSACK; KAIN WARWICK; STANISLAV
KULECHOV; DRAGONFLY CAPITAL, LLC; NASCENT US, LLC; MAVEN 11
CAPITAL, BV; GALAXY DIGITAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP; PARAFI CAPITAL,
LP; and COMPOUND LABS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-06025-FB-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021), is brought against PoolTogether and all
those who conspired with it (and each other), and who aided and
abetted its criminal acts of operating an illegal lottery from
Brooklyn, New York, available to gamblers all over the world.

The Defendant is currently selling what it describes on its website
as "tickets" to win "prizes" in a "lottery" to gamblers all over
the world. Each of PoolTogether's lottery tickets is purchased with
cryptocurrency, but otherwise this lottery is materially identical
to an old-fashioned numbers racket: gamblers give PoolTogether
money in exchange for chances to win money as determined by a
random-number drawing. New York law forbids the sale of lottery
tickets and authorizes recovery of double the amount anyone
delivers in exchange for a lottery ticket, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased ten tickets in a PoolTogether lottery on
October 21, 2021, by delivering $10 worth of cryptocurrency to
PoolTogether.

PoolTogether, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the
State of Delaware that lists its principal place of business in
public filings as Grand Rapids, Michigan, but whose actual
principal place of business is Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Gerstein, Esq.
          GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
          611 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, No. 317
          Washington, DC 20003
          Phone: (202) 670-4809
          Email: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com

               - and -

          Jason Harrow, Esq.
          GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
          3243B S. La Cienega Blvd.,
          Los Angeles, CA 90016
          Phone: (323) 744-5293
          Email: jason@gerstein-harrow.com

               - and -

          James Crooks, Esq.
          FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
          1499 Massachusetts Ave. NW, #113A
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (619) 507-4182
          Email: jamie@fairmarklaw.com


RAYTHEON TECH: Class Action Over UTC Equity Awards Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26,
2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that
former employees have filed an amended complaint in their class
action over the equity awards by United Technologies Corporation.

On August 12, 2020, several former employees of United Technologies
Corporation or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the Company, Otis Worldwide Corporation,
Carrier Global Corporation, the former members of the UTC Board of
Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of
Directors. The case is Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, et al.

The company said the complaint challenged the method by which UTC
equity awards were converted to Company, Otis, and Carrier equity
awards following the separation of UTC into three independent,
publicly-traded companies on April 3, 2020.

The complaint also claimed that the defendants are liable for
breach of certain equity compensation plans and also asserted
claims under certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On September 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for
breach of the equity compensation plans against the Company, Otis
and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims.

Further, no claim is made in the amended complaint against any
current or former director of any of the three companies.

Plaintiffs seek money damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On April 3, 2020, UTC completed the separation of its business into
three independent, publicly traded companies -- UTC, Carrier and
Otis. UTC distributed all of the outstanding shares of Carrier
common stock and all of the outstanding shares of Otis common stock
to UTC shareowners who held shares of UTC common stock as of the
close of business on March 19, 2020, the record date for the
distributions effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Time, on April 3,
2020. Immediately following the Separation Transactions and
Distributions, on April 3, 2020, UTC and Raytheon Company completed
their all-stock merger of equals transaction (the Raytheon Merger),
pursuant to which Raytheon Company became a wholly owned subsidiary
of UTC and UTC was renamed Raytheon Technologies Corporation (RTC).
As a result of these transactions, the Company now operates in four
principal business segments: Collins Aerospace Systems (Collins
Aerospace), Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon Intelligence & Space (RIS)
and Raytheon Missiles & Defense (RMD).

"We continue to believe that the Company has meritorious defenses
to these claims," Raytheon Technologies said.

At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome;
however, based on the information available to date, Raytheon
Technologies does not believe that this matter will have a material
adverse effect upon the company financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is a global premier systems
provider of high technology products and services to the aerospace
and defense industries.


RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. f/k/a Lund
Enterprises Corp. (OTC: RECAF, LGDOF) between February 28, 2019 and
September 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for ReconAfrica investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the ReconAfrica class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2100.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) ReconAfrica's plan for using unconventional means for energy
extraction (including fracking) in the fragile Kavango area; (2)
that ReconAfrica would begin unlicensed drilling tests; (3) that
ReconAfrica would illegally use water for well testing; (4) that
ReconAfrica would illegally store used water in unlined pools; (5)
that ReconAfrica would skirt Namibian law and hire an inadequate
and inappropriate consultant; (6) that, as a result, ReconAfrica
risked future well, drilling, and water-related licenses in Namibia
and Botswana; (7) that, as opposed to its representations,
ReconAfrica did not reach out nor provide adequate information
(including in relevant local languages) through accessible means to
those to be impacted by its testing and potential energy
extraction; (8) that ReconAfrica's interests are in the Owambo
Basin, not the so-called Kavango Basin; (9) that ReconAfrica has
continuously engaged in stock pumping; and (10) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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
27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2100.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

Contacts:
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]

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., et al. The case is styled as Samantha Garcia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services L.P., LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 4:21-cv-02054 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


RITE AID: Burch Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Esther Burch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV38662 was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Nov. 1, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-08622 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is an American
drugstore chain based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania near the Navy
Yard.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason Jonathan Kim, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: kimj@huntonak.com


ROBERT C. ELDRED: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert C. Eldred Co,
Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robert C. Eldred Co,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08878 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Robert C. Eldred Co., Inc., also doing business as Eldred's
Auctions -- https://www.eldreds.com/ -- are fine art and antiques
auctioneers and appraisers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Traders Sue Over Repeated Trading Outages
------------------------------------------------------------
Arnab Shome, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that a group of
Robinhood traders has approached a US court seeking certification
of class against the trading platform for its repeated outages
during the market volatility of spring 2020.

As reported by Law360, the class certification represents nearly 7
million funded account holders on the commission-free brokerage
platform. Accounts with at least one equity or option position
during the March 2 outage can join the lawsuit if it is granted by
the court.

The representatives of the proposed class argued in a California
court that the trading platform breached its contract and fiduciary
obligations to customers with the repeated outages. Furthermore,
they alleged a breach of the regulatory requirements by the broker
that acted in a 'reckless, profit-driven manner'.

Repeated Outages
Robinhood faced multiple outages during March 2020 when the stock
market was extremely volatile. One of the outages on the day of a
major market rally even lasted for an entire trading day, barring
its clients from participating in trading.

"Plaintiffs present a fulsome damages analysis demonstrating losses
well into the tens of millions, before punitive damages and
interest," the proposed class stated in the motion filed on Oct.
22.

"Put plainly, Robinhood needs the court's intervention to protect
customers."

Traders, who moved against the broker, said that their damages
model in economic losses is in the 'form of a loss of flexibility,
i.e. investors were unable to make trades to capitalize gains, to
mitigate losses and alter the risk profile of their investments'.

In addition, it will consider losses as customers could not open
any new positions and the open positions that could not be closed
during the outage.

"Given Robinhood's long track record of outages, without injunctive
relief, there is nothing to ensure that Robinhood will change both
its organizational and operational structures so that Robinhood's
users will be able to trade efficiently without undue delay and
unnecessary risk," the motion added.

