---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 17, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 224

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
40 PARK DENTAL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
8X8 INC: Initial Settlement Reached in Rivas Class and PAGA Suits
AARP INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Medigap Plans
ACIMA CREDIT: Court Junks Farr Bid to File Second Amended Complaint

ADT LLC: Bid to Stay Class Certification in Doty Partly Granted
AM COMMUNICATIONS: Ct. Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Grant Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Wants Sidewalk Program Class Action Tossed
AMAZON.COM: Bid to Transfer Roman Suit to C.D. California Tossed
AMNEAL PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in Xyrem Antitrust Suit

AMNEAL PHARMA: Notifies Court of Intent to Junk Galeas Claims
AMNEAL PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Metformin Related Class Suit
ANADARKO E&P: Bay Appeals Judgment in Landowners Suit
AON PLC: Subsidiary Wins Trial in 401(k) Plan Suit
APPHARVEST INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 23 Deadline

ARGENT TRUST: December 6 Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Sought
ASCENDTEK LLC: Dec. 13 Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought
ASCENDTEK LLC: Must Respond to Holland Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 13
ATLAS SENIOR: Green Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
AUSTRALIA: $35MM Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval

AUSTRIA: Lawyers Set Up Crowdfunding Site to Help Fund Class Suit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Two Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach Underway
B & M MANAGEMENT: Joint Bid for Conditional Status in Park Filed
BACARDI LTD: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Suit
BEIERSDORF AG: November 17 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

BETH SKINNER: Yates Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
BIMBO BAKERIES: New York Court Dismisses "All Butter" Class Action
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene-Related Suit Pending
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Faces BMN 307 Related Suit
BOOKING HOLDINGS: German Hotel Association Suit Underway

BOOZ ALLEN: Langley Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
BRASILAGRO: Class Action Against IDBD Ongoing in Israel
BRYAN COWDERY: Seeks Reconsideration of Conditional Cert. Order
BURBANK HOUSING: Former Manager Files Labor Class Action
CABARET LOUNGE: Former Dancers' Class Action Can Proceed

CAMBER ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of December 28 Deadline
CAMBER ENERGY: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 28 Deadline
CANADA: Military Sexual Misconduct Claims Nearly Doubled
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Chinchilla Putative Class Suit Underway
CARSON, CA: Class Action Mulled Over Putrid Odor

CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Settlement Gets Final Approval
CBOE GLOBAL: Providence Initiated Suit Underway
CELTIC FOOTBALL: Judge Greenlights Sex Abuse Survivors' Class Suit
COCA-COLA: Response to Spaner Class Cert. Bid Extended to Dec. 6
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Hacked Accounts

COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Law Firm Investigates Data Breach Claims
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Cameron Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Delivery Drivers' Class Action Pending
E&P FINANCIAL: Chief Executive Alan Dixon Added to Class Action

ELEMENT MATERIALS: Seeks Dismissal of Clemons 1st Amended Complaint
EPIC SYSTEMS: EBG Achieves Victory in PAGA Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
FCA US: Ringless Voicemail Class Suit Can Proceed in State Court
FLORIDA: UF Allows Professors to Testify in SB 90 Class Action

FSM ZA: Patzfahl Must File Class Status Bid by June 1, 2022
GAOTU TECHEDU: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 20 Deadline
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Piron Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
GEO GROUP: Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Action
GEORGIA PACIFIC: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Sched in Diaz OK'd

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Action Over Auto Claims Certified
HAYWIRE INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 8, 2022
HOUSTON ASTROS: Wallach Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Provides Update on Hi-Med Class Action
ILLINOIS: Seeks Dec. 17 Extension to File Class Cert. Response

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
JODI HARPSTEAD: Daywitt "Sex Offender" Suit Seeks Class Status
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Loses Appeal in Pelvic Mesh Class Action
JOSHUA TAYLOR: Sparger-Withers Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
JUUL LABS: TCAPS Trustees to Consider Joining Vaping Class Action

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Class Action Over Recalled CPAP Machines
KSF ACQUISITION: Faces Class Action Over SlimFast Products
LEXINGTON LAW: Extension of Discovery, Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines in Perchlak Filed
LLR INC: Sperring Appeals Case Ruling to 9th Cir.

MATTRESS WAREHOUSE: Johnson Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
MAUI, HI: Faces Class Action Over Homeless Encampment Sweep
MAXIMUS INC: Thomas Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
MCKESSON CORP: New Hope, Minn. Council to Join Opioid Class Action
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Scheduling Order in Harris Modified

METALS CO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
METALS CO: Robbins LLP Reminds of December 27 Deadline
METICULOUS CLEANING: Amaya Seeks Conditional Class Certification
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt's Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
MICHIGAN: Smith Appeals Dismissal of Petition for Habeas Corpus

ML ENTERPRISE: Reyes Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
NEO TECHNOLOGY: Parties in Portier Stipulate to Modify Schedule
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs File TRO Over Vaccine Policy
ON24 INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 3, 2022 Deadline

ON24 INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 3, 2022 Deadline
ORGANIFI LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OS RESTAURANT: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
OZARK TRUCKING: Oliver Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PARAMEDICS LOGISTICS: Nettles Suit Removed to N.D. California

PEC GROUP: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PICHARDO 2230: Castillo Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
POINT PICKUP: Medeiros Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
POLARITYTE INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 23 Deadline
POWER OF PURE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

POWER PARAGON: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Scheduling Order in Burns
PRIMARY AIM: Fissella Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
PRIME NOW: Pope Has Until Jan. 14, 2022 to File Class Status Bid
PRIMERICA LIFE: Stipulated Pre-Trial & Trial Dates in Palmer OK'd
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Toporek Files Suit in E.D. New York

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Parties Want Judge to Reconsider Ruling
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Remaining Deadlines in Stewart Suit Vacated
R.R. DONNELLEY: Faces Class Action Over $1.2-Bil. Take Private Deal
RALLY LABS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REAMIR & CO: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RECKITT BENCKISER: Prescott Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Owen Sues Over False & Misleading Statements
RESULTS CUSTOMER: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Smith
RHOINTER USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RITE AID: Burch Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas

RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Stipulation on Class Cert. Deadlines Filed
SAG-AFTRA: Loses Bid to File Appeal in Discrimination Class Action
SCOTIA PBA: Scotia Village Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
SHUFERSAL: Consumer Organizations File Class Action Suits
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Reminds of Jan. 4, 2022 Deadline

SIMON & SCHUSTER: Contreras Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Gagnier Suit Removed to D. Nebraska
SOUTH CAROLINA: AG Appeals Ruling in Kenny Civil Rights Suit
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Kogan Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Practices
SUNSET FOOD: Jenner & Block Attorneys Discuss 7th Circuit Ruling

SWEET EARTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due August 19, 2022
T-MOBILE US: Another Data Breach Class Action Stayed
TACORI ENTERPRISES: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TD BANK: Norville Sues Over Unfair Collection of Overdraft Fees
TEAPIGS US: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TERRI BIAS: Berry Files TCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Appeals Ruling in FMLA Suit to 4th Cir.
TILLAMOOK COUNTY CREAMERY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y
TOYOTA MOTOR: Martin Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 22, 2022
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Emeril Lagasse Airfryer

UNIFIN INC: Montenegro Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
UNITED AIRLINES: Workers Seek Class Cert. in Vax Mandate Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims
UNITED STATES: AGs File Amicus Brief in Title IX Class Action
UNITED STATES: Biden Comments on Migrant Families' Settlement

UNITED STATES: Federal Employees With Natural COVID Immunity Sue
UNITED STATES: High Court Struggles to Hear Surveillance Case
UNITED STATES: Idea of Compensating Migrant Families Endorsed
UNITED STATES: L2 Visa Class Action v. Homeland Security Settled
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Vaccine Mandate on Private Employers

UNITED STATES: Thomas Files Suit in D. Minnesota
UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Discovery Date Sought
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Must Refund Tuition Fees Owed to Students
URBAN AMERICAN: Tenants Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over "Bait-and-Switch Scheme"

VIACOMCBS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 28 Deadline
VIATRIS INC: Patel Sues Over False Registration Statement
VOLKSWAGEN ag: Faces Class Action Over Audi2-Liter Turbo Problems
VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: School Board Faces Suit Over ADA Violations
WALGREEN CO: $13.75 401(k) Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK

WALMART INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended in Lebby
WARNER BROS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEST COUNTY MEDICAL: Adams Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
WEST COVINA: Bustillos TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WESTLAKE PORTFOLIO: Tinoisamoa Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas

WORLD RUGBY: Ex-Rugby Player Carly Hayman Joins Concussion Suit
[*] BCF Partners File Submission on Proposed Class Action Reforms
[*] Bill to Promote Fair Distribution of Class Action Proceeds
[*] Consumers Balk at Attorneys' $68MM Fee Request in Class Suit
[*] Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Provides Update on 2021 Class Actions


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Jacob Taylor, 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-03535-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 27,
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.

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 and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, 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


40 PARK DENTAL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 40 Park Dental P.C.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. 40 Park Dental P.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-09347 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2021).

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

40 Park Dental -- https://park40.com/ -- is a new state-of-the-art
premier dental implant center offering a variety of dental implant
procedures for patients who have compromised or missing teeth by
providing tooth replacement solutions that look, feel, and function
like natural teeth.[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


8X8 INC: Initial Settlement Reached in Rivas Class and PAGA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8X8 Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2021, that a preliminary settlement of all
claims has been reached in the class action suit as well as the
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") lawsuit initiated by Denise
Rivas.

On September 21, 2020, the Company received a copy of a letter
filed by a former employee, Plaintiff Denise Rivas, with the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA")
providing notice of the Plaintiff's intent to bring a Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim, on behalf of the Company's
non-exempt employees based in California, for alleged California
wage and hour practices violations.

On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a separate class action
complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company
in which she alleges 10 causes of action, on behalf of herself and
all of the Company's non-exempt employees based in California for
the last four years, related to violations of California state wage
and hour practices and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Class Complaint was served on the Company on September 29,
2020. On October 28, 2020, the Company filed a general denial of
all claims and asserted various affirmative defenses. On October
29, 2020, the Company removed the matter to Federal Court.

On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a companion PAGA lawsuit
complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company,
in which she alleges 6 violations of California state wage and hour
practices for all of the Company's current and former non-exempt
employees based in California from September 16, 2019 to the
present. The PAGA Complaint was served on the Company on December
11, 2020.

On January 26, 2021, the Company filed a general denial of all
claims and asserted various affirmative defenses to the PAGA
Complaint.

A joint mediation for both actions was held in September 2021 and
the parties reached a preliminary settlement of all claims.

Discovery is stayed in both actions pending completion of the
settlement.

Based in Santa Clara, Calif., 8X8 Inc. offers software, services,
and equipment that enable voice and video communication over
Internet Protocol networks.  Through its Packet8 software suite and
related services, it allows subscribers to make phone calls and
perform other broadband networking functions using VoIP
technology.


AARP INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Medigap Plans
---------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a proposed class action accusing elder advocacy group
AARP of duping Medicare patients into paying an undisclosed
commission when they enrolled in AARP-branded supplemental health
insurance plans.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington ruled on Nov. 2 that
the plaintiffs, two purchasers of the so-called Medigap plans, had
failed to claim any actual injury, since they did not argue that
their plans would have been cheaper without the commissions.

Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek, a lawyer for plaintiffs Helen
Krukas and Andrea Kushim, did not immediately respond to a request
for comment. Nor did AARP or its attorney Jeffrey Russell of Bryan
Cave Leighton Paisner.

Medigap policies are supplemental plans offered by private insurers
that are intended to offer coverage to patients enrolled in
Medicare beyond what the government program for the elderly
offers.

About one-third of all Medigap policyholders are enrolled in AARP's
supplemental insurance plan. The nonprofit does not itself provide
insurance but instead is the group policyholder for insurance
underwritten by UnitedHealth Group Inc, which is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

According to the plaintiffs' 2018 lawsuit, for each policy sold,
AARP received 4.95% of what the buyers' paid, a payment that its
contract with UnitedHealth describes as a "royalty" for use of its
intellectual property, like its name and logo.

Krukas and Kushim said that payment was actually an unlawful
insurance commission paid to AARP, which is not licensed as an
insurance agent. According to their complaint, in 2016, AARP
generated $880 million in "royalty" income from UnitedHealth
insurance products, amounting to 54% of the group's total operating
revenue.

AARP countered that the plaintiffs had failed to support any claim
that their costs would be lower if not for its agreement with
UnitedHealth, meaning they had not alleged injury.

Howell agreed. In her decision dismissing the case, she also noted
that, according to the record, Kushim remained enrolled in the
policy.

"She may continue paying her premiums, which will go in part to
AARP, but if she does so with full knowledge of the fee structure
and is happy with her policy, she plainly is not being injured by
that voluntary and knowing transaction, or by the absence of the
disclosures plaintiffs claim were material to the purchase
decision," the judge wrote.

The case is Krukas v. AARP Inc, U.S. District Court, District of
Columbia, No. 18-cv-01124.

For the plaintiff: Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek

For AARP: Jeffrey Russell of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner [GN]

ACIMA CREDIT: Court Junks Farr Bid to File Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIEARA FARR v. ACIMA
CREDIT LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-08619-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order denying motion for reconsideration and denying
motion for leave to file second amended complaint.

The Court said, "In any event, having been asked to reconsider its
prior order, the Court now finds that Row 11 describes the possible
remedies available to the parties, that is, their "options" for
type of relief, not their procedural "options" for obtaining that
relief. In other words, Row 11 does not provide alternatives to
arbitration. Thus, the Court maintains its view that the
Arbitration Clause does not exempt plaintiff's claims for equitable
relief from mandatory arbitration, not only because the equitable
relief is not requested to aid arbitration (as the Court previously
held) but also because Row 11 simply does not carve out claims for
equitable relief as a general matter (as the Court now clarifies).
Accordingly, plaintiff's argument that she can represent a class of
individuals who did not opt out of the Arbitration Clause, despite
having opted out herself, because she seeks equitable relief on
behalf of the class, still fails. The motion for reconsideration is
therefore denied.

Acima Credit provides financial transaction processing services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kAPCij at no extra charge.[CC]


ADT LLC: Bid to Stay Class Certification in Doty Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DOTY v. ADT, LLC and
TELESFORO AVILES, Case No. 9:21-cv-80645-AH (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay motion to certify class.

The Plaintiff shall have until January 28, 2022 to dismiss the
class allegations of the Amended Complaint and withdraw the Motion
to Certify Class. The previously set discovery and dispositive
motion deadlines remain in effect, says Judge Singhal.

ADT LLC designs and manufacture security systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kurttW at no extra charge.[CC]

AM COMMUNICATIONS: Ct. Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Grant Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grant v. AM
Communications, LTD, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01526 (N.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order extending the deadlines
and schedules as follows:

   -- Discovery Merits and Class Certification shall be
      completed by Feb. 3, 2022.

   -- Class Certification Motion and Dispositive Motions shall
      filed by April 18, 2022.

   -- The deadline for completion of Mandatory Mediation remains
      Dec. 31, 2021.

   -- The parties are directed to file status reports by Jan. 7,
      2022.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving collection of unpaid wages.

AM Communications operates as a telecommunication contracting
company.[CC]

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Wants Sidewalk Program Class Action Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that Amazon.com
Services LLC and Amazon Digital Services LLC asked a Seattle court
to dismiss a July-filed lawsuit asserting that their Sidewalk
program violates customers' rights. The program, which extends the
range of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connected devices by allowing more
powerful Wi-Fi connected devices to share bandwidth with
Sidewalk-enabled devices nearby, is permitting Amazon to launch a
nationwide mesh network at the expense of Amazon device owners, the
complaint says.

The dismissal bid explains that the Sidewalk program launched in
June 2021 after Amazon publicly disclosed its operation and intent.
The goal of the program is to "enable small 'neighbor-created
networks' that allow a variety of low-cost devices to perform
better," Amazon says, providing the example of a motion sensor at
the end of a long driveway briefly connecting to a neighbor's
Sidewalk-enabled device to transmit data. The program works at no
cost to the consumer and is entirely voluntary, Amazon adds.

"This lawsuit is an ill-conceived attack on an optional
community-sharing technology that does not cause any consumers any
harm," Amazon asserts. Moreover, the plaintiffs' consumer
protection law, theft of telecommunication services, and unjust
enrichment claims are legally baseless and must be dismissed.

The motion first contends that the plaintiffs have not suffered any
harm. The plaintiffs indeed acknowledge that they can disable
Sidewalk on any device, and have only alluded to but not pleaded,
potential overage charges for excess internet use, the filing says.


Amazon suggests that the timing of the lawsuit, just a month after
Sidewalk's launch, makes the period during which harm could have
occurred brief. "In all events, whether this is a lawyer-driven
lawsuit not genuinely aimed at addressing any actual harm is
ultimately irrelevant; the fact that the Streets have not alleged
any actual harm defeats their CPA claim," the motion says.

Next, the plaintiffs fail to plead fraud with the requisite
particularity, Amazon asserts, arguing that their first amended
complaint does not plead the "who, what, when, where, and how" of
Amazon's purported misrepresentations or omissions.

The company then argues that it did not violate the state's theft
of telecommunications service law, a provision of the Washington
code that has allegedly never been construed in a civil lawsuit.
Amazon argues that it has no intent to steal bandwidth, that it is
not stealing bandwidth, and that if anyone has a claim, it is not
the plaintiffs but their internet provider, Comcast, who does.

The consumers are represented by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, The
Brad Sohn Law Firm PLLC, and LippSmith LLP. Amazon is represented
by Fenwick & West LLP. [GN]

AMAZON.COM: Bid to Transfer Roman Suit to C.D. California Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMARIS ROMAN, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00667-JLT (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the defendant's motion to
transfer and granting a stay as follows:

   1. The motion to transfer to the Central District of
      California is denied without prejudice;

   2. The motion to stay is granted in part;

   3. On the other hand, if the motion for class certification
      is resolved with the claims of Plaintiffs being excluded
      from Trevino, judicial resources may be conserved by a
      transfer to the Central District;

   4. The matter is stayed pending resolution of the motion for
      class certification in Trevino; and

   5. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report
      within 14 days of the Court's order addressing the
      Findings and Recommendations in Trevino.