Earlier, Robinhood faced tens of millions of dollars in penalties
brought against it by multiple US regulators. However, the
popularity of cryptocurrencies on the platform is fading due to the
rising American competition. [GN]

RODNEY MESRIANI: Manvelian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Park, LLC. The
case is styled as Arvin Manvelian, individually and on behalf of
all himself, the general public and on behalf of all other persons
and class similarly situated that is a class claimants whose rights
were violated as were Manvelian's v. The Law Offices of Rodney
Mesriani d/b/a the Mesriani Law Group, Rodney Mesriani,
individually and in his official capacity as the owner of the
Mesriani Group, Case No. 21STCV39868 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Oct. 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Fraud."

Mesriani Law Group (MLG) -- https://www.mesrianilaw.com/ -- is a
one-stop shop legal service provider that houses skilled and
accomplished attorneys in Los Angeles.[BN]


RUGBY FOOTBALL: Former Players to Launch Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Proszenko, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Rugby league is set to be rocked by the sport's first
concussion class action after lawyers acting for former English,
Welsh and Scottish players -- including Super League legend Bobbie
Goulding -- announced their intention to sue in a case that will
have huge ramifications for the NRL.

Rylands Legal is representing 50 former footballers in a negligence
suit against the Rugby Football League (the RFL), the governing
body for the Super League in England. It's alleged the RFL failed
in its duty of care to protect the plaintiffs from the risks
associated with concussions and sub-concussions.

It is the same legal firm which is representing 175 former rugby
union players in a separate concussion lawsuit. Goulding, former
Wales international Michael Edwards and Scotland international
Jason Roach are part of a test group of 10 players, all under the
age of 60, bringing the legal action. However, their lawyer,
Richard Boardman of Rylands Legal, said he is representing 50
former professional rugby league players aged in their 20s to 50s,
all of whom are showing symptoms associated with neurological
complications.

It's alleged the RFL failed in its duty of care to introduce and
enforce rules regarding the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of
actual or suspected concussive and sub-concussive injuries.

Boardman said he and the players were motivated to act not only by
financial compensation, but a desire to make the game safer for
other footballers.

"The vast majority of the former players we represent love the game
and don't want to see it harmed in any way," Boardman said. "They
just want to make it safer so current and future generations don't
end up like them. Younger players such as Stevie Ward, Rob Burrow
and Sam Burgess have spoken publicly about their own brain damage,
so these issues aren't restricted to older generations.

"This is why we're asking the RFL to make a number of immediate,
relatively low-cost changes to save the sport, such as limiting
contact in training and extending the return to play [following a
concussion]."

Former Great Britain and England international Gould - who enjoyed
a 17-year career with clubs including Wigan, Leeds, Widnes and St
Helens - is the biggest-name to commit to the action. The
49-year-old, who has had problems with alcohol and drug addiction,
was diagnosed with early onset dementia/probable chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE) in October.

"For something like this to come out of the blue and hit me like a
bus is hard to take," Goulding said.

"I didn't think about dementia at all, I just thought it was the
way life was. [When I played] I was 13 stone, 5ft 6in [83kgs,
168cm], playing against blokes who were 6ft 2in and 19 stone
[188cm, 121kg], and didn't even bother about it. But it takes its
toll in the end, especially if they're angry.

"I played within days of serious knockouts on at least three
occasions. I remember playing on a Sunday for Leigh at Huddersfield
towards the end of my career, [in 2002]. I was in Huddersfield
Royal Infirmary on the Sunday night after being seriously knocked
out, and played the following Saturday against Batley.

"I didn't have one doctor check on me during that week. 'Bob, are
you ready to play?' he said. 'Yeah I'll play.' If you watched the
video, you'd be shocked."

Several Australian legal firms have been canvassing former NRL
players in a bid to commence a class action, but to date haven't
been able to convince the requisite number to commit.

Former Newcastle winger James McManus, who launched the first local
concussion case against the club, settled the matter just before it
was scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court. The former State of
Origin flanker told the Herald in September that he was likely
living with CTE and that he didn't regret commencing the action if
the attention it garnered prompted those "suffering in silence" to
seek the help they need.

Former Parramatta forward Brett Horsnell also commenced legal
action against the Eels in May 2017, but ultimately abandoned the
case.

However, former NRL players may be emboldened to join a local class
action if the case against the RFL results in a big payout.

Former Oldham, Swinton and Wales prop Edwards (48), former St
Helens, Warrington and Scottish international Roach and former
Halifax/Scotland prop Ryan McDonald (43) joined Goulding in
speaking publicly about post-football life after signing up to the
class action.

"I started forgetting things about 10 or 12 years ago before I was
40, even major events," Roach said.

"One time I got into trouble with the police. I was arrested seven
days after an incident in my car, but when the police knocked on my
door, I had no recollection of it happening. They told me that I'd
gone into the back of a car, threatened the other driver, and then
driven off. The policeman said to me, 'you're either the best liar
in the world, or you didn't do it.' I pleaded guilty, but to this
day I can't remember a thing.

"I used to be the life and soul, but because of the forgetfulness
I've retreated into my shell. I was a nervous wreck getting the
train because I don't do public transport anymore. I've become
quite reclusive. I just go to work, come home, have the odd drink
in my garden." [GN]

SEAWORLD PARKS: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Refund Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that season pass
holders alleging SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. continued to
charge a monthly fee after its parks were closed due to Covid-19
were unable to get their consumer class action reinstated, after
the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claims.

Named plaintiff Lisa Kouball sought to represent a nationwide class
and a California subclass of people charged annual membership fees
after SeaWorld's parks were closed in March 2020.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in
September dismissed all of Kouball's claims. [GN]

SECURITY PAVING: Midstate Barrier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Paving
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Midstate Barrier, Inc., a
California corporation for itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Security Paving Company, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2021-0010159 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Oct. 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair
Business Practice."

Security Paving Company, Inc. -- http://securitypaving.com/--
provides construction services. The Company constructs roads,
highways, bridges, and other civil infrastructure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Gladych, Esq.
          GLADYCH LAW, INC.
          1400 Bristol St. N., Ste. 210
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-2965
          Phone: 949-442-8942
          Fax: 949-442-8949
          Email: john@gladychlaw.com


SHARE NOW: Settles Class Action Suit Over Driver Protection Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin McElroy, writing for CBC News, reports that if you had a
Car2Go membership before the company left North America in 2020,
you could be in line for some money from a class action lawsuit
that was recently settled.

Just don't go changing your vacation plans.

"No one's getting rich off of this one," said Alexia Majidi, a
lawyer with Hammerco, representing plaintiffs in the suit.

"[But] it all comes down to keeping corporations accountable."

The lawsuit was settled for $1 million, but Majidi said less than
two-thirds of the total funds recovered will be available to
claimants on a pro-rated basis after fees are removed.

'Paying for something you didn't need'
The lawsuit centred around the "driver protection fee" created by
Car2Go in 2015, which added an extra dollar to the cost of every
trip.

When it was created, Car2Go said the fee was the tradeoff for
lowering the insurance deductible for crashes to $250 from $1,000.
In a statement at the time, the company said the fee would "reduce
our members' financial exposure in the unfortunate event that they
are involved in an accident or damage a Car2Go during their trip."

But Majidi said forcing that change for every customer wasn't
necessary, because many people would already be protected through
credit card insurance.

"Not necessarily double dipping, but it was paying for something
you didn't need," she said.

More than 450,000 Canadian users
The settlement only applies to users in B.C., Alberta and Ontario
who paid at least $10 in the fee after March 25, 2018 (or March 25,
2017 in Quebec). Users were informed about the process in an email
sent on Oct. 25.

Prior to ending their North America operations in 2020, Car2Go
operated in several large Canadian cities, with more than 450,000
users across the country.