Amazon has carried the burden to show the factors set forth above
favor the entry of a stay. A final order on class certification in
Trevino would define the scope of the classes and clarify the
extent to which the claims of Plaintiffs and the putative class may
be "wipe[d] out" by Trevino. On the other hand, Amazon fails to
show a stay pending resolution of Porter or Clayborn would clarify
any issues or conserve judicial resources. Accordingly, the Court
finds the entry of a stay pending resolution of the motion for
class certification is appropriate and exercises its discretion to
grant the requested stay in part.

The Court finds Amazon failed to demonstrate a transfer is
appropriate. Because the entry of a stay is appropriate, the Court
declines to make any findings related to dismissal of claims under
Rule 12(b)(6).

Damaris Roman and Johnnie Corina III assert they suffered wage and
hour violations while employees of Amazon.com Services, LLC., and
seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. Amazon
seeks to have the action transferred to the Central District of
California, where two similar class actions are pending. In the
alternative, Amazon requests the matter be stayed pending
resolution of the similar proceeding both in the Eastern District
and Central District. Finally, if the Court was not inclined to
either transfer or stay the matter, Amazon seeks partial dismissal
of Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, asserting the Court should
neither transfer nor stay the action, and the facts alleged are
sufficient to support a claim Damaris Roman was employed by Amazon
on an hourly basis at its distribution center in Bakersfield,
California. Johnnie Corina III was employed by Amazon at a
distribution center in Riverside, California. The Plaintiffs report
they were both employed "on an hourly basis."

Amazon.com Services LLC engages in the provision of eCommerce
services which retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, and
appliances.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ojb8sQ at no extra charge.[CC]

AMNEAL PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in Xyrem Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that on Aug. 13,
the District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
motion, dismissing the federal damages claims and a number of
state-law claims, while permitting the remaining claims to proceed
in the case captioned In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust
Litigation (No. 5:20-md-02966-LHK).

Amneal has been named as a defendant, along with Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and numerous other manufacturers of generic
versions of Jazz's Xyrem (sodium oxybate) in in several putative
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California and the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
alleging that the generic manufacturers entered into
anti-competitive agreements with Jazz in connection with settling
patent litigation related to Xyrem.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties as well
as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On December 16, 2020, the JPML transferred the actions to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California for consolidated pretrial proceedings In re Xyrem
(Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation (No. 5:20-md-02966-LHK).

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class complaint in March
2021, which Defendants moved to dismiss.

On August 13, 2021, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part Defendants' motion, dismissing the federal damages claims
and a number of state-law claims, while permitting the remaining
claims to proceed.

"Discovery is currently ongoing," the company said.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Notifies Court of Intent to Junk Galeas Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company
has not yet responded to the complaint but it has notified the
Court that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the claims.

On July 27, 2021, Cesy Galeas filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging that the
payment schedule for certain workers violated New York Labor Law.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint but it has
notified the Court that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the
claims.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Metformin Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that on August
5, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the
case captioned In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH).

Amneal and AvKARE, Inc. were named as defendants, along with
numerous other manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and wholesalers,
in several putative class action lawsuits pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, consolidated
as In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No.
2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH). The lawsuits all allege that defendants
made and sold to putative class members generic metformin products
that were "adulterated" or "contaminated" with
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA").

An economic loss complaint filed on behalf of consumers and
third-party payors who purchased or paid or made reimbursements for
metformin alleges that plaintiffs suffered economic losses in
connection with their purchases or reimbursements due to the
purported contamination.

On May 20, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the economic loss complaint, and Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on June 21, 2021.

On August 5, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Additionally, medical monitoring class action complaints were filed
on behalf of consumers who consumed allegedly contaminated
metformin allege "cellular damage, genetic harm, and/or are at an
increased risk of developing cancer" and seek medical monitoring,
including evaluation and treatment. These cases are currently
stayed.

On March 29, 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama asserting
claims against manufacturers of Valsartan, Losartan, and Metformin
based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in those products.

The only allegations against Amneal concern Metformin. (Davis v.
Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:21-00254 (M.D.
Ala.) (the "Davis Action")).

"On May 5, 2021, the JPML transferred the Davis Action into the In
re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability
Litigation multi-district litigation for pretrial proceedings," the
company said.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

ANADARKO E&P: Bay Appeals Judgment in Landowners Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marvin Bay, et al., filed an an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Bay, et al. v. Anadarko E&P
Onshore LLC, et al., Case No. 1:09-CV-02293-MSK-MJW, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants'
lessees trespassed by using oil and gas drills with a larger
footprint on the surface estate than the Defendants were legally
entitled to use. Anadarko holds the rights to the mineral estate
beneath the various landowners' surface estates, but the landowners
contended that Anadarko's oil and gas development activities
exceeded the scope of Anadarko's rights to occupy the surface
estate.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Opinion and Order dated
September 28, 2021 wherein the Court found that the Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
50 on the Bays' trespass claim. The Court directed the Clerk of the
Court to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the
Bays and to close the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Bay, et al. v. Anadarko E&P
Onshore LLC, et al., Case No. 21-1361, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on Oct. 18, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement was due November 1, 2021 for Marvin Bay
and Mildred Bay;

   -- Transcript order form was due on November 1, 2021 for Marvin
Bay and Mildred Bay; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on November 1, 2021 for Anadarko
E&P Onshore LLC, Anadarko Land Corporation, Marvin Bay and Mildred
Bay.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARVIN BAY and MILDRED BAY, Co-Trustees of
the Bay Family Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lance Astrella, Esq.
          ASTRELLA LAW
          1801 Broadway, Suite 1600
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 292-9021

               - and -

          Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Telephone: (913) 563-6253   

               - and -

          Donald M. Ostrander, Esq.
          HAMRE RODRIQUEZ OSTRANDER & DINGESS
          3600 South Yosemite Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80237-1829
          Telephone: (303) 779-0200     

Defendants-Appellees ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC and ANADARKO LAND
CORPORATION are represented by:

          Lindsay Nicole Aherne, Esq.
          John K. Crisham, Esq.
          David G. Palmer, Esq.
          Harriet A. Retford, Esq.
          Robert Thompson, III, Esq.
          John Voorhees, Esq.   
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500

               - and -

          Jeffrey Max Lippa, Esq.
          WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON
          1801 California Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-2828

AON PLC: Subsidiary Wins Trial in 401(k) Plan Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Aon plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2021, that the Court handling the class action
suit filed against Aon Investments USA, Inc., had entered judgment
in favor of Aon on all claims.

Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc, now known as Aon Investments
USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the Administrative Committee
of Lowe's Companies, Inc. were sued on April 27, 2018 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in a
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of participants in the
Lowe's 401(k) Plan.

Aon Investments provided investment consulting services to Lowe's
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").

The plaintiffs contend that in 2015 Lowe's imprudently placed the
Hewitt Growth Fund in the Plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt
Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a
conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the
Plan.

The plaintiffs allege the Plan suffered over $200 million in
investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced.

The plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of
loyalty and prudence pursuant to the ERISA statute. The matter was
tried to the Court the last week of June 2021, and the Court
entered judgment in favor of Aon on all claims on October 12, 2021.


Aon believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend itself against these claims.

Aon plc is a global provider of risk management services, insurance
and reinsurance brokerage, and human resource consulting and
outsourcing, delivering distinctive client value via innovative and
effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. The
Company is headquartered in London, England.


APPHARVEST INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Longeveron Inc. (NASDAQ:
LGVN), The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE: SAM), Waterdrop Inc.
(NYSE: WDH), and AppHarvest, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPH). Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.

Longeveron Inc. (NASDAQ: LGVN)

Class Period: February 12, 2021 IPO; February 12, 2021 to August
12, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 12, 2021

On January 19, 2021, Longeveron filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on February 11, 2021
(the "Registration Statement").

On or about February 12, 2021, pursuant to the Registration
Statement, Longeveron's Class A common stock began trading on the
Nasdaq Capital Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "LGVN."

Also on February 12, 2021, Longeveron filed a prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated
and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus"
and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Longeveron conducted the IPO,
issuing 2.66 million shares of its Class A common stock to the
public at the Offering price of $10.00 per share, for approximate
proceeds of $24.7 million to the Company after applicable
underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses.

On August 13, 2021, Longeveron issued two press releases—one
announcing topline results of the Phase 2b Aging Frailty Trial, and
a second providing a corporate update and reporting the Company's
financial results for the second quarter of 2021. Both press
releases disclosed, among other results, that Lomecel-B had "not
achiev[ed] . . . statistical significance for the pairwise
comparison to placebo" with respect to the primary efficacy
endpoint.

On this news, Longeveron's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
27.91%, to close at $3.90 per share on August 13, 2021,
representing a total decline of 61% from the Offering price.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lomecel-B was not as
effective in treating aging frailty as Defendants had led investors
to believe; (ii) accordingly, Lomecel-B's clinical and commercial
prospects with respect to aging frailty were overstated; and (iii)
as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

For more information on the Longeveron class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LGVN

The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE: SAM)

Class Period: April 22, 2021 to September 8, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021

On July 22, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer reduced its
full year 2021 guidance, expecting earnings per share between $18
and $22, down from a prior range of $22 and $26. The Company cited
softer-than-expected sales in the hard seltzer category and overall
beer industry and also stated that it had "overestimated the growth
of the hard seltzer category in the second quarter." On this news,
the Company's share price fell $246.54, or 26%, to close at $701.00
per share on July 23, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On September 8, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer withdrew
its 2021 financial guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard
seltzer products. The Company also stated that it "expects to incur
hard seltzer-related inventory write-offs, shortfall fees payable
to 3rd party brewers, and other costs" for the remainder of fiscal
2021. On this news, the Company's share price fell $21.09, or 3.7%,
to close at $538.31 per share on September 9, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were
decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably
likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that the Company was
reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third party
brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Boston Beer class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SAM

Waterdrop Inc. (NYSE: WDH)

Class Period: May 2021 IPO

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021

On June 17, 2021, Waterdrop issued a press release announcing
Waterdrop's financial results for the quarter conducted before the
IPO. In doing so, Waterdrop reported that its operating costs and
expenses had ballooned over 75%, or RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9
million (US$205.1 million). As a result, Waterdrop suffered an
operating loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3
million), compared with operating loss of RMB111.1 million for the
same period of 2020 - a more than four-fold increase. This rapid
increase in operating expenses was due largely to the cessation of
Waterdrop's mutual aid business and growing customer acquisition
costs.

Then, on August 11, 2021, multiple news sources reported that
China's banking and insurance watchdog, the China Banking and
Insurance Regulatory Commission, had issued an order directing
insurance companies to cease improper marketing and pricing
practices rampant in the industry and enhance their user privacy
protections. Failure to comply would reportedly result in the
offenders being "severely punished" by Chinese authorities. As
Bloomberg reported, "[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some
operations including mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by
Waterdrop." The article continued: "he latest move will stymie
growth in an industry that had been expected to grow to 2.5
trillion yuan ($385 billion) in a decade."

Finally, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop revealed that its
operating losses for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 had continued
to accelerate, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3 million),
compared with an operating profit of RMB7.2 million for the same
period of 2020. This was once again due to a sharp increase in
Waterdrop's operating costs and expenses, as Waterdrop's operating
costs and expenses during the quarter increased by RMB1,081.1
million, or 160.5% year over year, to RMB1,754.7 million (US$271.8
million) from RMB673.6 million for the same period of 2020. On
September 13, 2021, Waterdrop ADSs dropped to a low of just $3 per
ADS - 75% below the price at which Waterdrop ADSs were sold to the
investing public just four months previously.

The Complaint alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement failed
to disclose that Waterdrop was the subject of an intense regulatory
investigation and pending crackdown by Chinese authorities because
of a variety of market abuses perpetrated by Waterdrop used to
artificially inflate Waterdrop's short-term financial results in
the lead up to the IPO, including, among other things: (i)
operating insurance platforms without proper governmental
authorizations; (ii) mispricing risks for consumers; and (iii)
illicitly using client information. The Waterdrop class action
lawsuit further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, the reason
that Waterdrop had discontinued its mutual aid segment was because
it had been ordered to do so by Chinese regulators. Furthermore,
Waterdrop had suffered rapidly accelerating operating losses in the
first quarter of 2021 which was completed weeks before the IPO.

For more information on the Waterdrop class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/WDH

AppHarvest, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPH)

Class Period: May 17, 2021 to August 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2021

On August 11, 2021, before the market opened, AppHarvest announced
its second quarter financial results, reporting a $32.0 million net
loss. The Company also lowered its full year sales guidance to a
range of $7 million to $9 million, from a prior range of $20
million to $25 million. AppHarvest attributed the lower than
expected results to "operational headwinds with the full ramp up to
full production at the company's first CEA facility, including
labor and productivity challenges related to the training and
development of the new workforce and historically low market prices
for tomatoes."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.46, or
approximately 29%, to close at $8.51 per share on August 11, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its
recently expanded labor force; (2) that, as a result, the Company
could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's financial results would be adversely
impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

For more information on the AppHarvest class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/APPH

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

Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]

ARGENT TRUST: December 6 Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf
of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, and EDWARD C. MILLER,
GETZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ESTATE OF HENRY A. GETZ, and its
beneficiaries and successors, and ESTATE OF VIRGINIA MILLER, and
its beneficiaries and successors, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), Argent asks the Court to enter an order setting
deadlines for the Defendants' oppositions to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and Plaintiff's reply.

              Filing                            Deadline

   -- Defendants' Oppositions to             December 6, 2021
      Plaintiff's

   -- Motion for Class Certification         December 20, 2021
      Plaintiff's Reply

Argent operates as an investment management firm.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

Argent is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq.
          Barbara A. Smith, Esq.
          Jacob B. Simon, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          E-mail: jsrussell@bclplaw.com
                  barbara.smith@bclplaw.com
                  jacob.simon@bclplaw.com

ASCENDTEK LLC: Dec. 13 Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HOLLAND, PERRY
HOGAN, on their own and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ASCENDTEK, LLC d/b/a SKY TELECOM, HAWKEYE TOWERS,
LLC, and CHRISTOPHER FUTCH, individually, Case No.
1:21-cv-04133-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order that deadline to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to
potential class members be extended through and including December
13, 2021.

On October 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint.
On October 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint.

On October 13, 2021, AscendTek executed a waiver of service which
was filed with the Court the same day. On November 1, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to conditionally certify
collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members.


Given AscendTek's deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is not
until December 13, 2021, AscendTek respectfully requests an
extension to file a response to the Motion for Conditional
Certification until and through December 13, 2021.

On November 3, 2021, AscendTek's counsel contacted Plaintiffs'
counsel to request this extension to respond. The Plaintiffs'
counsel has consented to this extension.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31KzFiZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
          Post Office Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343
          Telephone: (404) 965-1682
          E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin R. Barnes, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1200
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 525-8200
          E-mail: Justin.Barnes@jacksonlewis.com

ASCENDTEK LLC: Must Respond to Holland Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HOLLAND, PERRY
HOGAN, on their own and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
ASCENDTEK, LLC d/b/a SKY TELECOM, HAWKEYE TOWERS, LLC, and
CHRISTOPHER FUTCH, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-04133-MLB (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Michael L. Brown entered an order granting
consent motion for extension to respond to plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to
potential class members.

AscendTek shall have through and including December 13, 2021, to
file its response, says Judge Brown.

AscendTek is doing business in the computer systems design and
related services industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DefnfA at no extra charge.[CC]

ATLAS SENIOR: Green Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNITA GREEN,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ATLAS
SENIOR LIVING, LLC F/K/A SHEPHARD SENIOR LIVING, Case No.
4:21-cv-00237-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid
      wages as a collective action representing a class composed
      of:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Defendant at the
      Legacy at Savannah Quarters senior living facility in
      Pooler, Georgia at any time from August 20, 2018 to the
      present pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);"

   2. requiring the Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel
      within 10 days of the Court's Order a list, in electronic,
      importable, and searchable format, of all persons who
      worked as hourly employees at the Legacy at Savannah
      Quarters senior living facility in Pooler, Georgia at any
      time from August 20, 2018 to the present, including their
      names, job titles, mailing address, email addresses, dates
      of employment, and dates of birth;

   3. authorizing the issuance of their proposed notice to all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants as
      hourly employees at the Legacy at Savannah Quarters senior
      living facility in Pooler, Georgia at any time from August
      20, 2018 to the present via United States mail; electronic
      mail or message; a case-specific webpage; and social media
      platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter); and that all forms
      of distribution include a linked electronic Consent Form
      that may be completed and signed electronically;

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

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

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n9y9iB
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

AUSTRALIA: $35MM Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Ashton, writing for ABC News, reports that more than a dozen
former youth justice detainees have told the federal court about
their experiences in the Don Dale and Alice Springs detention
centres, as lawyers seek more time to sign people up to a $35
million dollar class action over mistreatment in the Territory's
youth justice system.

The $35 million deal between former youth justice detainees and the
Northern Territory government is still awaiting the tick of
approval from federal court Justice Debra Mortimer, who needs to
decide if the settlement sum is "fair and reasonable".

Speaking to the court from the Darwin Correctional Centre, former
Don Dale detainee Lee Martin spoke in support of the proposed
settlement.

"Everything that's happened to us, we're all not the same, we've
all come out of it differently," he said.

"Exactly what they have done, they have changed a lot of people's
lives. They've stopped a lot of people being themselves."

The court heard directly from six former youth detainees about
their experiences in the system while a lawyer read anonymised
letters from a dozen more class members who spent time in the
Territory's youth justice system.

Many spoke of excessive force and isolation, frequent and
unnecessary strip searches and lasting trauma.

Some said they wanted to make sure what happened to them would
never be allowed to happen again and said they would use the
compensation to help heal themselves and the next generation.

Speaking from the Alice Springs Correctional facility, former Don
Dale detainee Brendan Green-Robinson said he was scared and
confused during his time in youth detention.

"I believed my funeral was going to be the next one," he said.

"Back then I didn't understand how the system worked and the law.
My lack of knowledge was used against me by officers."

Hundreds of class members yet to register

The proposed multi-million-dollar settlement between former youth
justice detainees and the Northern Territory was reached with
denial of liability from the NT government in May 2021.

The $35 million figure became public in July after a failed bid by
the government to get the figure suppressed.

It is understood to be the largest class action settlement figure
in Territory government history.

Young people who spent time in NT youth detention centres between
2006 and 2017 are potentially eligible for compensation.

That amounts to nearly 1,200 people, though the federal court heard
only 464 of them had registered so far.

The court also heard 220 class members are currently incarcerated.

The lawyers leading the class action, Maurice Blackburn, have made
an application for an extension of time to connect with outstanding
group members.

The initial deadline to register was November 16 but lawyers have
sought an extension until mid-next year.

The NT government did not oppose the extension.

$35 million deal avoids the trauma of a trial, court hears
The court also heard the proposed settlement deal had avoided an
expensive eight-week trial which would have called more than 80
witnesses.

Lawyer for the applicants, Paul Batley said the decision to settle
helped to avoid re-traumatising class members and witnesses.

"A hearing would have exposed all of those people who were stepping
forward to give evidence, to relive experiences that they regard as
the most difficult times of their lives," he said.

The parties appeared to agree on a settlement distribution method
calculated based on a daily rate for the amount of time spent in
custody, with higher rates calculated for days spent in isolation
or higher security.

This would initially work on the assumption that all of the 1,200
class members will eventually register, but if they do not, the
remainder of the money will be paid back to group members
proportionally.

Justice Mortimer reserved her decision on the time extension for
class members to register but indicated she could put a pause on
the November 16 expiry date so registrations could continue until
the matter returns to court.

She told the court she would come back with a final verdict on
whether or not the entire deal was approved "as soon as I'm able
to".

She also thanked the group members who shared their stories with
the court.

"It takes a lot of courage to do that," she said.

"I've listened very carefully to what you've had to say." [GN]

AUSTRIA: Lawyers Set Up Crowdfunding Site to Help Fund Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicky Harley, writing for NWorld, reports that lawyers are setting
up a crowdfunding site to help fund a class action into a Covid-19
outbreak at the popular Austrian Alpine ski resort of Ischgl.

Thousands of people, from 45 countries, claim they caught Covid-19
at the resort and are accusing Austrian authorities of failing to
shut the resort down once it was realised there was an infection
issue in March 2020.

The first civil lawsuit started in Vienna in September on behalf of
the family of 72-year-old Hannes Schopf, who died after contracting
the virus in Ischgl.

The case is the first of 40 lawsuits filed by claimants from
Austria and Germany, who are accusing the authorities of not
responding quickly enough to Covid-19 outbreaks in Ischgl and other
resorts in the province of Tyrol.

The Consumer Protection Association (VSV) will shortly be bringing
more cases covering people who were admitted to hospital suffering
from long Covid-19 and from the families of those who died.

Peter Kolba, chairman of the VSV, is urging the Austrian government
to hold a meeting with the victims' families.

"The state institutions are trying to visibly delay or prevent
clarification of the multi-organ failure of the authorities in
Ischgl in March 2020. But they will not succeed," he said.

"We will continue to bring individual liability actions before the
courts and will organise a class action for injured parties without
legal protection insurance.

"We are about to launch a crowdfunding campaign to create the
necessary financial resources to accompany this collection campaign
for years and bring it to a successful conclusion."

Of the 6,000 people who claim to have contracted the coronavirus in
Ischgl and the surrounding area, 32 people have died and 5 per cent
still suffer from symptoms of long Covid, including headaches,
sleep disturbance and shortness of breath, the VSV said.

The Federal Attorney's office, which represents the state, denied
it had acted too slowly or that any more could have been done at
the time.

Five people, including four local officials, were placed under
investigation by the public prosecutor's office in Innsbruck in
relation to the outbreak.

The file has been sent to the Justice Ministry.

Alexander Klauser, a lawyer acting for the Schopf family and the
VSV, said the official shortcomings that allowed Ischgl and the
surrounding area to become a virus hotspot were manifold.

He said a report in October 2020 by an independent commission of
experts found that local officials had "reacted too late" and made
"serious miscalculations" when alerted by Iceland on March 5 that
several of its citizens had tested positive on returning home from
Ischgl.

Local officials "had at least 48 hours to react" after the warning,
Mr Klauser said.

He accused the authorities of doing "too little, too late" when one
restaurant worker tested positive for the virus, when contact
tracing was insufficient and the implementation of restrictions on
tourist activity over subsequent days was merely "halting", he
said. [GN]

AUTOMATIC DATA: Two Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend two potential class action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed
against ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey.

The complaints assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and
investment decision-making.

The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

These claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is
unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss,
with respect to these matters. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits.

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

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


B & M MANAGEMENT: Joint Bid for Conditional Status in Park Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISA PARK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, v.
B & M MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, A/K/A and D/B/A B & M MANAGEMENT
COMPANY OF ALABAMA, L.L.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-00509-MHT-KFP (M.D.
Ala.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
joint motion for conditional certification and notice to class
member in its entirety for a collective of individuals regarding
Plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   "All Leasing Professionals, Assistant Community Managers, and
   Housekeepers who received a bonus or rent credit in
   connection with work performed in at least one week in which
   they worked over 40 hours since August 2, 2019."

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 2, 2021. In her
Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to represent herself and all persons
employed by Defendant as Leasing Consultants within the past three
years. The Parties have conferred regarding the Complaint and the
collective action allegations. The Parties have agreed to a class
that covers Leasing Professionals, which were formerly titled
Leasing Consultants, as well as two additional positions.

The Parties have conferred regarding the composition of the
proposed collective and agree that it consists of approximately 184
individuals.

The Parties stipulate that the members of the proposed collective
are similarly situated solely for the purposes of conditional
certification of this collective action.

B&M Management is a full service and fully integrated real estate
investment management company.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher W. Weller, Esq.
          Blake E. Brookshire, Esq.
          CAPELL & HOWARD, P.C.
          150 South Perry Street
          Post Office Box 2069
          Montgomery, AL 36102-2069
          Telephone: (334) 241-8000
          E-mail: Chris.Weller@chlaw.com
                  Blake.Brookshire@chlaw.com

BACARDI LTD: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that the Eleventh Circuit
on Nov. 8 affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action
claiming Bacardi deceived consumers by selling its Bombay Sapphire
gin in Florida in violation of a 153-year-old state law banning one
of its ingredients, as the court found the product is exempted by a
provision in the state's consumer protection law. [GN]

BEIERSDORF AG: November 17 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions report that are you eligible to claim some cash?

Several class action lawsuit settlements -- involving brands such
as Blue Cross Blue Shield, DevaCurl, Honda and Coppertone -- have
claim deadlines in November.

Read on to find out if you qualify. Cases are listed in order of
deadlines to file, with the earliest dates being listed first.

Coppertone Mineral-Based Sunscreen $2.25M Class Action Settlement
If you bought certain Coppertone mineral-based sunscreens, you may
be eligible to claim up to $10 without proof of purchase thanks to
a $2.25 million class action settlement.

The Class is made up of retail consumers who purchased in the
United States one or more of the following Coppertone products for
personal use, not resale, before Sept. 17, 2021, that had the words
"mineral-based" on the label: Coppertone Water Babies Pure &
Simple, Coppertone Kids Tear Free, and Coppertone Sport Face.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit had alleged the products were
misleadingly labeled because they actually contained chemical
active ingredients in addition to mineral active ingredients.

Without proof of purchase, Class Members may claim $2.50 for up to
four qualifying products purchased, a total of $10 per household.

With proof of purchase, Class Members may receive $2.50 for each
qualifying product purchased, with no limit.

File your claim by Nov. 17, 2021.

Honda Infotainment Issues Class Action Settlement
Honda owners and lessees who experienced problems with their
vehicle's infotainment system may be eligible to take part in a
class action settlement.

All current owners and lessees of a 2018 or 2019 Honda Odyssey
vehicle (Elite, EX, EX-L, EX-LNR or Touring trim), a 2019 Honda
Pilot vehicle (2EX-LNR, 2TRG, 2TRG 7P, 4Elite, 4EX, 4EX-L, 4EX-LNR,
4TRG or 4TRG 7P trim), or a 2019 Honda Passport (2EX-L, 2TRG,
4Elite, 4EX-L, or 4TRG trim) who reside in and who purchased or
leased their vehicles (other than for purposes of resale or
distribution) in the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S.
territories, and former owners and lessees of Class Vehicles who
submit a claim are considered Class Members, as are all U.S.
military personnel who purchased a Class Vehicle during military
duty.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleged they had experienced
Honda infotainment issues, such as frequent freezes and failure to
connect to devices. They alleged these issues were caused by
software and hardware defects, and that American Honda Motor Co.
should have either disclosed those defects before selling the
vehicles or remedied them under warranty.

Class Members may file claims for reimbursement for
battery-recharging costs incurred as a result of a car battery that
drained because the vehicle's infotainment system did not turn off
when it should have, as well as claims for qualifying
transportation costs incurred if they returned a Class Vehicle two
or more times to an authorized dealer for a repair of certain
infotainment system symptoms.

Claims must be submitted no later than Nov. 19, 2021.

DevaCurl Hair Loss, False Ad $5.2M Class Action Settlement
Claim up to $20 without proof of purchase thanks to a $5.2 million
DevaCurl settlement.

Anyone who purchased and/or used any of the covered products in the
United States between Feb. 8, 2008, and Aug. 29, 2021, is
considered part of the Class.

A list of the covered products can be found on the settlement
website.

A class action lawsuit alleged the DevaCurl made consumers' hair
fall out and caused scalp irritation. The company also allegedly
misrepresented the products.

The amount of each Class Member's payout will vary up to $18,000,
depending on which tier their claim belongs to.

Claims must be submitted no later than Nov. 21, 2021.

Blue Diamond Almond Breeze Vanilla Flavoring $2.6M Class Action
Settlement
If you purchased certain Blue Diamond Almond Breeze vanilla almond
milk or other products, you may be eligible to make a claim with or
without proof of purchase in a $2.6 million class action
settlement.

The Class includes all consumers in the United States who purchased
the affected products between April 15, 2014, and May 17, 2021.

Allegedly, Blue Diamond tricked consumers into thinking Almond
Breeze yogurt products were flavored using real vanilla by
misrepresenting the ingredients used to create the vanilla flavor.

Class Members who do not have proof of purchase may make a claim to
receive $0.50 for each affected product they purchased, up to 10,
for a maximum possible payment of $5.

Those who have proof of purchase will be eligible to receive $1 for
each affected product purchased, up to 20, for a maximum possible
payment of $20.

Payments may be adjusted depending on the number of claims filed.
Only one claim may be made per household.

The claim form deadline is Nov. 23, 2021.

Six Flags Season Pass COVID-19 Closure Refunds Class Action
Settlement
U.S. consumers who paid for a monthly membership for their local
Six Flags park during the COVID-19 closures may be able to take
advantage of a free membership offer thanks to a class action
settlement.

The Class includes consumers with season passes who paid for a Six
Flags monthly membership in the United States during the time their
Six Flags Home Park was closed because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The eligible time period is March 13, 2020, through Sept. 10, 2021.
Class Members must not have received Six Flags season pass refunds
for the full amount of their charges in order to be eligible to
take part in this settlement.

Plaintiffs had claimed Six Flags season pass holders were still
charged while the parks were closed during the pandemic and Six
Flags did not refund Class Members' membership fees.

Class Members may claim free months of membership, gift cards,
reward points, or other benefits, depending on their membership
status.

Claim forms are due by Nov. 24, 2021.

Harbor Freight Chainsaw Settlement
Consumers who bought certain chainsaws from Harbor Freight may be
eligible to receive replacement products or up to $50 in cash or
gift cards.

The Class includes anyone in the United States or its territories
who purchased Portland, Chicago Electric, or One Stop Gardens
14-inch electric chainsaws (SKU Nos. 67255 or 61592) from Harbor
Freight stores between March 11, 2011, and Feb. 6, 2018.

Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. allegedly sold defective chainsaws
that were subject to a recall.

Each Class Member's payout will depend on their choice of benefits
and whether they provide proof of purchase or proof of destruction
of the covered products.

The claim deadline is Nov. 24, 2021. [GN]

BETH SKINNER: Yates Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beth Skinner, et al.
The case is styled as Duane Yates, Kenneth Lee Doss, David Soto,
Connor Gibbs, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Beth Skinner, in her Official Capacity as Director of
the IDOC; William Sperfslage, Robin Bagby, in their Official
Capacity with the IDOC; Shawn Howard, in his Official Capacity as
Warden of Newton Correctional Facility; Craig Andrew, in his
Official Capacity as Assistant Warden of Newton Correctional
Facility; Sean Crawford, in his Official Capacity as Assistant
Warden of Newton Correctional Facility; John Mayes, Jeff Panknen,
William Scofield, Michelle Humiston, Morgan Vincent, Audia Ramos,
in their Official Capacity at Newton Correctional Facility; Iowa
Department of Corrections, Case No. 4:21-cv-00348-SMR-HCA (S.D.
Iowa, Nov. 8, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Violation of
Due Process and Equal Protection.

Dr. Beth Skinner -- https://doc.iowa.gov/about-us/director -- was
chosen to lead the Iowa Department of Corrections by Gov. Kim
Reynolds beginning June 3, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Mark Boles, Esq.
          Adam Clifford Witosky Esq.
          GRIBBLE, BOLES, STEWART & WITOSKY LAW
          2015 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 200
          DES MOINES, IA 50312
          Phone: (515) 235-0551
          Fax: (515) 243-3696
          Email: mboles@gbswlaw.com
                 awitosky@gbswlaw.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: New York Court Dismisses "All Butter" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP disclosed that on November 4, 2021, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action against Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc.
The plaintiff alleged that "All Butter" on Entenmann's "All Butter
Loaf Cake" is deceptive because the cake contains not only butter,
but also soybean oil and artificial flavors. The judge's memorandum
starts with the notable observation, "This case is the latest in a
long string of putative class actions brought by the same lawyer
alleging that the packaging on a popular food item is false and
misleading."

As with the term "100% Grated Parmesan," an ambiguity that was
found to be resolved by the readily accessible ingredient statement
in another recent false advertising case, which is discussed at
length in the court's opinion, the Entenmann's case turned on
whether "All Butter" in the product's name is susceptible to only
one clear interpretation and, if not, whether the ambiguous claim
is cured by other information on the label. In the Entenmann's
case, the court found that the plaintiff's own pleadings confirm
the description "All Butter" is ambiguous because the original
complaint alleged a reasonable consumer would expect butter to be
the only shortening ingredient whereas the first amended complaint
proffered that "All Butter" tells consumers that no butter
substitutes are used for any ingredient function where butter could
be used. Moreover, the court found that no reasonable consumer
would take "All Butter" to mean the product contains no other
ingredient because, taken literally, that would mean the product is
a stick of butter. Thus, citing the "100% Grated Parmesan" case and
recent dismissals in other false advertising cases where a
prominent label on food packaging is ambiguous, but the ambiguity
is resolved by reference to the list of ingredients, the court
granted Bimbo Bakeries' motion to dismiss.

The Entenmann's decision makes it increasingly clear that cases
alleging a deceptive food label will not likely survive a motion to
dismiss unless the label in question is either clearly unambiguous
and misleading or any ambiguity is not readily resolved by reading
the label. [GN]

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company's motion to dismiss the purported shareholder class action
suit related to Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec, is pending.

On September 25, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President of Worldwide Research and Development and its Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court in the
Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended
(the Exchange Act).

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and Biologics
License Application (BLA) for valoctocogene roxaparvovec by
purportedly failing to disclose that differences between the
Company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical studies limited the
ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene
roxaparvovec's durability of effect and, as a result, that it was
foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA without
additional data.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs.

In December 2020, the court hearing the case appointed
Arbejdsmarkedets Tillagspension as lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2021,
dropping our Chief Financial Officer as a defendant, and asserting
that the Company misled investors about the progress of the FDA's
review of our BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec.

The company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on April
22, 2021.

BioMarin said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and we
intend to vigorously defend this action."

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. owns and operates a facility that
specializes in producing enzymes to treat diseases and various
medical conditions, such as chronic genetic disorders. The company
is based in San Rafael, California.


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Faces BMN 307 Related Suit
-------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
is facing a purported securities class action suit related to its
false or misleading statement regarding BMN 307.

On October 22, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
current and prior Chief Financial Officers, and its President of
Worldwide Research & Development in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding BMN 307 by purportedly failing to
disclose information about BMN 307's safety profile, and by
purportedly overstating BMN 307's clinical and commercial
prospects.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs.

BioMarin said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and we
intend to vigorously defend this action."

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. owns and operates a facility that
specializes in producing enzymes to treat diseases and various
medical conditions, such as chronic genetic disorders. The company
is based in San Rafael, California.


BOOKING HOLDINGS: German Hotel Association Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Booking Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the class action
suit initiated by a German hotel association against Booking.com in
Germany, is ongoing.

A German hotel association has initiated a class action lawsuit
against Booking.com in Germany on behalf of a group of German
hotels that alleges that the hotels overpaid commissions to
Booking.com because of wide parity terms in the contracts between
the hotels and Booking.com between 2006 and 2015.

Booking.com is pursuing court proceedings in the Netherlands to
declare that the Netherlands is the proper forum for this matter.

Although the Company believes the claim to be without merit and
intends to defend against the claim, if the hotel association were
successful in its litigation and the Company were required to pay
damages, the amount could be significant.

Booking said, "The Company cannot reasonably estimate an amount of
potential loss because there are several unknown variables at this
early stage."

Booking Holdings Inc. is an American travel technology company
organized in Delaware and based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that owns
and operates several travel fare aggregators and travel fare
metasearch engines including namesake and flagship Booking.com,
Priceline.com, Agoda.com, Kayak.com, Cheapflights, Rentalcars.com,
Momondo, and OpenTable. The company is based in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


BOOZ ALLEN: Langley Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that
the court overseeing the case Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton
Holding Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation described
above.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12,
2018, and on February 8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."

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

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


BRASILAGRO: Class Action Against IDBD Ongoing in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its
Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 29, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2021, that IDBD, Dolphin Netherlands BV (IDBD's controlling
shareholder), C.A.A. Extra Holdings Ltd., continue to defend a
class action suit filed in the Central District Court in Lod,
Israel.