The German company merged with car-share service DriveNow and
continues to operate under the name ShareNow in several European
cities.

While Majidi acknowledged that individual compensation will be
minimal, she said it is a positive development.

"That was money that they didn't need to charge, and that they
profited off of," she said.

"This has been one of the main reasons why we've been going forward
with class actions, is because these corporations have gone and
gotten away with situations like this for too long. They've been
getting richer and richer. So someone's got to hold them
accountable."

The accounting firm hired to oversee the payment process is
expected to provide compensation by May 2022. [GN]

SOLLIS HEALTH: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sollis Health LA,
P.C. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sollis Health LA,
P.C., A Medical Corporation doing business as: Sollis Health, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08860 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

Sollis Health -- https://sollishealth.com/ -- is a group of doctors
and health care professionals committed to providing a new tier of
medical care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SPEED FANATIX: Olejniczak Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Simmon Olejniczak, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. SPEED FANATIX, INC., STEPHEN HARPER, individually, and
REG DODD, individually, Case No. 9:21-cv-82002-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 29, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

During his employment, the Plaintiff worked beyond 40 hours per
week. The Defendants required employees, like the Plaintiff to take
two set 15 minute breaks per day. However, this requirement was not
actually put into practice where the workload and demands of the
business required the Plaintiff to routinely work through those
breaks. Despite working through these breaks, the Defendants
employed a system whereby 30 minutes of these purported break times
were automatically deducted each day regardless of whether the
break was truly taken (the "Automatic Deduction System"). Through
use of the Automatic Deduction System, the Plaintiff was
automatically deprived of 2.5 hours of overtime premium pay per
week. The Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to properly
provide the Plaintiff and those similarly situated with proper
overtime pay due to the Automatic Deduction System, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants and performed
work for the Defendants in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Speed Fanatix provides services related to building and servicing
1965 Backdraft Shelby Cobra replicas, engine installation, wheel
alignment, and road testing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Bayardo E. Alemán, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          PERERA ALEMÁN
          12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
          Davie, FL 33330
          Phone: 786.485.5232
          Email: freddy@pba-law.com
                 bayardo@pba-law.com
                 brody@pba-law.com


SPYGLASS LLC: Loera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spyglass LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Lourdes Loera, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Spyglass LLC, C.O.N.R. Inc., Cypress
Healthcare Group LLC, Maltique LLC, S.H.C.C. Inc., S.L.H.C.C. Inc.,
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00310054-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 20, 2021).

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

The SpyGlass Group, LLC -- https://www.spyglass.net/ -- is a
specialized cost consulting firm having a very niche focus in
Telecommunications Expense Management (TEM).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave. Ste. 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
          Phone: 310-531-1900
          Fax: 310-531-1901
          Email: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com


STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Court Enters Class Cert. Sched in Munguia
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRISELDA MUNGUIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00664-DOC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order that:

   -- Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition Brief is
      extended to December 13, 2021.

   -- Plaintiff's deadline to file her Reply Brief is extended
      to December 20, 2021.

   -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      is continued to January 3, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CWuSca at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050
          Houston, TX 77/046
          E-mail: ctitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          OH walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (310) 928 1277
          E-mail: matt@parmetlaw

STATE FARM: Pedersen Has Until Feb. 18, 2022 to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY PEDERSEN, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert L. Lindsay; BETTY
L. RADOVICH; WANDA WOODICK; and ROSALIE KIERNAN, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Nicholson; individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
4:19-cv-00029-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont.), the Hon Judge John Johnston
entered an order pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) that the discovery
deadline and class certification briefing schedule be extended as
follows:

     Discovery Cutoff:     January 28, 2022

     Motion for Class      February 18, 2022
     Certification:        

     Response to Motion    March 18, 2022
     for Class             
     Certification:

     Reply to Motion for   April 1, 2022
     Class Certification:  

State Farm Insurance is a large group of insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.

A copy of the Courts order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31t8Q2P at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lon J. Dale, Esq.
          MILODRAGOVICH, DALE
          & STEINBRENNER, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4947
          Missoula, MT 59806-4947
          Telephone: (406) 728-1455
          E-mail: lon@bigskylawyers.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Lucero, Esq.
          CHARLES S. LUCERO, P.C.
          P.O. Box 3505
          Great Falls, MT 59403
          Telephone: (406) 771-1515
          E-mail: charlie@charlielucero.com

               - and -

          Lawrence A. Anderson, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          P.O. Box 2608
          Great Falls, MT 59403 2608
          Telephone: (406) 727-8466
          E-mail: laalaw@me.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale R. Cockrell, Esq.
          MOORE, COCKRELL,
          GOICOECHEA & JOHNSON, P.C.
          145 Commons Loop, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 7370
          Kalispell, MT 59904-0370
          Telephone: (406) 751-6000
          Facsimile: (406) 756-6522
          E-mail: dcockrell@mcgalaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Moseley, Esq.
          Hannah R. Seifert, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 839-3800
          Facsimile: (303) 839-3838
          E-mail: jmoseley@spencerfane.com
                  hseifert@spencerfane.com

STOP & SHOP: OLeary Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Stop & Shop
Supermarket Company LLC. The case is styled as Thomas OLeary,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-08918-NSR
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, known as Stop & Shop --
https://stopandshop.com/ -- is a chain of supermarkets located in
the northeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUBARU CORP: Class Action Over Tree Air Fresh Freshener Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against Subaru was just thrown out of court. See why Little
Tree air freshners are behind the latest case against Subaru of
America.

You have probably seen the little tree air freshener hanging from a
Subaru Forester, Outback, Crosstrek, or another car's rearview
mirror. Car Freshner Corporation is behind the Little Trees brand
air fresheners headquartered in Watertown, New York.

A report from Bloomberg Law (by subscription) says the company that
for more than 60 years has sold tree-shaped air fresheners that
dangle from cars' rearview mirrors sued Subaru of America and its
business partner Staples accusing them of infringing trademarks for
the Little Trees-branded products.

Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann Ltd., the exclusive
licensee and owner of the trademarks, said Subaru of America and
Staples had sold baseball caps bearing a tree design that's
"virtually identical" to their trademarked design. The lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York.

According to a filing in federal court in New York, a new report
from Bloomberg Law says Subaru of America and Staples no longer
face a trademark class-action suit by Car-Freshner Corporation.

Car-Freshner Corp. and Julius Samann Ltd. voluntarily dismissed the
suit recently without an option for re-filing. Bloomberg says, "It
wasn't clear whether the dismissal was the result of a
settlement."

Since its inception in 1952, Little Trees has grown into a global
brand, and they have 39 different fragrances to keep cars smelling
like a forest, apples, bubble gum, leather, and even Bourbon.

Subaru of America sells baseball caps with a tree on them because
the Camden, N.J. automaker's slogan is "Leave no trace," "Don't
feed the landfills," and have been "Partners in the environment"
for over twenty years.