In June 2015, an application to approve an action as a class action
was filed with the Central District Court in Lod, Israel, against
IDBD, Dolphin Netherlands BV (IDBD's controlling shareholder),
C.A.A. Extra Holdings Ltd. (IDBD's former controlling shareholder,
or "CAA"), and current and former directors, including alternate
directors (including, among others, Messrs. Eduardo Elsztain,
Sholem Lapidot, Saul Zang and Mauricio Wior).

The complaint alleges that they hold shares in IDBD and that they
are creditors of a debt arrangement with IDB Holdings Corporation
Ltd. raising, among others, claims regarding the conduct of IDBD's
controlling shareholders and of its board of directors in
connection with the expiration of a transaction for the sale of
IDBD's holdings in Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings Ltd. in May
2014 and in connection with a rights issuance by IDBD in July 2014
and February 2015.

In March 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the class
action application and, in June 2016, the Court partially accepted
the motion and ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended class
action application that would include only the allegations and
remedies with respect to the Clal Insurance transaction.

In August 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to appeal (regarding
the part of decision that did not dismiss the allegations
concerning the Clal Insurance transaction) and the Plaintiffs filed
an appeal (regarding the part of the decision that dismissed the
allegations concerning the rights issuance) both with the Israeli
Supreme Court.

Following the dismissal of the appeal proceedings by the Supreme
Court, the Plaintiffs filed, in January 2018, a motion of appeal to
summarily dismiss the appeal filed by the Defendants, in which the
Court ordered the striking of the motion for causes of action that
fall under an exemption condition included in the amendment to the
Debt Arrangement pertaining to damage that was allegedly caused due
to prejudice of rights by virtue of the undertaking of the
controlling shareholder and the former controlling shareholder to
perform a tender offer for IDBD's shares in accordance with the
Debt Arrangement. The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to approve
the claim as a class action.

Dolphin, IDBD and IDBD's directors filed a detailed joint answer on
May 7, 2018. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for November 28,
2019.

In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion (in partial agreement)
for withdrawal from the proceeding against the Defendants. In light
of CAA and IDBD's former controlling shareholder refusal to agree
to the Plaintiffs' withdrawal without an order for expenses, the
Court has set a time for filing arguments on the expenses.

BrasilAgro said, "Since September 25, 2020, our Controlling
Shareholder is no longer a shareholder of IDBD."

BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a
corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of
Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company
focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of
agricultural properties that it believes possess significant
potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The
company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


BRYAN COWDERY: Seeks Reconsideration of Conditional Cert. Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA McELWEE and KENDALL
HARRIS, for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BRYAN
COWDERY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01265-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Defendants ask the Court to partially reconsider its
conditional certification order on discrete issue:

The conditional class should run from Oct. 29, 2018 (3 years before
the Court's conditional certification order) - present, because
that is the 3-year FLSA maximum. Defendants' Motion is sincere and
not to delay.

Bryan Cowdery is a company that contracts with FedEx Ground to
deliver packages to businesses and residential customers in the
following areas in Ohio; Adelphi, Alexandria, Amanda, Baltimore,
Bladensburg, Bremen, Buckeye Lake, Carroll, Chillicothe,
Circleville, Granville, Hanover, Haydenville, Heath, Hebron,
Hillsboro, Homer, Kingston, Lancaster, Laurelville, Lithopolis,
Logan, Marietta, Martinsburg, Millersport, Newark, Pleasantville,
Rushville, Richmondale, Rockbridge, Seaman, St. Louisville,,
Stoutsville, Somerset, South Bloomingville, Sugar Grove, Tarlton,
Thornville, Union Furnace, Utica and Winchester.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31PCAHb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barry Y. Freeman, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
          1375 E. 9th Street, 10th Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 615-4850
          Facsimile: (216) 623-0134
          E-mail: bfreeman@ralaw.com

BURBANK HOUSING: Former Manager Files Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise Leitzel, a former housing manager for Burbank Housing
Management Corporation, has now filed a class action suit against
her former employer. In her complaint filed on September 22, 2021,
in Sonoma Superior Court, case number SCV-269354, Leitzel claims
that she was pressured to work off-the-clock without being paid for
all time worked. Consequently, Leitzel alleges that her former
employer failed to pay all overtime wages due and owing to her and
other similarly situated employees. What is more, Leitzel alleges
that her former employer failed to properly calculate the overtime
rate, systematically depriving all employees of the entirety of
overtime premiums accrued. Leitzel alleges that that her employer
engaged in such a practice by failing to incorporate the value of
the housing that was allocated to her as a term of her employment.
In failing to do so, Leitzel alleges on behalf of herself and the
putative class that her former employer could not have properly
paid for overtime as her overtime rate failed to account for all
wages earned. Accordingly, Leitzel alleges on behalf of herself and
the putative class that they are owed unpaid wages.

Leitzel also alleges that her former employer failed to reimburse
her and other employees for all necessary business expenses,
further failing to pay all sick pay due and owing. The failure
alleged arises from her former employer's failure to provide
telephonic communication devices, of which was required for
purposes of communicating with tenants during her work hours. As a
result of the aforementioned practices, Leitzel also alleges that
Burbank Housing Management Corporation failed to pay all wages due
at the time of separation, failed to provide accurate and itemized
wage statements, thereon causing other derivative violations of the
California Labor Code.

Leitzel is represented by attorney Kyle Todd, Esq. of Kyle Todd,
P.C. Requests for comment can be directed to Mr. Todd, at (323)
208-9171, kyle@kyletodd.com [GN]

CABARET LOUNGE: Former Dancers' Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis, writing for The Daily News, reports that a group of
former performers at the Cabaret Lounge can pursue a class-action
lawsuit against the club's owner, a judge has ruled.

Salem Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Karp concluded in his decision
that the three women, who originally filed suit in 2018, can serve
as representatives for a group they believe could include up to 300
dancers who have performed there since 2015.

The former dancers, Summer Beaulieu, Nayelis Baldino and Lauren
Turcotte, and their attorney, David Dishman, argued that instead of
paying them a wage for their work, the owner of the club, Feng Zhi
Lang, charged the women $20 per shift. The dancers allege that the
club required many of them to "tip out" to other staff from their
own tips.

Karp concluded that even if the number of dancers was far less than
the estimated 300 by the plaintiffs, there are still enough
potential claimants that it justifies treating the case as a class
action.

He also shared the view of the dancers that some of those who might
be entitled to compensation might not have the resources to mount a
legal challenge for a comparatively small amount of money or might
not want to be a named plaintiff in a lawsuit.

"Denying class certification would allow these dancers to go
uncompensated and allow the defendants to benefit from what may
turn out to be a windfall," Karp wrote.

The judge found that the key claim in the lawsuit -- misclassifying
the dancers as independent contractors, whether or not they signed
a purported nonemployment agreement -- was common to all of the
potential claimants in the group.

A lawyer for the club opposed class-action status, contending that
similar lawsuits, including an earlier suit that resulted in a
settlement with the club, were becoming "a cottage industry" for
dancers and their attorneys.

The club said in its opposition to the class-action request that
after the earlier settlement, it began offering dancers the choice
of becoming employees or signing a document stating that they did
not wish to be considered employees.

Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, by
email at jmanganis@salemnews.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis
[GN]

CAMBER ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of December 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Camber Energy, Inc. ("Camber") (NYSE:CEI). The action
charges Camber with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations about the
company's business, operations and prospects. As a result of
Camber's materially misleading statements, investors have suffered
significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: December 28, 2021

CLASS PERIOD: February 18, 2021 through October 4, 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

CAMBER'SALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Camber is an independent oil and natural gas company that mainly
acquires, develops, and sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural
gas liquids. Between December 2020, and February 18 2021, Camber
acquired a controlling interest in Viking Energy Group, Inc.
("Viking") and executed a definitive merger agreement with Viking
to effect the full combination of the two entities (the "Merger").
On February 18, 2021, Camber issued a press release regarding the
Merger and touted the acquisition of Viking.

The truth began to emerge on May 24, 2021 when Camber revealed in a
press release that on May 21, 2021, the New York Stock Exchange had
notified Camber that it was not in compliance with its continued
listing standards because Camber failed to file its Form 10-K for
the 9-month period ended December 31, 2020. Along with other
reasons, Camber blamed its lack of compliance on "issues that have
arisen in connection with . . . finalizing the determination of the
fair values of both assets and liabilities associated with
[Camber]'s acquisition of a controlling interest in Viking."
Following this news, Camber's stock price declined by $0.04 per
share, or 6.56%, to close at $0.57 per share on May 25, 2021.

Then, on October 5, 2021, Kerrisdale Capital shocked the market
when it released a report stating that "Camber is a defunct oil
producer that has failed to file financial statements with the SEC
since September 2020, is in danger of having its stock delisted
next month, and just fired its accounting firm in September."
Kerrisdale Capital also revealed that Camber's "only real asset is
a 73% stake in [Viking], an OTC-traded company with negative book
value and a going-concern warning that recently violated the
maximum-leverage covenant on one of its loans."

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

WHAT CAN I DO?

Camber investors may, no later than December 28, 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 Camber 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]

CAMBER ENERGY: Robbins Geller Reminds of December 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 6
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Camber Energy, Inc.
(NYSE: CEI) securities between February 18, 2021 and October 4,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until December 28, 2021
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Coggins v. Camber Energy,
Inc., No. 21-cv-03574 (S.D. Tex.). Commenced on October 29, 2021
and pending before Judge Charles Eskridge III, the Camber Energy
class action lawsuit charges Camber Energy 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 Camber Energy
securities class action lawsuit, you can 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 Camber Energy
securities class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than December 28, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: In December 2020, Camber Energy acquired a
controlling interest in Viking Energy Group, Inc., a purported
independent exploration and production company. Then, in February
2021, Camber Energy executed a definitive merger agreement with
Viking to effect the full combination of the two entities.

As alleged by the Camber Energy class action lawsuit, throughout
2021, Camber Energy failed to timely file required financial
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"). As a result, financial reporting services such as Yahoo!
Finance and Bloomberg were forced to rely on infrequent and
outdated updates in SEC filings to estimate Camber Energy's shares
of common stock issued and outstanding. When Camber Energy provided
an update on October 6, 2021, it reported 249.6 million shares of
stock issued and outstanding, a significantly higher figure.

The Camber Energy class action lawsuit further alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Camber Energy
overstated the financial and business prospects of Viking as well
as the combined company post-merger; (ii) Camber Energy failed to
apprise investors of, and/or downplayed, the fact that its
acquisition of a controlling interest in Viking would exacerbate
Camber Energy's delinquent financial statements and listing
obligations with the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"); (iii) an
institutional investor was diluting Camber Energy's shares at a
significant rate following Camber Energy's July 12, 2021 update
regarding the number of its shares of common stock issued and
outstanding; and (iv) as a result, Camber Energy's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 24, 2021, Viking reported that Camber Energy's first quarter
ended March 31, 2021 earnings per share ("EPS") of -$0.13 under
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), compared to GAAP
EPS of $1.39 in the same quarter the year prior, representing an
109.35% decrease year-over-year ("Y/Y"), and first quarter revenue
of $10.49 million, compared to revenue of $11.79 million in the
same quarter the year prior, representing an 11% decrease Y/Y.
Later that day, Camber Energy disclosed that, on May 21, 2021, the
NYSE had notified Camber Energy that it was not in compliance with
the NYSE's continued listing standards because of, among other
things, "issues that have arisen in connection with . . .
finalizing the determination of the fair values of both assets and
liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of a
controlling interest in Viking . . . in December of 2020." On this
news, Camber Energy's stock price fell.

Then, on August 16, 2021, Viking reported financial and operating
results for the quarter ended June 30, 2021, disclosing, among
other results, a net loss of $9.85 million for the quarter, and
that, "[a]s of June 30, 2021, [Viking] has a stockholders' deficit
of $15,054,324 and total long-term debt of $95,961,611." With
respect to Viking's liabilities, Viking disclosed, among other
things, that "as [Viking]'s subsidiary, Elysium Energy, LLC, and
other parties to the term loan agreement, are in default of the
maximum leverage ratio covenant under the term loan agreement at
June 30, 2021." On this news, Camber Energy's stock price fell
nearly 7%.

Finally, on October 5, 2021, Kerrisdale Capital released a report
alleging, among other issues, that the "market is badly mistaken
about Camber's share count and ignorant of [Camber's] terrifying
capital structure," estimating Camber Energy's "fully diluted share
count is roughly triple the widely reported number." On this news,
Camber Energy's stock price fell by more than 50%, further damaging
investors.

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

Contact:

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

CANADA: Military Sexual Misconduct Claims Nearly Doubled
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Connolly, writing for Global News, reports that the number
of claims in the military sexual misconduct class action lawsuit
has nearly doubled over the last four months, soaring to more than
13,000 as the deadline for new claimants nears.

With three weeks left until the deadline, the number of claims now
sits at 13,522 — an increase of 6,176 from the 7,346 claims that
had been submitted as of July 14, 2021.

"We've seen a consistent increase throughout the fall, especially
in October. I think likely most of it is driven by the fact that
the claims period is coming to an end," said Andrew Astritis, part
of the legal team at Raven Law representing claimants in the suit.

He urged anyone who needs help filling out their claims to reach
out, and said the most important thing for anyone considering
making a claim is to get that in before the deadline on Nov. 24.

"If people can't complete their narrative or if people can't get
all the documents that they need to get in order before then, we
can help them with that," he said.

"We have a team of lawyers here who are available to give people
that assistance."

The $900-million class action lawsuit was settled in 2019 and
opened to claims from survivors and victims of military sexual
misconduct on May 25, 2020. The class action provides claimants
with financial compensation for the harms they experienced,
allocated at specific amounts, as well as the option to participate
in restorative engagement.

It had received 2,729 claims by late December 2020, which jumped to
more than 7,000 by July.

That increase came in the midst of what experts have described as
an institutional "crisis" for the Canadian Forces following
multiple allegations of high-level sexual misconduct, and a
national spotlight fixed firmly on the longstanding problem of
sexual misconduct within the military.

"I think there's been a lot of hard work amongst the advocacy
groups in the community to increase the attention and information
base around the class action lawsuit, and I think that has been a
really important factor in those increased numbers," said Linna
Tam-Seto, a research associate studying military sexual trauma at
the Trauma and Recovery Lab of McMaster University.

"There's been this increased attention as well as everything else
that's been happening and been really covered heavily by the media,
as well as internationally. People are really looking at Canada to
say, ‘Hey, how are the Canadians going to deal with this?'"

Astritis said anyone considering coming forward now should know
three things: the process is confidential from the military chain
of command, all claims are being independently evaluated, and that
the process is set up with the assumption that claimants are being
honest.

"So class members don't need to worry about people questioning them
about what happened or doubting what they're putting forward," he
said.

Sam Samplonius works with the group It's Not Just 700, which
advocates for changes that will better support military members and
veterans who have experienced sexual misconduct. She said the
process of filing a claim can be anxiety-inducing and emotional,
but that there are resources in place to help.

"We set up a subgroup within our group, another private that nobody
could see, and we encouraged everybody to go there to ask their
questions," she said, adding strategies like planning an outline
and filling out the paperwork bit by bit were helpful for some.

"We found that was really helpful for a lot of people. So that may
be why that there's been a sudden doubling, pretty much, of the
numbers of people claiming."

She added the topic of whether to push for extending the deadline
has come up, but that it raises difficult questions for many
survivors.

"We did talk about it as a group and there's some people that are
concerned with doing that because of course, if we extend the
deadline, then that means that the people that did put forth the
effort to have their stuff in on time, then they have to wait even
longer," she explained.

"So that doesn't really seem fair, either."

Global News reached out to Defence Minister Anita Anand's office
asking whether officials were looking into whether to extend the
deadline. A spokesperson said the settlement terms have been
approved by all parties, and directed further questions to the
Department of National Defence.

The claims process is open to current and serving members of the
Canadian Forces, as well as current or former employees of the
Department of National Defence.

It covers a broad range of experiences including sexual assault,
sexual harassment and gender discrimination, said Astritis.

"If people have any questions, I would just encourage them to call
us so that we can help them put together a claim," he added.
"There's more than enough time.

"People, like I said, they should feel really free and welcome to
reach out to us."

With files from Global National's Abigail Bimman. [GN]

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Chinchilla Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Chinchilla v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of
California, San Joaquin County, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004661.

On May 19, 2021, a putative class action against the Company and
several of the company's subsidiaries was filed.

Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt
employees in California. Plaintiff claims that the Company failed
to, among other things, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest
breaks, pay overtime, provide accurately itemized wage statements,
reimburse employees for business expenses, and provide wages when
due.

Carriage said, "At September 30, 2021, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any."


Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and
merchandise in the United States. It operates through two
segments,Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The
Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


CARSON, CA: Class Action Mulled Over Putrid Odor
------------------------------------------------
Have you been affected by the putrid odor emanating from Carson,
California? For weeks there has been a foul odor plaguing Carson
residents coming from the Dominguez Channel. It is due, at least in
part, to a toxic, colorless gas called hydrogen sufide coming from
the buildup of decaying vegetation. County officials say they are
unable to predict when the smell will dissipate. This horrid stench
is causing headaches, nausea and other upper airway ailments. While
there has been a state of emergency declared providing funds for
air filters and hotel rooms, residents and those affected deserve
more.

Kirtland & Packard LLP has a proven track record in similar cases.
Kirtland & Packard LLP's Michael Louis Kelly and Lindsey Bayman, as
part of the elite Porter Ranch Trial Team, represented the
interests of over 35,000 residents of Porter Ranch who suffered in
the wake of the SoCalGas blowout. The trial team worked tirelessly
for a just result for the residents of Porter Ranch and the other
affected communities surrounding the Aliso Canyon facility. On
September 27, 2021, SoCalGas and its parent, Sempra Energy, agreed
to a settlement of $1.8 billion to be paid to the 35,717 residents
harmed by the blowout.

If you are interested in becoming involved in this Carson mass
tort/class action reach out to the aggressive and experienced
attorneys at Kirtland & Packard LLP. You can call us 24/7 at
310-536-1000 or fill in your information via our chat feature and
we will contact you right away! We look forward to hearing from
you. [GN]

CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Settlement Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the judge in the
class action suit initiated by Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel, issued an order and final judgment on the suit's
settlement. The settlement includes a $750 payment to a Qualified
Settlement Fund for the benefit of Counsel and one-time lump-sum
payments to the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members who opt into the
Settlement Agreement.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on July 7, 2021, and the
judge issued an Order and Final Judgment that was filed on July 8,
2021.

On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against the company in
Ontario County Supreme Court on behalf of similarly situated
citizens in Ontario County, New York.

The New York Litigation alleges that over one thousand (1,000)
citizens constitute the putative class in the New York Litigation,
and it seeks damages for diminution of property values and
infringement of the putative class' rights to live without
interference to their daily lives due to odors emanating from the
Subtitle D landfill located in Seneca, New York, which is operated
by the company pursuant to a long-term Operation, Maintenance and
Lease Agreement with Ontario County. The New York Litigation was
served on the company on October 14, 2019, and the parties
commenced settlement negotiations in early 2020.

On December 1, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement and thereafter the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members'
counsel moved the New York Court for entry of the Order on
Notice/Preliminary Approvals.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on July 7, 2021, and the
judge issued an Order and Final Judgment that was filed on July 8,
2021.  

Casella said, "We also committed $900 in expenses and capital
improvements for remediation measures to be completed by December
31, 2022."

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.


CBOE GLOBAL: Providence Initiated Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by the
City of Providence, Rhode Island.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors
who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange or a
U.S.-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of
the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes
allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a
variety of business practices associated with, among other things,
what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York held oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August
26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in
full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order
requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower
Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have
immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on
November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed
their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016.
On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018. On
May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order denying
the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 17, 2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking
interlocutory appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was
denied July 16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on
July 25, 2019. Targeted discovery regarding class certification and
legal preclusion concluded on April 26, 2021.

On May 28, 2021, (1) Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, (2)  Bats and NYSE filed a joint Motion for Summary
Judgment on Grounds of Legal Preclusion and a joint Motion for
Summary Judgment on Grounds of Lack of Article III Standing, and
(3) Nasdaq filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Legal
Preclusion.

Briefing on these dispositive motions is expected to conclude in
the fourth quarter of 2021.

Cboe Global said, "The Company is unable to estimate what, if any,
liability may result from this litigation. However, the Company
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to litigate
the matter vigorously."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CELTIC FOOTBALL: Judge Greenlights Sex Abuse Survivors' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan McEwen, writing for Daily Record, reports that Celtic will be
served with legal papers after a judge gave the green light to a
US-style "class action" lawsuit against the club by sex abuse
survivors.

Up to 25 victims of historical abuse at Celtic Boys Club launched a
multi-million pound damages claim using new powers under Scottish
law.

Now judge Lord Ericht has allowed the case to move to the next
stage which ensures lawyers for Celtic FC will need to answer the
allegations.

A hearing took place at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on
Nov. 4 and a summons is expected to be served on Celtic within the
next fortnight.

Thompsons Solicitors ­Scotland acts for 25 survivors.

Patrick McGuire, a partner with the firm, said the summons will set
out the alleged relationship between Celtic and Celtic Boys Club.

Celtic previously said it was "appalled by any form of historic
abuse" but ­maintained it is a "separate entity" to the boys
club.

Four men associated with Celtic Boys Club or Celtic have been
convicted of abuse.

Just over a month ago, Thompsons paid for a public notice to be
published in the Record - a required first step in the "group
proceedings" action - which urged other survivors to come forward.

Since then several people contacted the firm with claims they
suffered abuse and may now join the group case.

Following the Nov. 4 hearing, Thompsons had to pay for a second
public notice in the Record to again alert possible claimants about
the "super case".

Mr McGuire said: "This group action against Celtic has leapt the
first hurdle. This an important milestone in the fight for justice
for abuse survivors.

"The court has authorised the papers to be formally served on
Celtic. That means in due course -- probably early next year -- the
club will have to provide a formal written response to the case we
set out in law.

"We expect there will be a hearing before a judge in the new year.

"This should leave Celtic in absolutely no doubt that we're serious
about this fight and will pursue it with absolute commitment. This
process will continue until justice is secured.

"We would hope, with this being so clear, that the time for
Celtic's obfuscation has ended and the time for proper, meaningful
dialogue is here.

"Celtic will have to defend this in court."

At the brief hearing on Nov. 4 no one representing Celtic was
required to attend.

Mr McGuire said the papers served on Celtic will "set out the
factual and legal position in general terms that need to be
resolved in court".

He added: "The heart of that will be the relationship between
Celtic and the Boys Club."

Group proceedings were only enacted into the country's legal system
last year and this case is one of the first of its kind to call
before a judge.

Such actions allow groups of two or more people with the same, or
similar, claims to raise a single action in the Court of Session.

Last June, Thompsons started formal legal action against Celtic in
connection with historic child abuse.

Two "test cases" brought by victims are currently before the Court
of Session while the firm represents a total of 25 survivors.

Last night a Celtic spokesman referred to the club's statement
issued last month when asked for comment.

That statement read: "The club is continuing to deal with these
sensitive matters in conjunction with its advisers.

"The club again expresses its sincere sympathy, regret and sorrow
to those affected and reiterates that it will stand by its
responsibilities, respecting the due process of law." [GN]

COCA-COLA: Response to Spaner Class Cert. Bid Extended to Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spaner v. The Coca-Cola
Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-22210 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose E.
Martinez entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension
of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Defendant shall respond on or before December 6, 2021, says
Judge Martinez.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Other Statutory
Actions.

The Coca-Cola Company is a multinational beverage corporation
incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[CC]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Hacked Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------
CoinGeek reports that Coinbase's growing cohort of aggrieved former
customers are taking action against the company, according to a
class action suit filed in California.

The suit names Coinbase Global Inc (NASDAQ: COIN) and up to 50
as-yet unnamed executives and employees as defendants over data
breaches by Coinbase which the suit says led to consumers losing
their digital assets to hackers.

The plaintiff bringing the suit is Adam Alfia, a trader who was the
victim of a hack which led to $50,000 worth of Ethereum purchased
using his account without his knowledge. Coinbase's response was to
lock Alfia out of their platform for two months—a pattern of
behavior that has become common to Coinbase over the years.

Alfia expects the number of potential plaintiffs to be large:

"Members of the class are so numerous that their individual
enjoinder is impractical. Plaintiff estimate that there are no less
than 1,000 persons in the identified class."

The suit accuses Coinbase of breach of contract, negligence, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation.

The breach of contract claim relates to Coinbase's failure to
adhere to the terms of their service agreement, both the express
and implied provisions contained therein.

The negligence claim accuses Coinbase of failing to fulfil their
duty to customers to "properly secure Plaintiff and the putative
class's private information and cryptocurrency from unauthorized
transactions and dissemination."

The fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims are offered as
alternates to one another. In other words, the plaintiff is
accusing Coinbase of falsely claiming that it "maintains
appropriate physical, technical and administrative safeguards to
protect the security and confidentiality of the personal
information" of its account holders -- either knowingly or
negligently.

Coinbase has created a growing class of aggrieved former customers,
so the potential plaintiffs and their claims could be large.
Earlier this year, CNBC ran an expose on Coinbase's problem with
hacked accounts and their unwillingness to do anything about it.
According to CNBC:

"[The customer's complaints] reveal a pattern of account takeovers,
where users see money suddenly vanish from their account, followed
by poor customer service from Coinbase that made those users feel
left hanging and angry."

The suit comes just days after it was revealed that Dr. Craig
Wright had sent warning notices out to a number of digital asset
companies, Coinbase included, over their use of the Bitcoin name
and database. Coinbase, which is a publicly listed company, never
disclosed the pending legal action to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), which itself may be grounds for further
class action suits. [GN]

COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Law Firm Investigates Data Breach Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, a law firm experienced in data breach
cases, is investigating claims on behalf of victims of a data
breach involving data entrusted to Community Medical Centers.,
potentially including the following personal information: "first
and last names, mailing addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, demographic information, and medical information."[1]
Community Medical Centers serves patients in the San Joaquin,
Solano, and Yolo counties in Northern California.

WHAT HAPPENED?

"On October 10, 2021, Community Medical Centers (CMC) shut down
many of its systems proactively after detecting unusual activity on
the organization's network."[2] It "engaged third-party experts to
assess and remediate the situation."[3] Community Medical Centers
first began notifying individuals affected by the data breach on
October 26, 2021.[4]

WHAT INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED IN THE DATA BREACH?

On its website, Community Medical Centers posted a notice about the
data breach stating that the following information was included in
the data breach,

First and last names,
Mailing addresses,
Dates of birth,
Social Security Numbers,
Demographic information, and,
Medical information.[5]

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE COMMUNITY
MEDICAL CENTERS DATA BREACH?

If you would like to have a free, confidential consultation with an
attorney to learn more about your rights and potential legal
remedies in response to the Community Medical Centers Data Breach,
please contact Markovits, Stock & DeMarco attorney Terry Coates at
(513) 651-3700, email us at msd@msdlegal.com, or submit a Case
Evaluation request through the form below. [GN]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO
ALOHA, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation;
et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order that the deadline for them to file his
class certification motion be extended by 34 days, to December 22,
2021.

The Plaintiffs further request that compared to the prior schedule
to account for the winter holidays, and their deadline to file
their reply brief be extended to February 7, 2022.

The Plaintiffs include Bruce Corker d/b/a Rancho Aloha; Colehour
Bondera and Melanie Bondera d/b/a Kanalani Ohana Farm, Robert Smith
and Cecelia Smith d/b/a SmithFarms, and SmithFarms LLC.

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

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30hXWww at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
          Paul Richard Brown, Esq.
          Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313
          E-mail: npaine@karrtuttle.com
                  pbrown@karrtuttle.com
                  dhagen@karrtuttle.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telepone: (206) 223-1313
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
                  dseltz@lchb.com
                  akaufman@lchb.com
                  msobol@lchb.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Cameron Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER CAMERON, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02908-APM (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying Injunctive Class defined as:

      "All individuals who were kettled and arrested at or near
      the intersection of 18th and Willard Streets, N.W., during
      the late night hours of August 13, 2020, and early morning
      hours of August 14, 2020, who were subsequently released
      without being charged with a crime, and whose cell phones
      and other property the Metropolitan Police Department
      continues to hold;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Destiny Robinson, Jonah Angeles,
      and Jake Oster to represent the Injunctive Class;

   3. certifying Damages Class defined as:

      "All individuals who were kettled and arrested at or near
      the intersection of 18th and Willard Streets, N.W., during
      the late night hours of August 13, 2020, and early morning
      hours of August 14, 2020, and who were subsequently
      released without being charged with a crime but had their
      cell phones and other property seized by the Metropolitan
      Police Department and held beyond the time reasonably
      necessary to secure a warrant and potentially retrieve
      evidence;"

   4. appointing Plaintiffs Alexander Cameron, Benjamin Tan,
      Destiny Robinson, Jonah Angeles, and Jake Oster to
      represent the Damages Class;

   5. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

The Defendant District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department
("MPD") routinely and unlawfully holds cell phones seized from
individuals who have been arrested -- many of whom are never
charged with a crime -- for months or even years past the point
when the government might have any continuing legitimate interest
in retaining the cell phones, while providing no process to
challenge that retention. This policy, pattern, practice, or custom
engaged in by Defendant violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of
the United States Constitution and constitutes an unlawful
conversion of property.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy the harms that they, and
the proposed classes that they seek to represent, have suffered as
a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct.

The Plaintiffs were among dozens of people who were "kettled"
(corralled into a confined area), detained, and arrested at a march
calling for police reform and racial justice in the Adams Morgan
neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in the late night hours of August
13, 2020, and early morning hours of August 14, 2020.

At the time of the arrests, MPD officers seized personal property
belonging to the arrestees, including cell phones. Each of the
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes were subsequently
released without charges, after the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia (the "USAO") declined to charge them (in local
parlance, they were "no-papered"). MPD has, however, refused to
return the vast majority of the arrestees' cell phones, and in some
cases, miscellaneous other property, post-release. Over a year
later, MPD has returned only three additional cell phones, in each
case many months after any legitimate government interest in
continued retention of the device had expired.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FaQ2Uo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tara L. Reinhart, Esq.
          Julia K. York, Esq.
          Joseph M. Sandman, Esq.
          Daniel R. Blauser, Esq.
          Annamaria Kimball, Esq.
          PROBONO LAW
          1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7630
          E-mail: tara.reinhart@probonolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Michelman, Esq.
          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          Michael Perloff, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          of the District of Columbia
          915 15th Street, N.W., Second Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 601-4267
          E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org

               - and -

          Jacqueline Kutnik-Bauder, Esq.
          Carlos Andino, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
          700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          E-mail: jacqueline_kutnik-bauder@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Light, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY L. LIGHT
          1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 277-6213
          E-mail: jeffrey@lawofficeofjeffreylight.com

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Delivery Drivers' Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Many companies require workers to use their own cars for work, yet
fail to reimburse their drivers adequately for the use of the car.
Here's what you don't know about Pizza delivery drivers. Delivery
drivers end up putting thousands of miles of wear-and-tear on their
cars, paying for gas and repairs -- before they realize the true
cost of delivery driver work. After driving expenses, drivers are
left with a paltry paycheck that falls short of the minimum wage.
Employment rights attorneys at Blanchard & Walker have fought for
years on behalf of delivery drivers cheated out of basic minimum
wages.

Are Pizza Delivery Drivers legally owed a Minimum Wage and Expense
Reimbursements?
5000 Domino's Pizza Delivery Drivers (Mata v. STA et al.): Domino's
Pizza Drivers win conditional notice for a class of over 5000
drivers impacted by STA' franchise's under-reimbursement. This
pizza driver lawsuit states a common complaint among drivers in the
industry -- that systematic under-reimbursement for mileage and
vehicle expenses violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
Michigan Minimum Wage laws. The defendant, STA, once boasted to be
one of the ten largest Domino's Pizza Franchises in the Country. At
one time, STA had over 50 Domino's locations throughout Michigan
and Indiana. According to the Complaint, STA allegedly reimburses
drivers $0.25 per mile or less, while the IRS calculates the cost
of driving to be more than $0.50 per mile. Plaintiff alleges STA's
reimbursement scheme violates federal and state minimum wage law.
Impacted drivers are being sent the court-approved notice,
explaining their rights to participate and seeking to recover the
true cost of driving pizza delivery.

Have Delivery Drivers Won Class-Action Settlements?
400 Hungry Howie's Delivery Drivers (Mcfarlin v. The Word
Enterprises et al. and Graham v. The Word Enterprises et al.): In
another recent B&W case, a Hungry Howie's franchise chain was
ordered to pay $650,000 to settle class action claims for their
fleet of pizza delivery drivers. The case started in 2016, when one
pizza delivery driver came forward to disclose a systematic
under-reimbursement of vehicle and mileage expenses. According to
some estimates, drivers were reimbursed only $0.10-$0.20 cents per
mile when they were paid $0.75 cents per delivery – even while
the IRS mileage reimbursement was up to $0.58 cents per mile. The
McFarlin case was certified for class action status in 2017.

Are Other Last-Mile Delivery Drivers Owed Minimum Wages or Overtime
Pay?
1000(?) SCI Delivery Drivers (Ross v. Subcontracting Concepts Inc.
et al.) - Last-Mile Delivery Drivers (or drivers who complete the
last leg of a package delivery) can also fall victim to delivery
driver scams that shift delivery costs from employers onto drivers.
In Ross v. SCI, the Complaint alleges Defendants knowingly
misclassify last-mile drivers as "independent contractors." The
misclassification deprives them of the minimum wages and overtime
owed to an employee under the law. The SCI Drivers are engaged in
delivery of auto parts moving in interstate commerce, and Plaintiff
alleges that they are therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration
Act. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that
plaintiffs have a right to challenge the validity of forced
arbitration agreements in Court before being forced into private
arbitration. The Plaintiff's Motion for Notice to similarly
situated drivers is currently pending with the Court. While we
await Court approval of conditional certification, B&W is talking
to additional impacted delivery drivers and seeking witness
statements.

If you have questions about your rights, or you believe you are an
eligible class member, you can contact class counsel by clicking
here.

How can I find more Information about my FLSA Minimum Wage and
Overtime Rights?
Blanchard & Walker has a record of achieving remarkable results for
Michigan workers in FLSA cases for minimum wage and overtime
violations under the FLSA and Michigan wage laws. Common wage fraud
schemes include:

-- failing to reimburse for expenses for minimum wage workers
-- misclassifying non-exempt workers as "overtime exempt"
-- using "independent contractor" contracts to mislabel employees
-- depriving "day-rate" or "job-rate" workers of overtime pay

For questions regarding your rights or the content of this post,
you can contact the authors at Blanchard & Walker PLLC. [GN]

E&P FINANCIAL: Chief Executive Alan Dixon Added to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz and Jonathan Shapiro, writing for Australian
Financial Review, reports that former Evans Dixon chief executive
Alan Dixon has been added to a class action claim that includes
wealth manager E&P Financial Group and wholly-owned subsidiary
Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services, over allegedly conflicted
advice to clients.

Former Dixon Advisory client Trudy Stott is a director of the
corporate trustee of her self-managed super fund, Kosen-Rufu Pty
Ltd, which is the lead plaintiff in a class action filed in the
Federal Court of Australia on November 1.

The company was served on Oct. 27, which forced it to place its
shares in trading halt to allow it to "respond to legal
proceedings".

Mr Dixon was a director of Dixon Advisory's parent company from
2015 to 2020, served on the firm's investment committee from 2013
to 2019 and was a director of the troubled US Masters Residential
Fund from 2015 to 2019.

According to court documents obtained by The Australian Financial
Review Mr Dixon allegedly had knowledge of the issues raised, and
he with other members of the committee "wilfully shut their eyes to
the obvious" in facilitating investments in funds in which the
parent company earned lucrative fees.

The action is the third set of court proceedings to emerge from the
alleged conflicts of interest arising out of the troubled US
Masters Residential Fund (URF), and the first to name Mr Dixon
personally.