If you see a Subaru baseball cap with a tree logo on it, remember
it's different than the Little Trees air fresheners you see hanging
on a Forester, Outback, Crosstrek, or other cars' rearview mirror.
[GN]

SWADDLEDESIGNS LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SwaddleDesigns, LLC.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SwaddleDesigns, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08889 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

SwaddleDesigns -- https://www.swaddledesigns.com/ -- offers
swaddling blankets with a wonderful assortment of stylish prints
and designer colors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



SYVROS RESTAURANT: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hediberto Guzman and Ezequiel Larios Lopez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. SYVROS RESTAURANT CORP.
(D/B/A ZORBAS) and KONSTANTINOS DEFTEREOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-06024
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiffs and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants as a delivery
worker and a cook at the restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Greek Restaurant, located
in Avenue, Astoria, New York under the name "Zorbas."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEA LIVING: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tea Living, Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tea Living, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08960 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Tea Living, Inc. -- https://www.teacollection.com/ -- was founded
in 2002. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
specialized lines of apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



TILT HOLDINGS: November 29 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a proposed class action commenced against TILT
Holdings Inc., Alexander Coleman, Mark Herron, Michael Orr and Todd
Halpern have now reached a proposed settlement of the claim which
is subject to approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The class action has now been certified. This notice provides
information about this proposed settlement and related matters and
how to opt out of the class action.

Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing. Please read
this notice carefully.

The class action was commenced on behalf of all persons who
acquired TILT Holdings Inc. securities between October 12, 2018 and
May 1, 2019. The proposed settlement is for US$3.65 million.

By agreeing to the proposed settlement, the parties avoid the costs
and uncertainty of a trial and delays in obtaining judgment.

If you do not wish to be bound by the class action and participate
in the settlement, you must opt out of the class action. A copy of
the Opt Out Form is available here:
www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is required to decide whether
to approve the proposed settlement, class counsel fees and
disbursements plus tax, an honorarium for the representative
plaintiff and a plan to allocate and distribute the settlement
proceeds. The Court will hear submissions about the approval of the
proposed settlement on November 29, 2021. Payments will only be
made available if the Court approves the proposed settlement and
after any appeals are resolved.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

1. Opt Out: Fill out an Opt Out Form. Exclude yourself from the
class action and the proposed settlement. The Opt Out Form is
available here: www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt You must email your
Opt Out Form before November 24, 2021 to:
tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com

2. Object: Fill out a Notice of Objection and explain why you
object to the settlement and other relief sought. The Notice of
Objection is available here: www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt You must
email your Notice of Objection before November 24, 2021 to:
tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com

3. Go to a Hearing: You can attend the Zoom videoconference
approval hearing in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
November 29, 2021 to object to the proposed settlement and
ancillary relief.

4. Do Nothing: Remain in the class action and participate in the
settlement, but give up your right to object to the proposed
settlement.

These rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them and
more information about the proposed settlement are explained in a
notice available at www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt

More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of
the Settlement Agreement at www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt You can
send your questions to tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com

The lawyers for the plaintiff in the class action are Kalloghlian
Myers LLP and Paul Bates.

URL: http://www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt

Contact Information:
www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt [GN]

TNT CRANE: Sanchez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
David Sanchez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TNT CRANE & RIGGING, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-00203 (W.D.
Tex., Nov. 1, 2021), is brought against the Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, as a
result of the Defendant's violation of the FLSA and the NMMWA by
failing to pay its crane operators in accordance with the
guarantees and protections of the FLSA and the NMMWA.

The Defendant has refused to pay its crane operators at
time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty hours within a workweek. It has done so by
knowingly permitting its crane operators to engage in compensable
travel time and compensable preparatory and concluding work but
nevertheless intentionally refusing to pay those crane operators
for all of that travel time or preparatory and concluding work,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a crane operator at the
Defendant's worksites in and around the Permian Basin, including in
Midland County, Texas and in New Mexico from February 2018 to
December 2018.

The Defendant is a crane and rigging company that provides services
throughout North America, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Johnson, Esq.
          FAIR LABOR LAW
          314 E. Highland Mall Blvd, Ste. 401
          Austin, TX 78752
          Phone: (512) 277-3505
          Phone: (512) 277-3254
          Email: ajohnson@fairlaborlaw.com


TWITTER INC: Class Action Settlement Hits Third Quarter Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ilaria Grasso Macola, writing for City A.M., reports that Twitter's
monetisable daily active users fell short, the company reported. In
its third quarter results, the social media platform registered 211
daily active users, falling short when compared to analysts'
estimates of 212.6 million.

"Average monetizable daily active users (mDAU) reached 211 million,
up 13 per cent year over year in the third quarter, accelerating
from 11 per cent year over year growth in the second one, driven by
ongoing product improvements and global conversation around current
events," commented Twitter's chief executive Jack Dorsey.

Despite the decrease, the company revenues totalled to $1.28bn - a
37 per cent year-on-year increase - with its advertising revenue
taking most of the cake, going up to $1.14bn.

The San Francisco-based company saw an increase in revenues both in
the domestic and foreign market, with the US going up to $742m.

"Our focus is paying off, and we are pleased with our performance
in the third quarter, with revenue up 37 per cent year-over-year,
reflecting strength across all major products and geographies,"
said chief financial officer Ned Segal.

"We continued to drive increased value for our advertisers thanks
to revenue product innovation, including progress on our brand and
direct response offerings, strong sales execution, and a broad
increase in advertiser demand.

"These factors contributed to 41% year-over-year growth in ad
revenue in the third quarter."

Despite the 37 per cent increase in revenues, the company suffered
a $743m operating loss, mainly due to its decision to settle a
consolidated class action.

City A.M. reported that the class action - which was filed in 2016
by investor Doris Shenwick - alleged that Twitter executives misled
investors about the growing rate of its user base. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Hanford Site Workers to Sue Over Vaccine Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that a class
action lawsuit is planned on behalf of Hanford site workers
required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The Silent Majority
Foundation held a meeting in Richland on Oct. 24 to discuss plans
with interested Hanford workers for the proposed lawsuit. A few
hundred people attended, said Pete Serrano, who is a director of
the Silent Majority Foundation, a nonprofit organizing the effort,
and its lead attorney. The foundation posted on its website on Oct.
24 that it planned to bring a lawsuit asking for a temporary
restraining order or other relief before upcoming deadlines for
Hanford workers required to be vaccinated or get an approved
exemption under a federal order of the Biden administration. The
Silent Majority Foundation is a grassroots organization to protect
America's Constitution and theological foundation, according to its
website.

Its three directors include Serrano, who is a Pasco city councilman
and previously worked for the Department of Energy as an attorney.

The Hanford nuclear reservation employs about 11,000 workers,
including about 200 who were required to be vaccinated or have an
approved exemption by Oct. 18 because they were covered by a
Washington state mandate that covered health care workers. Hanford
workers employed directly by the Department of Energy have a Nov.
22 deadline. But the majority of Hanford workers are employed by
contractors for the federal government. They face a Dec. 8
deadline. Rather than getting the vaccine, federal and contractor
employees may apply for a medical or religious exemption.

Job accommodations may be made only if the exemption is legally
required, according to information posted online by the Safer
Federal Workforce Task Force. DOE will consider factors such as the
basis of the claim, the employee's job responsibilities and whether
other employees and the public can be protected from COVID-19, the
task force posted on its site explaining the mandate for federal
workers. LEGAL STRATEGY At the Oct. 24 meeting the discussion was
expected to cover the proposed legal strategy and information about
how to become a plaintiff and what it would cost. The Silent
Majority Foundation is still making plans for the lawsuit. It is
teaming with Arnold & Jacobowitz, a law firm with Seattle and
Chelan, Wash., offices.

The foundation will make a decision as soon as possible on whether
to file the lawsuit and then would plan to move forward quickly,
Serrano told the Herald. DOE did not comment on the possible
lawsuit, saying its policy was not to comment on any potential
litigation. DOE has not released information on how many Hanford
workers have already been vaccinated. The 580-square-mile Hanford
site near Richland was used from World War II through the Cold War
to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Now
the federal government is spending about $2.5 billion a year on
environmental cleanup of the nuclear reservation.