Dixon Advisory is also facing a separate legal action from other
clients alleging they were almost exclusively set up in conflicted
self-managed superannuation fund products which left them nearly
$900,000 worse off. Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed this claim in
October on behalf of a married couple.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission also launched
legal proceedings last year, after investigations by the Financial
Review shed light on the poor financial advice provided to clients
to invest in the URF, which paid significant fees to related
companies but performed poorly for investors.

In July, after months of mediation, Dixon Advisory agreed to a $7.2
million settlement with the corporate regulator over its investment
advice, which is subject to court approval at a hearing scheduled
for late November.

Dixon Advisory also agreed to pay $1 million to cover the
regulator's costs, but the fine was a fraction of the tens of
millions of dollars in potential penalties it faced.

A statement from Piper Alderman said the new claim advanced similar
allegations to those made by ASIC.

"In particular, the claim asserts that Dixon Advisory's investment
committee reviewed, approved and recommended which products were to
be pushed on to the applicants and group members, and that Dixon
Advisory and its related entities stood to earn millions in fees
from those products," he said.

That involves breaches of the Corporations Act relating to
conflicts of interest, misleading and deceptive conduct and breach
of fiduciary duties.

Changed name
The claim is funded on a no win, no fee basis by global litigation
funder Balance Legal Capital.

Piper Alderman partner Martin del Gallego described the class
action as "important" and "aimed at returning compensation to
thousands of investors who have suffered significant losses on
investments recommended to them by Dixon Advisory".

An E&P Financial spokeswoman declined to comment, while Mr Dixon
had not responded to a request for comment at the time of
publication.

Evans Dixon changed its name to E&P Financial Group a year ago at
the annual general meeting. The company was created when Dixon
Advisory merged with Evans & Partners in 2017 and listed on the ASX
in 2018 at $2.50 per share.

After the merger Mr Dixon became the CEO of the wealth manager. In
June 2019 Mr Dixon stepped down as CEO to focus his attention on
the URF, but by August left the fund. He has since pocketed $18.6
million via the sale of his stake, just before ASIC started its
civil action.

On Oct. 27, shares in E&P Financial traded at 60¢ each before
being placed in trading halt. [GN]

ELEMENT MATERIALS: Seeks Dismissal of Clemons 1st Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK CLEMONS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELEMENT
MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-08581-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. dismissing each cause of action asserted in the Plaintiff
      Mark Clemons' First Amended Complaint (FAC) (Counts 1–7)
      on the basis that each Count fails to state a claim upon
      which relief can be granted; and

   2. striking Plaintiff's proposed class period defined as
      "December 28, 2014 to the date of class certification"

      -- Specifically, the Plaintiff's original complaint was
         filed on  September 13, 2021, for which the longest
         statute of limitations on any pleaded cause of action
         would be September 13, 2017; and

      -- There is no basis in law or fact for a putative class
         period running back to December 28, 2014, nor is there
         a basis to toll any statutes of limitations beyond
         their statutory limits.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DcnQ2N at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J. Long, Esq.
          Michael A. Wertheim, Esq.
          Chris Cruz, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: wertheimm@gtlaw.com
                  longt@gtlaw.com
                  cruzc@gtlaw.com

EPIC SYSTEMS: EBG Achieves Victory in PAGA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Using its ingenuity, Epstein Becker Green successfully disposed of
a massive 400,000-person class action for a temporary staffing
agency that has been pending since 2016. In the case, the plaintiff
alleged that our client did not pay its California temporary
employees for part (or all) of their time in new-hire orientation
meetings. The class claims were eventually dismissed after the U.S.
Supreme Court issued its decision in Epic Systems, and the law
firm's client then faced a 200,000-person Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) action. (The "class size" was effectively reduced from
400,000 to 200,000 once the class claims were dismissed because of
the shorter PAGA limitations period.)

EBG did not engage in settlement discussions and instead planned to
argue that the PAGA claims should be stricken as unmanageable as
they would require 200,000 individual inquiries. But before making
the manageability argument, EBG developed a creative argument based
on the wording of a sentence in the plaintiff's pre-suit PAGA
notice to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency. EBG argued that
the plaintiff had only exhausted his administrative remedies as to
the 4-5 employees who attended the same orientation meeting as he
did -- not all 200,000 employees statewide who attended different
orientation meetings during the PAGA limitations period. The court
agreed and granted EBG's motion to limit the PAGA class to those
4-5 people. The case ultimately settled for an exceedingly small
sum for the named plaintiff alone. Needless to say, our client was
extremely pleased with the outcome. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased Facebook, Inc.
securities (NASDAQ: FB) between November 3, 2016 and October 4,
2021 may seek to participate in the case as a Lead Plaintiff.
Interested investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Facebook for more
information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917. A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
investors of FB. Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff to
recover as class members if the case is successful.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Facebook

The case alleges that Facebook and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Facebook misrepresented its user growth; (ii) Facebook knew, or
should have known, that duplicate accounts represented a greater
portion of its growth than stated, and it should have provided more
detailed disclosures as to the implication of duplicate accounts to
Facebook's user base and growth; (iii) Facebook did not provide a
fair platform for speech, and regularly protected high profile
users via its Cross Check/XCheck system; (iv) despite being aware
of their use of Facebook's platforms, the Company failed to respond
meaningfully to drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent
organizations; and (v) Facebook has been working to attract
preteens to its platform and services.

Interested Facebook investors have until December 27, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Facebook

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

CONTACT:

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

FCA US: Ringless Voicemail Class Suit Can Proceed in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that here's another
one of those "the Czar is always right" sort of stories. Turn away
if you don't want to hear about it.

So you'll remember the story from about a year ago where a
Defendant was let "off the hook" for 89,000 ringless voicemails
that were allegedly sent without consent.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that individuals
receiving only a single ringless voicemail lacked standing to sue
in federal court - akin to the rule with respect to the receipt of
a single text message. (Again, this is in the Eleventh Circuit only
- other Circuit Courts of Appeal have disagreed.)

At the time I wrote the story I urged everyone not to "get carried
away." Indeed, I expressed trepidation that folks would over read
Grigorian and deploy ringless voicemails in an unsafe manner. As I
said at the time:

"So I pass on the good news of Grigorian with a bit of bitter herb.
TCPAWorld is way too dangerous a place to hear about one case and
change your outreach practices. Please do not read the case as
meaning that you are safe to blast everyone with one free RVM. It
will not go well."

Well, I was right. Unsurprisingly.

The Grigorian case was re-filed in state court and - wouldn't you
know it - the state court found that the Plaintiff had standing to
sue the Defendant after all, on the same claim. So although the
Defendant is out of federal court, it still must face a massive
~$50MM case related to the ringless voicemails in state court.

Notably, this is the first decision I am aware of to ever directly
hold that a Plaintiff who lacks standing to sue in federal court on
a federal claim can still bring that claim in state court. I
believe - and can't wait to brief and advocate - that such
individuals lack prudential standing to bring claims. But the state
court considering Grigorian did not directly address this issue -
although it did find "zone of interest" arguments to be
inapplicable to suits between private parties for some reason.

As the fate of all those TCPA cases being dismissed for lack of
standing is a critical metaphysical issue here in TCPAWorld - in a
"where do TCPA cases go when they're dismissed, mommy?" sort of way
- I'll try to keep an eye on state court rulings addressing the
issue.

And a special nod to Jacob Phillips over at NORMAND PLLC for
bringing this one to my attention. Even though you're a dark sider,
I appreciate the intel!

The case is styled Grigorian v. FCA US, LLC.

A copy of the ruling is available at:

https://tcpaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Grigorian-State-Ruling.pdf
[GN]

FLORIDA: UF Allows Professors to Testify in SB 90 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neel Kulkarni, writing for The Oracle, reports that UF reversed its
Nov. 5 decision which prevented professors from testifying against
the state in a class action complaint filed May 17 by voting rights
organizations over SB 90.

The reversal of the restriction is the right decision. It
reinforces the free speech of public employees against the
government, regardless of the public image of their employer.

SB 90 -- approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 6 -- changed the
requirements for voter registration, restricting the time frame for
mail-in ballot requests and activities that can be performed around
drop boxes.

The class-action complaint claimed SB 90 is a discriminatory
response to high voter turnout among Black and Latino citizens in
the most recent election.

Voting law experts and UF professors Daniel Smith, Michael McDonald
and Sharon Austin were prevented by UF's Conflicts of Interest
Office from testifying against the state of Florida in the class
action complaint, according to a Nov. 5 statement from the
university.

UF President Kent Fuchs indicated in the university's public
statement that he had formed a task force in response to the
situation and requested that the Conflicts of Interest Office
reverse the decision. The request was granted Nov. 5.

The alleged conflict of interest between the university and the
state government arises because the university is public, and
professors are employed by the state.

The professors will testify without using the university's
resources, as indicated by Fuchs' statement, nor will UF pay them
for testifying in court.

The professors will serve independent of their role as UF
employees, and the testimonies of professors Smith, McDonald and
Austin will represent their own opinions and not the university's.
UF had no right to claim a conflict of interest.

As experts, the professors should develop reasonable conclusions
without influence from the university. UF shouldn't choose which
testimonies align with the university's beliefs, and which
testimonies should be silenced.

When professors are asked for expert testimony in lawsuits, their
affiliation with a public university is irrelevant. Experts do not
testify in court for their university connection, but they instead
testify in court because of their understanding in a particular
field of study.

The USF chapter for the United Faculty of Florida (UFF) released a
statement about the UF conflict of interest Nov. 5 in which it
praised the reversal of the initial decision.

"We are pleased and relieved that the UF administration has finally
decided to permit faculty to testify (in this case) and we hope
that the task force recommends that the administration recognize
the right of faculty to share their expertise with the community,"
said USF's UFF chapter in the statement.

The decision to allow UF professors to testify against the Florida
state government is the right one. State universities across the
country should follow this precedent. Employees of the state should
be able to speak freely in court without fear of retaliation.  [GN]

FSM ZA: Patzfahl Must File Class Status Bid by June 1, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON PATZFAHL v. FSM ZA
LLC, et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-01202-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Lynn Adelman entered an order that the plaintiff shall file any
Rule 23 class certification motions on or before June 1, 2022.

This deadline shall not be modified except upon a showing of good
cause and by leave of the court, says Judge Adelman.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3njeNrH at no extra charge.[CC]

GAOTU TECHEDU: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Gaotu Techedu Inc. f/k/a GSX
Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GOTU) (NYSE: GSX) between March 22, 2021 and
March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important
December 20, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Gaotu 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 Gaotu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2182.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 20, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

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

To join the Gaotu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2182.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]

GENERAL DYNAMICS: Piron Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLIE PIRON, STEPHANIE
MERINO, BOUNSOU THAMVANTHONGKHAM, and CHRISTINA BEECROFT on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL
DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00709-REP
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order in
furtherance of their claims under the Worker Adjustment Retraining
and Notification ("WARN") Act:

   (a) certifying a class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprising:

       The GDIT employees who worked on its OPM contract and
       were terminated between July and December 2019 and have
       not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class.

       -- Travel Subclass: The GDIT employees who worked on its
          OPM contract as Background Investigator, Project/Task
          Supervisor or similarly situated positions and were
          terminated between July and December 2019 and have not
          filed a timely request to opt-out of the class;

   (b) appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel;

   (c) appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives; and

   (d) approving the form and manner of Notice.

GDIT provides information technology services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c2dUgw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward E. Bagnell, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer J. West, Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN PC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2000
          Facsimile: (804) 697-2100
          E-mail: jwest@spottsfain.com
                  ebagnell@spottsfain.com

               - and -

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
          270 Madison Avenue, Ste. 1801
          New York, NY 10116
          Telephone: (212) 221-1747
          E-mail: jar@ raisnerroupinian.com
                  rsr@ raisnerroupinian.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Neil H. MacBride, Esq.
          Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
          Craig J. Bergman, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 962-7000
          E-mail: neil.macbride@davispolk.com
                  paul.mishkin@davispolk.com
                  craig.bergman@davispolk.com

GEO GROUP: Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated September 23, 2021, the Honorable Rodney Smith of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied in part a motion to dismiss in Hartel v. The GEO
Group, Inc. et al., No. 9:20-cv-81063-RS.

GEO is an equity real estate investment trust specializing in the
design, financing, development, and operation of secure facilities,
processing centers, and community reentry centers in the United
States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The case
alleges that from November 7, 2018 through August 5, 2020, GEO and
CEO George C. Zoley violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and made false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia,
pending lawsuits in which the Company was involved. Defendants'
false and misleading statements had their intended effect, causing
GEO's stock price to trade at artificially inflated levels
throughout the Class Period.

In denying defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to their
statements about pending lawsuits, including the lawsuits not
having "a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations, or cashflows", the court found that
"Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Defendants knew these
statements were false when made" based on Defendant Zoley's May 30,
2019 letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
which characterized "the lawsuits as a 'potentially catastrophic
risk' that exposed the Company to 'tens of millions' in potential
damages and up to $20 million in legal expenses." The Court relied
on that same letter in finding that "Plaintiffs have adequately
pled scienter as to GEO's statements about the potential costs of
the lawsuits against GEO." Indeed, the Court noted that Defendant
Zoley "was the one who reach out to ICE about the costs and
potential liability arising from the lawsuits" and thus "had the
requisite power to directly or indirectly control or influence the
policies relating to the lawsuits."

Roche Freedman attorneys Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Ivy T. Ngo, and
Constantine P. Economides and Levi Korsinsky attorneys Nicholas I.
Porritt and Adam M. Apton obtained this result on behalf of the
class.

Hartel v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al., Case No.20-81063-CIV-SMITH,
Memorandum (S.D. Fl. Sep. 23, 2021).

If you are a shareholder who purchased GEO securities during the
Class Period and have any questions or would like more information
about the litigation, you may contact Adam Apton at aapton@zlk.com
or 202.524.4859 or Devyn R. Glass at dglass@rochefreedman.com or
646.823.1546. [GN]

GEORGIA PACIFIC: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Sched in Diaz OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DIAZ, on behalf of
those similarly situated, v. GEORGIA PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02151-DMG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order approving joint stipulation and request to
continue class certification schedule in light of pending outcome
of related class settlements and alternative dispute resolution
negotiations.

Georgia Pacific Corrugated LLC manufactures corrugated packaging.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dapmm4 at no extra charge.[CC]

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Action Over Auto Claims Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daly & Black, P.C., representing a group of policyholders, was
successfully able to certify a class action against GEICO
concerning the systemic underpayment of auto claims.

Plaintiffs allege that they each purchased an insurance policy that
required payment of transaction fees in event of a total loss of
their vehicle. The Plaintiffs claim that GEICO systemically
breached the standard policy by failing to pay sales tax, title
transfer fees, and registration fees to insureds whose vehicles
were determined to be total losses.

"GEICO has been well aware for many years now that its standard
insurance policy requires it to the pay the transaction costs
associated with replacing a vehicle that is a total loss. This
includes tax, title, and registration fees. Texans lost between
300,000 and 500,000 vehicles in Hurricane Harvey, alone in 2017.
Plaintiffs seek to hold GEICO responsible for paying those costs,"
said Plaintiff's counsel, Richard Daly of Daly & Black, P.C.

On October 28th, 2021 Judge Keith P. Ellison heard arguments and
approved the motion to certify the class against GEICO.
Policyholders who qualify will automatically join the class action
against GEICO unless they specifically opt out.
The case styling is Civil Action 4:20-cv-00799, Philip Angel et al.
v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Co. et al., In the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division.

About Daly & Black, P.C.:
Daly & Black is a litigation firm with offices in Texas and
Colorado. The firm handles insurance disputes, mass torts,
catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death matters, product
liability cases, maritime and Jones Act cases, and commercial
litigation disputes. The firm has obtained billions in verdicts and
settlements for its clients. [GN]

HAYWIRE INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 8, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Frabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Haywire, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04506-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order setting dates as
follows:

                       Event                      Date

   -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off            July 1, 2022

   -- Expert Disclosure (Initial)             May 20, 2022

   -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal)            June 11, 2022

   -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off                Aug. 1, 2022

   -- Deadline to File a Motion               March 8, 2022
      for Class Certification

   -- Deadline to File an Opposition          March 29, 2022
      to the for Class Certification

   -- Deadline to File a Reply                April 19, 2022

   -- Hearing Date on Motion for              May 9, 2022
      Class Certification

Haywire manufactures automotive wiring harness systems to the
automotive aftermarket.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c5SjUD at no extra charge.[CC]


HOUSTON ASTROS: Wallach Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Adam Wallach, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled IN RE HOUSTON ASTROS, LLC AND HOUSTON
ASTROS MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2020-10637, in the Texas District
Court, Harris County, 152nd Judicial District.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 22, 2021, a Texas
appeals court ruled that a class action against the Houston Astros
brought by fans upset over a signal-stealing scandal must be
dismissed because they have no legal basis to recover damages.

The lawsuit, brought in February 2020, alleged the team overcharged
fans for season tickets for the 2017 through 2020 seasons because
its players were secretly stealing pitch signs, as confirmed by a
Major League Baseball investigation. Adam Wallach, who is an Astros
season-ticket holder, filed the lawsuit on behalf of 2017, 2018,
2019, 2020 full or partial season ticket holders.

The investigation revealed Astros players watched a live feed from
a camera mounted in centerfield showing the other teams' catchers
signing to pitchers and then banged on a trash can with a bat to
tip.

The plaintiffs argued the team was "intentionally deceiving" season
ticket holders, and had they known about the sign-stealing scheme,
they never would have purchased the tickets or other merchandise.

The Astros moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the plaintiffs
weren't entitled to watch a game free from MLB rule violations and
couldn't bring a lawsuit just because they were disappointed over
how the team played the game.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but Texas' 14th Court
of Appeals vacated the ruling and ordered the lower court to toss
the case.

Petitioners Adam Wallach, Kenneth Young, Roger Contreras, Donald R.
Rao, CHA, Inc., and Brian Dobbins, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons and, filed this First Unopposed Motion
for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review under Tex. R.
App. P. 10.1, 10.5(b), and 53.7(f).

The appellate case is captioned as ADAM WALLACH, KENNETH YOUNG,
ROGER CONTRERAS, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons and entities v. HOUSTON ASTROS, LLC AND HOUSTON ASTROS
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 21-0915, in the Supreme Court of Texas,
filed on Oct. 21, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Adam Wallach, Kenneth Young, Roger
Contreras, Donald R. Rao, CHA, Inc., and Brian Dobbins, on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons, are represented
by:

          Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
          MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD.
          2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400
          Beaumont, TX 77702
          Telephone: (409) 838-0101
          Facsimile: (409) 838-6780
          E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          Marion Reilly, Esq.
          John C. Duff, Esq.
          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          Rudy Gonzales, Jr., Esq.
          Catherine D. Tobin, Esq.
          John B. Martinez, Esq.
          Bradford P. Klager, Esq.
          Alex Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP  
          719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78411
          Telephone: (361) 882-1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
          E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
                  marion@hmglawfirm.com
                  jduff@hmglawfirm.com

Defendants-Respondents Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros
Management, Inc. are represented by:

          Reagan W. Simpson, Esq.
          Bryce L. Callahan, Esq.
          Grant B. Martinez, Esq.
          YETTER COLEMAN LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 4100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 632-8000
          Facsimile: (713) 632-8002
          E-mail: rsimpson@yettercoleman.com
                  bcallahan@yettercoleman.com
                  gmartinez@yettercoleman.com

IANTHUS CAPITAL: Provides Update on Hi-Med Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. on Nov. 8 disclosed that on
September 1, 2021, the Company announced the dismissal of the
previously disclosed consolidated actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Actions") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court"). The Consolidated Actions
include: (a) various shareholder class action claims filed against,
among others, iAnthus and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, alleging violations of U.S. securities
laws; and (b) a complaint filed by Hi-Med, LLC, a holder of an
unsecured debenture in the principal amount of US $5 million (the
"Unsecured Debenture") against iAnthus and certain of its current
and former officers and directors alleging violations of U.S.
securities laws and breaches of the Unsecured Debenture and the
related Debenture Purchase Agreement.

Pursuant to the Court's memorandum of opinion dated August 30,
2021, the plaintiffs were granted the right to move for leave to
file proposed second amended complaints by September 30, 2021. Each
plaintiff moved for leave to file second amended complaints, and
the Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for leave to file second
amended complaints. iAnthus will continue to vigorously defend its
interests in court. [GN]


ILLINOIS: Seeks Dec. 17 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY MCFARLAND v. BRENDAN
KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State
Police, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for him to file
his response to Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification
to December 17, 2021.

The Plaintiff McFarland, a sex offender, challenges the
constitutionality of the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act,
730 ILCS 5/7, alleging that he has not been afforded an opportunity
to contest extensions of his registration period.

On October 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion for
class certification, and Defendant's response is currently due
November 8, 2021.

According to the Champaign County Clerk's website, Plaintiff was
charged in June of 2021 with a felony violation of the Sex Offender
Registration Act, 730 ILCS 15/3(a), and is awaiting trial. His
trial is set for November 15, 2021.

The Defendant requests an extension of time to respond to the
motion in light of Plaintiff's pending criminal trial.

The outcome of Plaintiff's upcoming criminal trial may impact this
case, including Defendant's response to Plaintiff's pending motion
for class certification.

The Illinois State Police is the state police force of Illinois.
Officially established in 1922, the Illinois State Police have over
3,000 personnel and 21 districts.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HqwCwW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael T. Dierkes, Esq.
          Hal Dworkin, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          GENERAL LAW BUREAU
          100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 814-3672

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Nov. 8 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

INNV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/innovage-holding-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20939&wire=1
BMRN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20939&wire=1
TMC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tmc-the-metals-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20939&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

InnovAge Holding Inc. (NASDAQ:INNV)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired InnovAge common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 13, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/innovage-holding-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20939&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) certain of InnovAge's
facilities failed to provide covered services, provide accessible
and adequate services, manage participants' medical situations, and
oversee use of specialists; (2) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, including
by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; (3) as a result,
there as a significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments
pending an audit of the Company's services; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ:BMRN)

BMRN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 13, 2020
- September 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20939&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, BioMarin
Pharmaceutical Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) BMN 307, an
Adeno-Associated Virus Vector-Mediated Gene Transfer of Human
Phenylalanine Hydroxylase, was less safe than BioMarin had led
investors to believe; (ii) BMN 307's safety profile made it likely
that the Food and Drug Administration 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.

TMC the metals company Inc. f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TMC)

TMC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 4, 2021 -
October 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 27, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tmc-the-metals-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20939&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, TMC the
metals company Inc. f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had significantly overpaid
for the Tongo Offshore Mining Limited acquisition 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 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.

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

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

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

JODI HARPSTEAD: Daywitt "Sex Offender" Suit Seeks Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Daywitt, et al.,
v. Jodi Harpstead, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-01743-NEB-KMM (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All patients currently civilly committed in the Minnesota
      Sex Offender Program pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section
      2538;"

   2. certifying the above class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(b);

   3. appointing them as representatives of the Class; and

   4. appointing adequate counsel to represent the Class.

The Plaintiffs include Kennth Daywitt, Steven Hogy, Peter Lonergan,
Melin Adolphson, and Michael Whipple.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30asD6z
at no extra charge.[CC]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Loses Appeal in Pelvic Mesh Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Monthly reports that on Nov. 5, Australia's High Court
denied to hear an appeal that Johnson & Johnson sought to overturn
a ruling by the federal court that its subsidiary Ethicon sold
defective pelvic mesh implants.

According to Shine Lawyers, who led the class action, the matter
will now return to the Federal Court to set up a process to
determine payments to over 11,000 claimants in what is Australia's
largest product liability class action. In a statement, Johnson &
Johnson said, "Ethicon is disappointed that it has not been
successful in its application for special leave to appeal."

Kathryn Gill, Diane Dawson, and Ann Sanders, who are the three lead
members of the class action, are now eligible to receive the 1.276
million Australian dollars, 555,555 million Australian dollars, and
757,372 million Australian dollars they were respectively awarded.
The claims of the remaining members will be separately assessed.

Johnson & Johnson had wanted to appeal a ruling from March by the
Federal Court of Australia that upheld a November 2019 decision by
a federal court judge. The judge had found that Ethicon had sold
implants for urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse without
warning surgeons or the patients of the risks involved, and had
failed to complete proper testing before bringing the products onto
the market.

In April, Shine Lawyers filed a second class action against Ethicon
and Johnson & Johnson in the Federal Court on behalf of patients
implanted with a defective mesh product from July 2017 to include
patients who had not been eligible to join a first class action
filed in 2012. According to Shine Lawyers, the allegations in the
second class action are almost the same as those in the first class
action.

Johnson & Johnson has faced similar suits regarding its pelvic mesh
products in Europe, Canada, and the United States. [GN]

JOSHUA TAYLOR: Sparger-Withers Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joshua N. Taylor, et
al. The case is styled as Amy Sparger-Withers, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Joshua N. Taylor, in his
personal capacity and in his official capacity as civil-forfeiture
prosecutor; BLACKFORD COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, DEARBORN AND
OHIO COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, DECATUR COUNTY PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, FAYETTE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, FULTON COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, GRANT COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, HANCOCK
COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, HARRISON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
HENRY COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, MARSHALL COUNTY PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, MIAMI COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, MORGAN COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, RUSH COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, SHELBY
COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, STARKE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
WABASH COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, in their official capacity;
Case No. 1:21-cv-02824-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., Nov. 10, 2021).

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

Joshua N. Taylor previously worked as a deputy prosecutor in
Hamilton County before joining Garrison Law Firm in 2009 as an
associate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia A. Bedrick, Esq.
          Scott Aaron Milkey, Esq.
          MCNEELY LAW LLP
          2177 Intelliplex Drive, Suite 251
          Shelbyville, IN 46176
          Phone: (317) 825-5110
          Fax: (317) 825-5109
          Email: CBedrick@McNeelyLaw.com
                 SMilkey@McNeelyLaw.com

               - and -

          J. Lee McNeely, Esq.
          STEPHENSON RIFE LLP (Shelbyville)
          2150 Intelliplex Drive, Suite 200
          Shelbyville, IN 46176
          Phone: (317) 825-5110
          Fax: (317) 825-5109
          Email: LMcNeely@McNeelyLaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony B. Sanders, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          520 Nicollet Mall, Suite 550
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2626
          Phone: (612) 435-3451
          Fax: (612) 435-5875
          Email: asanders@ij.org


JUUL LABS: TCAPS Trustees to Consider Joining Vaping Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Milligan, writing for The Ticker, reports that TCAPS trustees
were on Nov. 8 scheduled to consider joining a national
class-action lawsuit against e-cigarette maker Juul and other
vaping manufacturers on the grounds they "fraudulently and
intentionally marketed their products to children," according to a
memo from TCAPS Superintendent Dr. John VanWagoner. As of
September, 79 Michigan schools have already joined the lawsuit,
including two in the local intermediate school district. VanWagoner
told the executive committee on Nov. 4 that the "litigation aims to
recoup monies schools have already incurred dealing with vaping
issues, but also seeks money for schools to deal with vaping issues
over the next ten years."

TCAPS will not be charged any attorney fees for joining the lawsuit
unless there is a successful recovery. In that situation, TCAPS
would receive 75 percent of the district's portion of awarded
damages and 25 percent would cover legal fees. TCAPS' commitment
would entail filling out a questionnaire, which VanWagoner
estimated would take three hours. According to VanWagoner, courts
have already declined to dismiss the lawsuit twice and trial is
scheduled to proceed in March. While there is "no guarantee of
recovery," VanWagoner noted, attorneys have estimated each Michigan
participant that joins the lawsuit could receive between $200,000
and $10 million if the lawsuit is successful. [GN]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Class Action Over Recalled CPAP Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Medtruth reports that a U.S. federal judge has ruled that Philips,
a Netherlands-based multinational conglomerate, must face more than
100 lawsuits over its recalled continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP) machine for sleep apnea.

Insurance Journal reported that the consolidation of the lawsuits
was announced on Oct. 8 and will be presided over by U.S. District
Court Judge Joy Conti in Pittsburgh. The location was chosen
because Philips maintains a manufacturing plant in nearby
Murrysville, PA.

Philips' CPAP machine was recalled in June, which removed more than
three million sleep apnea devices from the market sold before April
2021 over concerns that users could be exposed to polyester foam.
The foam is used as a material in the ventilator sleep-aid machine
in order to reduce noise.  

Researchers have linked the ingestion of foam to "some cancers and
other illnesses," Insurance Journal reported.

Sold under the DreamStation brand, Philips' sleep apnea devices
were designed to improve sleep quality in users who experience
intermittent breathing difficulties while sleeping. Poor sleep
quality linked to sleep apnea can cause fatigue as well as
long-term health complications.

Considering that millions of the devices have been sold,
plaintiffs' attorneys predict that the class will include thousands
of additional members in the months to come. The litigation will
likely center around the fact that Philips chose to use a
potentially carcinogenic material in the sleep apnea device.

Plaintiffs will also likely seek compensation for future medical
monitoring.

The foam in the recalled units allegedly degraded over time and
dislodged directly in users' airways. The recalled units were also
allegedly capable of outgassing two toxic byproducts.

Philips is accused of failing to fix the design flaw. The recall
did not affect Philips' DreamStation 2 CPAP device. [GN]

KSF ACQUISITION: Faces Class Action Over SlimFast Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action challenges the assertion that SlimFast products are
"clinically proven" to help lose weight and keep it off.

The 12-page lawsuit alleges the "clinically proven" and four-hour
hunger control claims that appear on the labels of more than 50
SlimFast products are false given the company that makes the
weight-loss supplement "does not possess evidence to support them,"
such as randomized and relevant controlled studies.

According to the case, SlimFast maker KSF Acquisition Corporation's
"clinically proven" claims are based on studies of products that
were introduced many years ago and are no longer sold, and on
weight-loss plans that have not been offered by SlimFast for many
years.

"Defendant has not clinically tested the weight-loss efficacy of
the Products," the complaint alleges, contending that KSF's
clinical trial claims are based on discontinued SlimFast products
as part of a high-carb diet with "no resemblance" to today's
products, which are higher in fat and protein and contain fewer
carbohydrates.

Moreover, the lawsuit alleges the studies on which KSF has based
its "clinically proven" claims are not entirely relevant to weight
loss. For instance, the case says, one study called for only two
snacks per day and neither required participants to exercise nor
accounted for the higher number of calories consumed by men.
Another study failed to indicate whether any specific eating plan
was required, the suit claims, while another involved subjects
being advised to eat various servings of fruits and vegetables per
day in addition to meal replacements and meals, per the complaint.
Yet another study allegedly involved adhering to a low-calorie diet
using SlimFast products to achieve a caloric deficit, the suit
adds.

The lawsuit says that no current SlimFast plan requires consumption
of a specific number of fruits and vegetables.

The case goes on to contend that the back label of SlimFast
products attempts to disclaim the "Keep It Off" weight-loss claims
on the front label with the text "*When Used as Part of the
SlimFast Plan." This disclaimer, however, is written in text that's
"small and difficult to read," the lawsuit argues. Moreover, other
product label claims concerning hunger control, satiety and blood
sugar are "false and misleading," the suit says.

"Defendant's hunger control claim is misleading because the studies
relied upon had limited consumer relevance because the subjects
were not given food during the test period, so whether or not they
could control their hunger was not actually evaluated," the
complaint reads.

As the lawsuit tells it, the studies relied upon for the "Keep It
Off" claim are not supportive of the "clinically proven" assertion
in that 20 percent of participants' weight was regained at the end
of one year.

The lawsuit argues that reasonable consumers must and do rely on a
company to honestly identify and describe the "components,
attributes, and features" of a product relative to itself and
comparable items or alternatives. According to the complaint, the
value of the SlimFast products at issue was materially less than
their value as represented by the defendant.

Consumers would not have bought "clinically proven" SlimFast
products, or would have paid less for them, had they known the
truth, the lawsuit alleges.

The case looks to represent consumers in Illinois, North Dakota,
Kansas, Texas, Wyoming and Delaware who bought SlimFast products
labeled as "Clinically Proven—Lose Weight & Keep It Off" and "4hr
Hunger Control" during the relevant statute of limitations period.
[GN]

LEXINGTON LAW: Extension of Discovery, Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MOORE, v. JOHN C.
HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW FIRM, Case No.
2:21-cv-00027-TC-CMR (D. Utah), the Parties file joint motion for
extension of discovery and class certification
deadlines as follows:

   a. Last day for issuing written       January 17, 2022
      discovery:

   b. Close of fact discovery:           February 28, 2022

   c. Disclosure of class                December 20, 2021
      certification experts and
      reports (party  bearing
      burden of proof):

   d. Counter disclosures of             January 17, 2022
      class certification experts
      and counter reports:

   e. Class certification motion:        February 14, 2022

A copy of the parties' motion dated Nov. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James D. Gilson, Esq.
          Lyndon R. Bradshaw, Esq.
          DENTON DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C.
          111 South Main St., Suite 2400
          PO Box 4050
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 415-3000
          Facsimile: (801) 414-3500
          E-mail: james.gilson@dentons.com
                  lyndon.bradshaw@dentons.com

LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines in Perchlak Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Perchlak, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Liddle & Liddle, A
Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-09461-JFW-AFM (C.D.
Cal.), the parties ask the Court extend the deadlines as follows:

   a. Notice to be mailed: December 15, 2021;

   b. Objections: February 14, 2022;

   c. Claim submissions: February 14, 2022;

   d. Opt-outs postmarked: February 14, 2022; and

   e. Final Fairness Hearing: April 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wD5PZ8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          James D. Hepworth, Esq.
          NEMECEK & COLE
          16255 Ventura Blvd, 300
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-9500
          Facsimile: (818) 501-0328
          E-mail: jhepworth@nemecek-cole.com

LLR INC: Sperring Appeals Case Ruling to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tabitha Sperring, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled TABITHA SPERRING, PAISLIE
MARCHANT, SALLY POSTON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LLR, INC., a Wyoming
corporation; LULAROE, LLC, a California limited liability company;
LENNON LEASING, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A.
STIDHAM, an individual; DEANNE BRADY, an individual; DOES, 1-30,
inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-56295, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 5, 2021, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal from
the district court's order compelling arbitration of the
Plaintiffs' putative class action against LLR, LuLaRoe, Lennon,
Stidham and Brady for lack of jurisdiction.

The Appellants, all consultants for LLR, LuLaRoe, Lennon; Stidham;
and Brady (collectively "LuLaRoe"), alleged that LuLaRoe operated
an illegal endless-chain pyramid scheme in violation of California
and federal law.

LuLaRoe moved the district court to compel arbitration under the
agreement each consultant had signed with LuLaRoe. The district
court compelled arbitration and stayed proceedings pending
arbitration.

The Appellants then filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case
with prejudice so they could "immediately appeal" the court's order
compelling arbitration, noting that "the Order had so damaged their
case that seeing their cases through the arbitration process would
be a waste of resources for" Appellants. The district court granted
the voluntary dismissal, and the Appellants filed the instant
appeal.

The Ninth Circuit held that the courts of appeals will have
jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district
courts of the United States." It had long held that Section 1291
gave it jurisdiction over appeals of interlocutory orders following
a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal with prejudice. However, in
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.Ct. 1702, 1715 (2017), the Supreme
Court reversed our judgment, holding that the voluntary-dismissal
tactic does not yield an appealable final judgment in the class
certification context. Recently, in Langere v. Verizon Wireless
Services, LLC, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Omstead v. Dell,
Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2010), which had upheld
appellate jurisdiction in the compelled arbitration context, "has
been effectively overruled by the Court's decision in Microsoft."
Therefore, it held that "the voluntary dismissal of claims
following an order compelling arbitration does not create appellate
jurisdiction."

The Ninth Circuit opined that the Appellants voluntarily dismissed
their action with prejudice in an attempt to obtain an appealable
final judgment following an order compelling arbitration. This
tactic, it says, no longer "creates appellate jurisdiction."
Contrary to the Appellants' contention, it is of no consequence
that they moved for a court order dismissing their action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

The Appellants' additional contention that Langere is inapplicable
because we have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(3) is
without merit. Section 16(a)(3) allows an appeal from "a final
decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to" the
Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(3). Whether a
voluntary dismissal with prejudice constitutes an appealable "final
decision" under either Section 16 or 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 is the
very question the Ninth Circuit confronted in Langere and answered
in the negative.  Therefore, under its clear holding in Langere,
the Ninth Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated
September 15, 2021, denying Plaintiffs' motion for relief from the
dismissal order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)49.