WA VACCINE MANDATE LAWSUIT The Silent Majority Foundation earlier
filed a lawsuit against Gov. Jay Inslee challenging the Washington
state vaccine mandate for state employees. It named a single
plaintiff, Jeffrey Johnson, a guard at the Coyote Ridge Corrections
Center in Connell. Johnson qualified for an exemption "based on a
sincerely held religious belief that prevents (him) from being
vaccinated against COVID-19," according to court documents. The
corrections officer wrote that his creed prohibits him from
injecting any vaccine to protect against infectious diseases or
other form of medication into his body without his "explicit verbal
or written consent for an indefinite amount of time." His religious
exemption was granted by the Washington state Department of
Corrections after Johnson submitted a second request.

However, the department said the only reasonable accommodation it
can offer Johnson is "the possibility of reassignment" because his
unvaccinated status "poses a threat to the health or safety of
yourself and others in the workplace," his lawsuit states. That
accommodation, according to the suit, poses an uncertainty to
Johnson and both his present and future employment status with the
state agency. He was asked by the department to submit an
up-to-date resume describing his work experience, education and
skills. The lawsuit, filed in Franklin County Superior Court, asks
a judge to declare that Inslee's proclamation is unconstitutional
and void. It is being moved to Thurston County Superior Court.
Thurston County is home to Olympia, the state capital. This story
was originally published October 25, 2021 12:38 PM. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Settles Class Suit Over Hiring Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Shen-Berro and Kate Murphy, writing for The Herald Sun,
report that thousands of UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke University
professors are getting checks from Duke as part of a $19 million
settlement after a class-action lawsuit alleged the schools
colluded on hiring decisions. The lawsuit, filed by a UNC-CH
professor, alleged that non-medical faculty were paid less because
Duke and UNC had a "no-poach understanding" that violated state and
federal anti-trust laws. The plaintiffs accused the schools of
agreeing not to hire each other's faculty in order to "suppress the
pay of Duke and UNC faculty," according to the initial complaint.

Duke, which settled the suit in August without admitting fault,
confirmed the settlement but officials did not comment on the case.
In an email, Dean Harvey, an attorney who represented the
plaintiffs, confirmed that the terms of the settlement posted
online were accurate. He declined to comment further on the lawsuit
or the settlement.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE LAWSUIT This lawsuit is essentially an extension
of a case in 2018, in which medical school professors at Duke and
UNC levied these allegations against the two universities. In 2019,
the university and the Duke University Health System agreed to pay
$54.5 million to settle the Seaman v. Duke case, the Duke Chronicle
reported. Lucia Binotti, a Spanish professor who has worked at
UNC-CH for more than 30 years, was questioning how some of her own
professional opportunities had played out when a colleague
mentioned that it sounded strangely similar to the Seaman case.
Binotti reached out to the lawyers in that case and filed this suit
in May 2020. She sought damages for herself and other non-medical
Duke and UNC-CH faculty who weren't covered by the previous
settlement. Her complaint argues that the prestige and close
proximity of the two universities would lead to natural competition
to recruit qualified candidates. However, this alleged secret
agreement limits that competition and therefore limits pay for
faculty, according to the complaint.

"The biggest problem is that our salaries are compressed in many
different ways," Binotti said in an interview with The News &
Observer. That secret non-poaching agreement was one the strategies
to keep salaries low, she said, and now it can't be used. "It
seemed worth fighting for so that many colleagues in my situation
in the future won't have to find themselves in this very compressed
situation, in which our salaries are well below the market rate,"
Binotti said. HOW MUCH WILL PROFESSORS GET PAID? More than 15,700
current and former faculty members at Duke and UNC-CH were eligible
for these payments, according to court documents.

The $19 million doesn't cover the amount of compounded damages of
this alleged agreement over the years, Binotti said. But at least
professors have "received a tiny piece of reparations," she said.
On a website intended to explain the lawsuit to eligible class
members, attorneys wrote that members would be paid proportional to
their pay and benefits while employed at the universities. This
would account for the fact that those who had worked there longer,
or who had higher pay and benefits, were "allegedly harmed more"
than others, the legal team wrote. Regular faculty members will
receive an average of $2,341.19 in compensation, according to the
site. Other faculty positions, like adjuncts or visitors, will
receive an average of $152.54. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of Saint
Joseph. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. University Of Saint
Joseph, Case No. 1:21-cv-08904 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).

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

The University of Saint Joseph -- https://www.usj.edu/ -- is the
premier private university in Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VAIL RESORTS: Employees Join FLSA Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Duncan, writing for Vail Daily, reports that a total of 16
current and former Vail Resorts employees have joined a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleging that the company violated the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as state labor laws in Colorado
and eight other states. Here is what we know about their claims.

The lawsuit was first filed December 2020 in Colorado District
Court on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina, who
are current or former employees at Beaver Creek Resort.

Quint, Linn and Molina each filed declarations detailing their
experiences with the company along with a 167-page complaint filed
by their attorneys. They are represented by
California-based attorneys Edward P. Dietrich and Benjamin
Galdston, who have declined to comment on the case.

The 167-page document filed a total of 22 complaints against Vail
Resorts, including violations of state labor laws in a total of
nine states where the company operates resorts: Colorado,
California, Utah, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New York,
Vermont and Michigan.

The complaint includes allegations of the company failing to pay
employees for all hours worked, as well as for overtime hours,
meals, rest periods and training. It also alleges that the company
does not properly reimburse employees for the equipment needed to
perform the basic functions of their jobs, such as
skiing/snowboarding gear and cellphone costs.

Quint has worked as a seasonal employee and, later, a full-time
snow sport instructor for seven years at Beaver Creek Resort. He
estimated that between December 2017 and December 2019, he should
have been paid for an additional 470.17 hours, amounting to
$8,363.30 in unpaid wages.

Linn — also a resident of Colorado who has worked as a part-time
and full-time snow sports instructor at Beaver Creek -- claims he
worked 213 hours that he was not paid for from December 2017
through March 2020, as well as 130 hours of unpaid overtime,
according to the lawsuit.

As instructors, Quint and Linn said they are expected to log 6.5
hours for a full-day private lesson in accordance with company
policy, even though they often work 9- or 10-hour days.

The allotted 6.5 hours logged for each full-day lesson should be
recorded from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and should account for the
full-day lesson, as well as lunch, morning team meetings, parent
conferences, class list completion, "Epic Mix Academy" and
completion of time cards, according to company policy cited in
declarations filed by Quint and Linn.

"It was impossible to complete all of these tasks during the
product/lesson hours," Quint and Linn wrote. For example, morning
team meetings begin at 8:45 a.m., which falls outside of the hours
employees are able to log.

The company's guidelines stipulate that employees "self-report"
time worked outside of those 6 1/2 hours for approval by their
supervisor.

However, the lawsuit claims that policy is contradicted by other
parts of the Ski and Snowboard Schools Resource & Guideline Manual
that ask employees to get previous approval for additional hours
whenever possible and only allows self-reporting under specific
circumstances.

The manual states that employees "are expected to manage their day
and work for the assigned lesson time," unless a guest requests to
extend their lesson, according to the declarations.

"Any instructor who manipulates this system … is subject to
immediate discipline up to and including termination," according to
excerpts of the manual cited in the declarations.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action status to
prosecute the case on behalf of a larger group, or "class,"
impacted by the allegations which, in this case, are current and
former employees who worked for Vail Resorts over the past three
years.

Vail Resorts issued a statement at the beginning of October saying
that the company "dispute(s) the accuracy of the claims raised by
the plaintiffs."

"Vail Resorts is, and has always been, committed to treating its
employees fairly and in compliance with all applicable laws," Jamie
Alvarez, the company's director of corporate communications, said
in a written statement issued on behalf of the company.

Vail Resorts is currently represented by Jonathan O. Harris and
Raul Chacon Jr., of the firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart. Neither Vail Resorts nor its counsel have responded to the
Vail Daily's most recent requests for comment.

In the months since the December 2020 filing, 13 other current or
former Vail Resorts employees have joined on to the lawsuit as
"opt-in plaintiffs." Each opt-in plaintiff signed off on a boiler
plate statement certifying that they have similar complaints.
Opting in also means that they will be entitled to any compensation
negotiated if the case is ultimately settled.

The statement states that plaintiffs were not compensated for
"'off-the-clock' work including, but not limited to, traveling
between employee parking lots and (their) locker room or work site,
the donning and doffing of uniforms and equipment or training time
…"

It also alleges that plaintiffs were "not paid (their) regular rate
of pay per hour set forth in (their) employment agreement for all
hours worked in non-overtime weeks or at one and one-half times my
regular rate of pay per hour for all hours worked over 40 hours in
overtime weeks."

It often takes resort workers -- ski instructors, ticket sales
employees, lift operators, etc. -- a considerable amount of time to
travel from resort parking lots up the mountain to their work
sites. With the additional time it takes to put on and take off
snow gear, not being paid for this time can add up quickly, the
main complaint states.

Also among the 22 counts brought against Vail Resorts is a
complaint known as "unjust enrichment," alleging that the company
has benefited financially from years of "willfully and
systematically" failing to pay employees for all hours worked.

"In violation of federal and state laws, Vail Resorts has illegally
reaped millions of dollars at the expense of plaintiffs and other
class members," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit has yet to receive conditional certification for class
or "collective action" status, and multiple requests for evidence
are still pending with the Colorado District Court.

A federal judge assisting with the case recently granted a request
filed by Vail Resorts to postpone the case while the company moves
to settle two similar lawsuits filed against the resort operator in
a California District Court. [GN]

VIATRIS INC: Gill Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme to Maintain Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Viatris Inc. (Successor-in-Interest to Mylan N.V.),
Mylan Specialty L.P., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Heather
Bresch, Case No. 5:21-cv-01187-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021), is
brought seeking to recover damages and overpayments from at least
2009 through the present, as well as injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection and
antitrust laws with regards to the Defendants' fraudulent scheme to
obtain and maintain a monopoly in the market for epinephrine
autoinjectors.

According to the complaint, of necessity, because there is no
meaningful competition in the market, the vast majority of American
children and adults with severe allergies turn to a simple, decades
old device to administer an epinephrine dose: the EpiPen
autoinjector. The EpiPen is manufactured by two subsidiaries of
Pfizer, Inc. (King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc.) and sold in the United States by Defendant
Mylan, which states on its website that its mission is: "Do what's
right, not what's easy" and that "Integrity" is one of its
"Values." It also states: "Doing what's right is sacred to us. We
behave responsibly, even when nobody's looking."

Since at least 2009, however, Defendants have done the opposite of
"what's right." Instead, Defendants devised an illegal scheme to
monopolize the market for epinephrine auto-injector devices. As a
result, millions of Americans relying on this life-saving device
have paid exorbitant prices for EpiPens that are in no way tethered
to or constrained by a competitive market. Unlawfully exercising
its monopoly power, Mylan hiked the list price for two EpiPens to
$608 in 2016, up from $100 in 2007—an increase of over 600%. The
price increases was not attributable to market conditions,
increases in manufacturing costs, or shortages in the supply of
epinephrine. They were driven solely by unaccountable executives
and companies who sought to profit off of human misery and fear.
The EpiPen price hikes were the fruits of a multi-faceted,
fraudulent scheme to obtain and maintain a monopoly in the market
for epinephrine autoinjectors at the expense of American consumers
and third party payors.

To effectuate this scheme, Defendants combined and conspired to:
Misclassify the EpiPen under Medicaid's Medical Drug Rebate Program
to save hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates; Utilize their
Medicaid savings to offer aggressive rebates and incentives to
Pharmacy Benefit Managers, conditioned on excluding competitors
from the market; Use Mylan's Access to Schools program to hook
consumers on its product, meanwhile conditioning the provision of
free EpiPens to schools on the exclusion of competitor products;
Engage in deceptive marketing programs to restrain and prevent
competition; Assert and prosecute invalid patents to dissuade
competitors from entering the market for epinephrine autoinjectors;
Intervene in regulatory proceedings to delay competitors' entry in
the market; Enter into unlawful pay-for-delay settlement agreements
with competitors to maintain Mylan's monopoly; Convince regulators
and the public that a medical need justified Mylan's decision to
sell EpiPens solely in 2-paks, thereby exercising monopoly power to
double consumer and third-party payor expenses; and Falsely testify
to Congress in an effort to avoid scrutiny and government action.

These unlawful acts have resulted not only in this private suit,
but on January 30, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced
that it is investigating numerous possible federal law violations
by Mylan in connection with the EpiPen. It is time to put a stop to
Defendants' galling actions that have endangered the lives of
millions of Americans, all while funneling hundreds of millions of
dollars in illegal profits to Defendants' coffers. It is also time
to send a message that the law will not tolerate the fraudulent and
anticompetitive actions of America's pharmaceutical giants. This
case is of immense importance to Plaintiff, members of the Classes
she seek to represent, and the American public, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Gill has needed to purchase the EpiPen since he was
diagnosed with a severe tree nut allergy and has purchased an
EpiPen 2-Pak from a New York Wegmans Dewitt pharmacy.

Viatris Inc. is a successor-in-interest to Mylan N.V. and is
registered to do business in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Email: mreich@zlk.com
                 cmaccarone@zlk.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com


VIATRIS INC: Ipson Sues Over Monopoly in EpiPen Autoinjector Market
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Landon Ipson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Viatris Inc. (Successor-in-Interest to Mylan N.V.),
Mylan Specialty L.P., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Heather
Bresch, Case No. 2:21-cv-00643-BSJ (D. Utah, Oct. 29, 2021), is
brought seeking to recover damages and overpayments from at least
2009 through the present, as well as injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection and
antitrust laws with regards to the Defendants' fraudulent scheme to
obtain and maintain a monopoly in the market for epinephrine
autoinjectors.

According to the complaint, of necessity, because there is no
meaningful competition in the market, the vast majority of American
children and adults with severe allergies turn to a simple, decades
old device to administer an epinephrine dose: the EpiPen
autoinjector. The EpiPen is manufactured by two subsidiaries of
Pfizer, Inc. (King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc.) (collectively referred to herein as "Pfizer")
and sold in the United States by Defendant Mylan, which states on
its website that its mission is: "Do what's right, not what's easy"
and that "Integrity" is one of its "Values." It also states: "Doing
what's right is sacred to us. We behave responsibly, even when
nobody's looking."

Since at least 2009, however, Defendants have done the opposite of
"what's right." Instead, Defendants devised an illegal scheme to
monopolize the market for epinephrine auto-injector devices. As a
result, millions of Americans relying on this life-saving device
have paid exorbitant prices for EpiPens that are in no way tethered
to or constrained by a competitive market. Unlawfully exercising
its monopoly power, Mylan hiked the list price for two EpiPens to
$608 in 2016, up from $100 in 2007—an increase of over 600%. The
price increases was not attributable to market conditions,
increases in manufacturing costs, or shortages in the supply of
epinephrine. They were driven solely by unaccountable executives
and companies who sought to profit off of human misery and fear.
The EpiPen price hikes were the fruits of a multi-faceted,
fraudulent scheme to obtain and maintain a monopoly in the market
for epinephrine autoinjectors at the expense of American consumers
and third party payors.

To effectuate this scheme, Defendants combined and conspired to:
Misclassify the EpiPen under Medicaid's Medical Drug Rebate Program
to save hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates; Utilize their
Medicaid savings to offer aggressive rebates and incentives to
Pharmacy Benefit Managers, conditioned on excluding competitors
from the market; Use Mylan's Access to Schools program to hook
consumers on its product, meanwhile conditioning the provision of
free EpiPens to schools on the exclusion of competitor products;
Engage in deceptive marketing programs to restrain and prevent
competition; Assert and prosecute invalid patents to dissuade
competitors from entering the market for epinephrine autoinjectors;
Intervene in regulatory proceedings to delay competitors' entry in
the market; Enter into unlawful pay-for-delay settlement agreements
with competitors to maintain Mylan's monopoly; Convince regulators
and the public that a medical need justified Mylan's decision to
sell EpiPens solely in 2-paks, thereby exercising monopoly power to
double consumer and third-party payor expenses; and Falsely testify
to Congress in an effort to avoid scrutiny and government action.

These unlawful acts have resulted not only in this private suit,
but on January 30, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced
that it is investigating numerous possible federal law violations
by Mylan in connection with the EpiPen. It is time to put a stop to
Defendants' galling actions that have endangered the lives of
millions of Americans, all while funneling hundreds of millions of
dollars in illegal profits to Defendants' coffers. It is also time
to send a message that the law will not tolerate the fraudulent and
anticompetitive actions of America's pharmaceutical giants. This
case is of immense importance to Plaintiff, members of the Classes
she seek to represent, and the American public, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased approximately three EpiPen 2-Paks for his
minor daughter, including since 2014 when the price for an EpiPen 2
Pak exceeded $400.

Viatris Inc. is a successor-in-interest to Mylan N.V. and is
registered to do business in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph W. Steele, Esq.
          SIEGFRIED & JENSEN
          5664 South Green Street
          Salt Lake City, UT 84123
          Phone: 801.266.0999
          Facsimile: 801.266.1338

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Rachel Lanier, Esq.
          Cristina Delise, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North
          Houston, TX 77064


WISE MEDICAL: Fortin Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA FORTIN, and others
similarly situated, v. WISE MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01467-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   (a) conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
       action under Section 216(b) against Defendant Wise
       Medical Staffing, Inc. on behalf of Named Plaintiff and
       others similarly situated;

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

       "All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare
       employees of Defendant who worked or were scheduled to
       work at least 40 hours in any workweek and had a meal
       deduction taken from their compensable hours worked,
       beginning three years prior to the filing date of this
       Motion and continuing through the date of the final
       disposition of this case;"

   (c) approving the proposed Notice form informing such present
       and former employees of the pendency of this collective
       action and permitting them to opt in to the case by
       signing and submitting the proposed Consent to Join Form;

   (d) directing Defendant to provide, within fourteen (14) days
       of an order granting conditional certification, a roster
       of all persons who fit the definition in Paragraph (b)
       (the "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs") that includes their
       full names, their dates of employment, their locations
       worked, job titles, their last known mailing addresses,
       and their personal email addresses (the "Roster"); and

   (e) directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
       Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
       within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the
       Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs’ mailing and email addresses.

Wise Medical Staffing is a hospital staffing and home health care
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q7OXsm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

YOGAFORCE LLC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yogaforce LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Yogaforce LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08954-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

YogaForce LLC -- https://www.yogaforce.com/ -- offers a wide
selection of Fitness Packages tailored to fit individual or
corporate needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


YUSEN LOGISTICS: Salazar Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCISCO SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.,
STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
21STCV31753, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on November 3, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-08664 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay wages, failure to timely pay wages at
termination/separation, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and unfair business practices.

Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc. is a third-party logistics provider
based in Secaucus, New Jersey.

Staffmark Investment, LLC is a temporary staffing business, with
its principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Daniel B Chammas, Esq.
         Jennifer S. McGeorge, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 237-2400
         Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
         E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                 jmcgeorge@fordharrison.com

ZERO FLAKES: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zero Flakes Given,
LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zero Flakes Given, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08959 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2021).

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

Zero Flakes -- https://zeroflakes.com/ -- offers 100% all-natural,
organic, non-toxic anti-dandruff solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com



[*] Class Action Industry in Australia Fights New Bill
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hewett, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the class action industry is mobilising to defeat the Morrison
government's latest attempt to rein in the financial returns for
lawyers and litigation funders from a continuing boom in class
actions.

The bill introduced into parliament on Oct. 27 would in most cases
limit their returns to a maximum 30 per cent of any financial
payout to try to ensure a minimum of 70 per cent is left for the
actual members of the class action. Its opponents will focus on
persuading Senate crossbenchers that this will unfairly restrict
access to justice, particularly for victims of corporate or
government wrongdoing.

With limited time to get the contentious legislation passed before
the election, the bill's fate may depend on how protracted the
process of review by a Senate committee becomes. Labor will want to
draw that out as long as possible.

The government remains quietly confident it can get to a vote by
the end of the parliamentary year but this has already unleashed
another intense battle of lobbyists and passionate arguments.

According to a new review by King & Wood Mallesons, a record 63
class actions were filed last financial year. These ranged from
consumer claims against medical products to claims against the
state for everything from climate change risk to COVID-19 outbreaks
to wage underpayment.

But the review does expect the shareholder class actions to decline
as a proportion of lawsuits following changes to Australia's
continuous disclosure laws.

Pre-COVID-19, these laws made it relatively easy to legally
challenge companies for not immediately disclosing market-sensitive
information.

This standard was always contestable but companies -- and their
insurers -- often settled ahead of time to avoid the risks,
reputational damage and protracted distraction of defending a court
case against deep-pocketed litigation funders. This became one of
the reasons for the sky-rocketing cost of directors' insurance as
insurers counted up the increasing risk of corporate class
actions.

Temporary changes
To cope with the uncertainty of COVID-19 and the difficulties of
providing company guidance, Josh Frydenberg made temporary changes
to the continuous disclosure obligations. These could provide only
the basis for shareholder class actions if directors and officers
acted with "knowledge, recklessness or negligence". Last August,
the Treasurer was able to persuade just enough of the crossbench to
make these changes permanent -- to the relief of corporate
Australia.

This certainly will not and should not stop all shareholder class
actions given the incident of shareholders being dudded, especially
when boards or the management do not share much in financial
penalties.

But it will make class actions more difficult to pursue by more
closely aligning the Australian system with US and UK rules
requiring a "fault element". Australia was often described as a
"honey trap" attracting more than 30 international litigation
funders to an extremely lucrative class action market.

Australia, for example, is the second-most active jurisdiction
globally for climate change litigation.

The Australian Law Reform Commission calculated that the median
return to class members in actions without a funder was 85 per
cent, falling to 51 per cent where a funder was involved.

'Disproportionate' returns
The Morrison government has long wanted to curb the
"disproportionate" returns to litigation funders -- in the hope
Australia becomes a less appealing jurisdiction for opportunistic
international firms.

From last year, funders also have to hold an Australian Financial
Services Licence and comply with the managed investment scheme
regime.

As well as effectively requiring a minimum 70 per cent of gross
proceeds for the members of a funded class action, the new bill
would provide judges with greater ability to challenge funders'
commissions and lawyers' fees by using independent experts, called
contradictors.

Frydenberg and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash say this will
protect class members against the kinds of misconduct highlighted
by the recent Banksia class action involving a collapsed financial
lender in Victoria. A judge found the lawyers had fraudulently
inflated fees and commissions from mostly elderly investors, and
ordered the solicitor and two barristers struck off and the legal
team and funder referred for possible prosecution.

The government also wants to outlaw "common fund orders", which
allow potential members of a class action suit to be included
without their knowledge or consent. This usually increases the
level of payout - and therefore the returns available to litigation
funders and lawyers against often modest compensation for
individuals.

The critics of this change claim litigation funders operating on a
no-win, no-fee basis simply won't take on the years of risks and
costs of a case without being able to share more of the potential
rewards. And that, they argue, can only decrease access to justice
for people who deserve compensation.

But a 2018 report on the industry by Allens noted justice for class
members was often "nothing more than a convenient by-product" --
particularly in shareholder class actions -- and that promoters'
pursuit of profits had instead become an end in itself.

Innes Willox from the Ai Group says the reforms have merit but
expects the litigation funders and plaintiff law firms to run a
"Chicken Little" campaign against them.

Yet, the unintended result of reform may consolidate Victoria as
the national forum of choice for class actions. Unlike other
states, the Andrews government last year allowed lawyers to operate
on a contingency basis rather than merely being entitled to recover
professional fees, with a prohibition on commissions.

This allows prominent class action legal firms based in Victoria,
particularly Maurice Blackburn and Slater and Gordon, to take on
the cost and risks themselves without relying on a litigation
funder.

The proposed legislation will not hamper this. Canberra's response
to the various class action inquiries suggest the government's
interest in ensuring alleged breaches of the Corporations Law must
be filed in federal court. But that's a fight for another day. [GN]

[*] IADC Files Submissions on Class Action Reform in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, the IADC filed submissions with the
Government of the province of Quebec in Canada, in response to a
public consultation that it launched in April 2021 in the context
of an eventual reform of the class action regime in Quebec. These
submissions were supported and adopted by Lawyers for Civil Justice
(LCJ), the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel (FDCC), DRI
Center for Law and Public Policy -- The Voice of the Defense Bar
(DRI), the Canadian Defence Lawyers (CDL), and the Product
Liability Advisory Council (PLAC). The submissions were developed
by a number of IADC members in Quebec -- Francis Rouleau (Blakes),
Myriam Brixi (Laverys), Joseane Chretien (McMillans), and Sylvie
Rodrigue (Torys) -- with support and encouragement from members of
the IADC Canadian Class Actions Task Force that prepared a similar
set of submissions some years back for the Ontario Law Commission.

The impetus for the Quebec government's consultation was a set of
reforms proposed by the Universite de Montreal's Laboratoire sur
les actions collectives (Laboratory on class actions) that proposed
new case protocols to speed up an already expedited class
authorization (certification) process, moving the authorization
process into the main proceeding rather than keeping it as a
preliminary gatekeeping step, and eliminating the color of right
criteria, among other things.

The IADC submissions explain, among other things, why new case
protocols are not necessary. Instead, they advocate for plaintiffs
being required to succinctly state the causes of action asserted,
limiting the types of allegations (facts known to the named
plaintiff only) that will be presumed true without evidence, and
defense evidence being admitted on agreement of counsel to lessen
the risk of delays of court hearings on admissibility. They
advocate for retaining and strengthening the existing preliminary
authorization process, maintaining and even expanding the color of
right test to allow a fuller preliminary merits assessment,
incorporating expressly a proportionality analysis for all of the
authorization criteria and adding a preferability requirement to
avoid needless class actions for those who have had no or de
minimis loss. [GN]

[*] Sault Ste. Marie Waits for Certification of Opioid Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Della-Mattia, writing for The Sault Star, reports that Sault
Ste. Marie City council received a report on Oct. 25 in connection
to a resolution that asked the city's legal department to explore
the possibility of the city to formally join a class action lawsuit
regarding the opioid crisis.

The report was accepted as information and no further action will
be taken at this time.

City Solicitor Karen Fields reports that the class action lawsuit,
led by Calgary-based Guardian Law Group, targets pharmaceutical
manufacturers and distributors for allegedly causing the opioid
crisis.

Preliminary matters regarding the jurisdiction of two of the
parties are underway, Fields reports.

Ward 5 Coun. Corey Gardi, who initiated the research into the
class-action suit through an earlier motion, said the report speaks
for itself and he's satisfied with taking the wait-and-see approach
to determine where the lawsuit should go.

"I don't think there is much we can do at this point in time other
than to continue to monitor it and I'm sure our city solicitor will
be doing the same," Gardi told The Sault Star. "We'll certainly be
ready to cooperate if we can shed any light on our experience, or
that being a border town."

The claim has been served on about 40 defendants worldwide but the
action has not yet been certified.

The law firm is also involved in proceedings filed against Purdue
Pharma, the makers of Oxycontin.

The family that owns Purdue has filed for bankruptcy after a number
of municipalities in both Canada and the United States sued them in
connection with the opioid epidemic. Their proposed settlement
would see a new company formed and the profits of the existing
company dedicated to fulfilling lawsuit claims - but only to U.S.
companies. They also want to be exempt from further lawsuits from
others.

Grande Prairie is also leading the charge in the separate
class-action suit for Canadian municipalities.

The Canadian case has two plaintiffs, the City of Grande Prairie
Alberta and the city of Brantford, Ontario.

In class action lawsuits, if certified, and the class is defined in
the court order, claimants meeting the criteria are automatically
opted in, and should they choose they don't want to participate,
can opt out.

Canadian municipalities, including Sault Ste. Marie, have spent
millions and millions of dollars on health care, including
emergency ambulance and fire service calls to respond to
opioid-related overdoses, increases in policing associated with
crime related to opioid use and an escalation in homelessness as a
result of the crisis.

In addition, more money has been spent on treatment and addiction
centres and on targeting the crisis.

"At this point there is no step the municipality needs to take
until its determined if the action gets certified," the report to
council states.

Council was also told that Guardian Law will not be asking for any
contribution towards the disbursements as the lawsuit proceeds, but
will be paid from any proceeds of the settlement.

"I am advised that the municipality will bear no risk with respect
to costs and disbursements if there is an unfavourable outcome,"
Fields said. "Disbursements are to be reimbursed only when and if
there is a recovery."

She noted that the anticipated costs of disbursements in the
proposed class action are estimated to be between $5 million and
$10 million.

Any city costs would be internal for time used to collect the
documentation for the law firm and, if the lawsuit is successful,
the means of how any award is divided could be left to the courts,
perhaps based on a per capita split, the report states.

Brantford had said it wanted to take a stand and hold
pharmaceutical companies accountable for the negative impacts
suffered by municipalities as a result of the opioid crisis.

This is believed to be the first of its kind of lawsuit in Canada
although it has been litigated in the United States a number of
times.

This class-action lawsuit is separate from one filed in 2018 by the
Province of British Columbia on behalf of provincial health
insurers.

That lawsuit is seeking health costs incurred by the provinces in
treating people who suffer from the crisis. [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 ***