The appellate case is captioned as Tabitha Sperring, et al. v. LLR,
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-56138, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 18, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Paislie Marchant, Sally Poston and Tabitha
Sperring Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 25, 2021;

   -- Appellants Paislie Marchant, Sally Poston and Tabitha
Sperring opening brief is due on December 20, 2021;

   -- Appellees DeAnne Brady, Does, LLR, Inc., Lennon Leasing, LLC,
LuLaRoe, LLC and Mark A. Stidham answering brief is due on January
20, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants TABITHA SPERRING, PAISLIE MARCHANT, and SALLY
POSTON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
are represented by:

          Aaron Lee Arndt, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495

               - and -

          Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          575 Anton Blvd.
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 556-1700  

               - and -

          Justin Potter Karczag, Esq.
          ENCORE LAW GROUP LLP
          1100 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1955
          Telephone: (213) 559-7395

Defendants-Appellees LLR, INC., a Wyoming corporation; LULAROE,
LLC, a California limited liability company; LENNON LEASING, LLC, a
Wyoming limited liability company; MARK A. STIDHAM, an individual;
and DEANNE BRADY, an individual, are represented by:

          Steven Graham, Esq.
          Jing Hua, Esq.
          William S. O'Hare, Esq.
          Elizabeth Martori Weldon, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 427-7002

MATTRESS WAREHOUSE: Johnson Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Diane Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled DIANE JOHNSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MATTRESS WAREHOUSE, INC., Case No.
20-891, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Diane Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Mattress Warehouse, Inc., has not paid her or other
similarly situated employees required overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (PMWA).

Mattress Warehouse argues Johnson is not entitled to overtime pay
under the FLSA or the PMWA. These provisions provide exemptions
from the FLSA and PMWA overtime mandate for retail employees.
Specifically, FLSA Section 7(i) states that no employer shall be
deemed to have violated the overtime mandate, by employing any
employee of a retail establishment for a workweek in excess of the
applicable workweek specified therein, if (1) the regular rate of
pay of such employee is in excess of one and one-half times the
minimum hourly rate applicable to him under section 206 of this
title and (2) more than half his compensation for a representative
period, not less than one month represents commissions on goods. In
determining the proportion of compensation representing
commissions, all earnings resulting from the application of a bona
fide commission rate shall be deemed commissions on goods without
regard to whether the computed commissions exceed the draw or
guarantee.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 14, 2020, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a
Memorandum denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims.

On September 16, 2021, the Court issued a Memorandum and/or Opinion
and Order holding that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted and judgment is entered in favor of Mattress Warehouse and
against Diane Johnson on all counts.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling in an appellate case
captioned as Diane Johnson v. Mattress Warehouse Inc., Case No.
21-2896, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on October 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DIANE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO
          715 Twinning Road
          Suite 211, Twinning Office Center
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                  pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com   

Defendant-Appellee MATTRESS WAREHOUSE INC. is represented by:

          Carolyn A. Pellegrini, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR
          1500 Market Street
          Centre Square West, 38th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 972-7121
          E-mail: carolyn.pellegrini@saul.com

               - and -

          Henry A. Platt, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR
          1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 550
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 333-8800
          E-mail: henry.platt@saul.com

MAUI, HI: Faces Class Action Over Homeless Encampment Sweep
-----------------------------------------------------------
A'ali'i Dukelow, writing for KITV.com, reports that some houseless
residents on Maui have filed a class-action lawsuit against Maui
County and Mayor Michael Victorino, claiming their belongings were
taken without their permission during a sweep in September.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing
four of the 60 individuals who were forced to evacuate from a
homeless encampment along Amala Place in Kahului, said the county
did not give the residents enough time to relocate.

"It was kind of stressful because this wasn't the first sweep they
did," Sonia Davis said, adding the county conducted about 'three to
four' other sweeps during her five years living at the encampment.


"I lost plenty of my things every time they do the sweep."

In this most recent clean-up, Davis lost four family cars, her
pregnant niece's baby supplies, as well other items such as tents
and kitchenware.

Davis said she alone was responsible for all of her family's
property, all while battling cancer and meth addiction.

When the notice for the sweep was issued, Davis was in jail, so she
was not aware of it until days before it happened.

The ACLU argued the 6-day notice was unconstitutional because the
county did not mention how to challenge the sweep, among other
details.

"Nowhere on the notice was there any description of you know, how
do you call to ask for more time, how do you contest that certain
property is not actually abandoned, how do you retrieve the
property if it is seized?" Wookie Kim, ACLU's legal director, said.


More than a month after the sweep, Davis and some of the other 60
people removed from the encampment are still on the streets.

Struggling to secure affordable housing, Davis said she always
worries she'll face another sweep.

"We cannot stay out there so no matter where we go sleep they might
harass us and chase us away, keep chasing us away wherever we find
one good spot to stay," Davis added.

The sweep was intended to clear the area so the Department of Land
and Natural Resources could restore a nearby wildlife sanctuary --
Kim said it also pointed out the lack of affordable housing.

According to Kim, some of the houseless individuals filed for a
contested case hearing before the sweep, but those requests were
not answered.

The lawsuit is asking the Circuit Court to "enter an order
requiring the County to hold a contested case hearing for the
Plaintiffs and to require that, before any future sweeps occur,
affected persons will receive adequate, sufficient notice and an
opportunity for a contested case hearing if they request one," a
press release said.

The ACLU is also calling on the County to reassess its procedures
for working with Maui's houseless.

"Using law enforcement and using punitive tactics to address
homelessness is exactly the wrong approach," Kim said.

KITV-4 reached out to the county for a response -- a spokesperson
said they do not comment on pending litigation.

The county previously said they were working to get houseless
people along Amala Place into shelters for weeks. [GN]

MAXIMUS INC: Thomas Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAREY THOMAS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MAXIMUS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00498-DJN (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for:

      "all hourly call-center employees who were employed by
      Maximus, Inc., anywhere in the United States, at any time
      within the past three years, through the final disposition
      of this matter;" and

   2. requiring the Defendant to produce contact information for
      all Putative Class Members, as described in the Memorandum
      and authorize the issuance of the Proposed Notice and
      Consent Form, respectively, to all members of the putative
      class.

Maximus is an American government services company, with global
operations in countries including the United States, Australia,
Canada, and the United Kingdom.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 3,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C39EIi
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
          Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
                  craig@butlercurwood.com
                  zev@butlercurwood.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

MCKESSON CORP: New Hope, Minn. Council to Join Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
CCX Media reports that the New Hope City Council voted in favor of
participating in a landmark class-action settlement agreement with
distributors and manufacturers of opioid drugs. The council
unanimously approved the decision at its Oct. 25 meeting.

Minnesota stands to gain more than $300 million through a $26
billion national settlement agreement. The amount the state
receives depends on participation by cities and counties. The
deadline for municipal entities to participate in the settlement is
Jan. 2.

The Minnesota Attorney General's Office joined the multi-state
settlement agreement in August against pharmaceutical distributors
McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmericsourceBergen and opioid
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.

According to the settlement agreement, the money would be put
toward opioid prevention and treatment programs. [GN]

MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Scheduling Order in Harris Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN HARRIS, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01321-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge John A. Mendez entered scheduling order to be modified
as follows:

   -- Last Day to Make Expert Witness         Feb. 21, 2022
      Disclosures:

   -- Last Day to Make Rebuttal Expert        March 21, 2022
      Disclosures:

   -- Last Day to Complete Discovery          March 11, 2022
      Related to Class Certification
      (except expert discovery):

   -- Last Day to Complete Expert             April 20, 2022
      Discovery Related to
      Class Certification:

   -- Last Day to Move for/against            April 5, 2022
      Class Certification:

   -- Opposition to Class Certification       March 19, 2022
      Motion(s):

   -- Repl(ies) to Class Certification        March 26, 2022
      Motion(s) by:

   -- Hearing on Class Certification          May 3, 2022
      Motion(s) on:

   -- Last Day to Complete Remaining          Aug. 19, 2022
      Discovery or file any Motion
      re Discovery:

   -- Dispositive Motions and/or              Oct. 4, 2022
      Motion to De-Certify Class
      filed by:

   -- Dispositive Motion or Motion to         Nov. 11, 2022
      De-Certify Class hearing:

   -- Final Pre-Trial Conference:             Jan. 27, 2023

   -- Jury Trial:                             March 13, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wHJCci at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
          Simerdip Khangura, Esq.
          Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: tdarrow@littler.com
                  skhangura@littler.com
                  njenkins@littler.com

METALS CO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

SAM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-boston-beer-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20965&wire=1
WDH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/waterdrop-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20965&wire=1
TMC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tmc-the-metals-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20965&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE:SAM)

SAM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 22, 2021 -
September 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-boston-beer-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20965&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, The
Boston Beer Company, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Boston Beer's hard
seltzer sales were decelerating; (2) as a result, Boston Beer was
reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) the Company
was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third
party brewers; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Waterdrop Inc. (NYSE:WDH)

This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Waterdrop American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the
Company's May 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/waterdrop-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20965&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (a) Waterdrop had achieved a
substantial portion of its historical revenue growth through
illicit means that ran afoul of Chinese rules and regulations
governing the insurance industry; (b) Waterdrop had been ordered by
the Chinese government to shut down its mutual aid platform because
of its failure to comply with Chinese law; (c) Waterdrop was under
investigation by regulatory authorities for continued violations of
Chinese law; (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, there existed a
material undisclosed risk and substantial likelihood that Waterdrop
would face severe adverse actions by regulatory authorities
following the IPO; (e) Waterdrop's operating losses had increased
more than four-fold in the first quarter of 2021 as a result of the
cessation of its mutual aid business and rapidly growing customer
acquisition costs; and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, the
Registration Statement's representations regarding Waterdrop's
historical financial and operational metrics and purported market
opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business,
operations, and financial results and trajectory of the Company in
the lead up to the IPO, were materially false and misleading, and
lacked a factual basis.

TMC the metals company Inc. f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TMC)

TMC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 4, 2021 -
October 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 27, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tmc-the-metals-company-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20965&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, TMC the
metals company Inc. f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had significantly overpaid
for the Tongo Offshore Mining Limited acquisition 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 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.

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

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

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

METALS CO: Robbins LLP Reminds of December 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased TMC the metals company f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: TMC) securities between March 4, 2021
and October 5, 2021, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. TMC purports to be a deep-sea minerals exploration
company focused on the collection, processing, and refining of
polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor of the CCZ of the
Eastern Pacific Ocean. The Company's primary assets are three
exploration licenses.

TMC the metals company Inc. (TMC) Misled Investors Regarding its
Business Prospects

According to the complaint, TMC was formed when DeepGreen combined
with Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corporation ("SOAR"), a
special purpose acquisition corporation "with a dedicated ESG focus
and deep operational and capital market capabilities in the energy
and resource sectors." A March 4, 2021, press release stated that
"[t]he transaction includes an upsized US$330 million fully
committed common stock Private Investment in Public Equity ("PIPE")
at US $$10.00 per share, anchored by an international consortium of
strategic and institutional investors . . ." The press release also
noted that DeepGreen "offers a real, scalable solution to the raw
metals problem, at a low production cost and with a significant
reduction in the ESG footprint of metals."

On September 13, 2021, Bloomberg published an article revealing
that "two unidentified investors [failed] to provide funds
comprising two-thirds of TMC's $330 million PIPE . . ." and
questioning TMC's "green credentials." On this news, TMC's shares
fell $2.45 over the next two trading days to close at $10.00 on
September 15, 2021. Then, on October 6, 2021, Bonitas Reserch
reported: (1) that TMC had overpaid on its exploration licenses to
potential undisclosed insiders; (ii) the Company had artificially
inflated exploration expenses by more than 100% in order to mislead
investors about the scale of its operations; (iii) there are
reasons to question the Company's ownership claim of its Nauru
Ocean Resources license; and (iv) the Company has a history of
affiliating with bad actors. On this news, the Company's stock
dropped 7%, to close at $4.14 per share on October 6, 2021. The
stock now trades just over $3.00.

If you purchased shares of TMC the metals company Inc. (TMC)
securities between March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021, you have
until December 27, 2021, to ask the court to appoint you lead
plaintiff for the class.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against TMC the metals company Inc. settles or to receive free
alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for
Stock Watch today.

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

Contacts:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

METICULOUS CLEANING: Amaya Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA AMAYA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. METICULOUS
CLEANING SERVICES INC. and ZERLINDA RODRIGUEZ, Case No.
2:21-cv-05687-BRM-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting conditional class certification,
court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and expedited discovery, as well as such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Meticulous Cleaning Service is a leading janitorial and office
cleaning services provider on the Delmarva Peninsula.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com

METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt's Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN PITT v. METROPOLITAN
TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00694-BAS-DEB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting in
part the motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 (Class Certification Motion), as follows:

   1. Defendant shall file its response to the Class
      Certification Motion no later than December 6, 2021. The
      Plaintiff shall file her reply no later than January 6 14,
      2022.

   2. The parties' briefs both may exceed by no more than five
      pages the applicable page limitations set forth in L.R.
      7.1(h).

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

MICHIGAN: Smith Appeals Dismissal of Petition for Habeas Corpus
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner DERRICK LEE SMITH filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled DERRICK LEE SMITH, Petitioner v.
PROBABLE CAUSE CONFERENCE DIRECTOR, ET AL., Respondents, Case No.
1:21-cv-794, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The case is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner
under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Promptly after the filing of a
petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." If
so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. A dismissal under
Rule 4 includes those petitions that raise legally frivolous
claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are
palpably incredible or false.

Petitioner Smith is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections at the Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF) in
Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan. The Petitioner is serving
multiple sentences imposed in separate criminal proceedings in the
Wayne County Circuit Court in 1998, 2008, and 2019.

MDOC's Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) indicates that
the Petitioner is serving the following terms of imprisonment: four
concurrent sentences of 17 years, 6 months to 35 years for four
counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), imposed on
May 2, 2019; eight concurrent sentences of 22 years, 6 months to 75
years for six counts of CSC I and two counts of kidnapping, imposed
on October 29, 2008; and two concurrent sentences of 6 to 15 years
for two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC III),
imposed on May 26, 1998. The Petitioner pleaded guilty to the
charges for which he was sentenced in 1998. He pleaded nolo
contendere to the charges for which he was sentenced in 2008 and
2019.

The Petitioner has filed many, many habeas corpus petitions in the
Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. Each of his prior petitions has been denied, dismissed,
or transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as second
and/or successive. The Court provided a detailed listing of the
Petitioner's prior petitions and their dispositions in Smith v.
Steward, No. 1:21-cv-124 (W.D. Mich.) The Smith v. Steward petition
was dismissed as deficient on its face.

The present petition raised one issue: The trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the Petitioner and his prosecution because the
district court failed to conduct the probable cause conference
required by Michigan Court Rule 6.108. Although the petition is
only a few sentences long, the Petitioner's identification of the
issue provides much of the information necessary to resolve the
petition.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 25, 2021,
Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, entered judgment
dismissing Smith's petition for habeas corpus.

Mr. Smith seeks a review of Judge Berens' order in his appellate
case  captioned as Derrick Smith v. James Schiebner, Case No.
21-1638, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, filed on October 18, 2021.

Petitioner-Appellant DERRICK LEE SMITH, named as Derrick Lee
Cardello-Smith and all 37,000 prisoners that are similarly
situated, aka Derrick Lee Cardello Smith, who is currently
incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional Facility in Muskegon
County, Michigan, appears pro se.[BN]

ML ENTERPRISE: Reyes Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wuilmer Reyes On behalf of
Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ML Enterprise and
Marco Lezameta, Case No. 2:21-cv-00437-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, to conditionally certify a
collective action consisting of:

   "all hourly employees who worked for ML Enterprises during
   the time period of April 6, 2019 to the present."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kv5q68
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT S. TREPETA, on
behalf himself and all other similarly situated individuals, v.
NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM AND UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC. and EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-RCY-DEM (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), certifying a class of
consumers defined as follows:

   "All natural persons residing in the Fourth Circuit (a) who
   requested their consumer disclosures from Equifax, (b) within
   the two years preceding the filing of this action and during
   its pendency (the "Equifax Class Period"), (c) for whom, at
   the time of the request, NCTUE had credit files, and (d) who
   received consumer disclosures from Equifax that did not
   include any information from the consumers' NCTUE credit file
   or the sources of information in the consumers' NCTUE credit
   file;"

   Excluded from the class definition are any employees,
   officers, or directors of Equifax, any attorney appearing in
   this case, and any judge assigned to hear this action.

NCTUE is a consumer credit reporting agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wETQua
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Tara Boen Keller, Esq.
          Kevin Dillon, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  kevin@clalegal.com
                  tara@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq.
          Kevin Biniazan, Esq.
          BREIT CANTOR GRANA BUCKNER, PLLC
          Towne Pavilion Center II
          600 22 nd Street, Suite 402
          Virginia Beach, VA 23451
          Telephone: (757) 622-6000
          Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
          E-mail: jeffrey@breitcantor.com
                  kbiniazan@breitcator.com

NEO TECHNOLOGY: Parties in Portier Stipulate to Modify Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIS PORTIER, EDWARD
SNELGROVE, ANTONIO BATHALA, JOHN TANSIL, JOSE RIVAS, REINALDO
PEREZ, RICHARD PEASE, STEWART SCOLES, and MILTON MANZANO, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEO TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS dba/ ONCORE HOLDINGS LLC, ONCORE MANUFACTURING, LLC,
NATEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., NEO TECH, INC., NEO TECH, NORTH
AMERICA, and all other names used by NEO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, Case
No. 3:17-cv-30111-TSH (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs Parties stipulate
to the following modified schedule:

               Event                    Stipulated Due Date

  -- Plaintiffs' Response to            December 6, 2021
     Defendants' motion to Strike

  -- Defendants' replt to               December 20, 2021
     Plaintiffs' Response

The Parties also ask the Court to move the class certification
hearing currently scheduled for January 6, 2022, one week to
January 13, 2022.

NEO Technology offers electronics manufacturing services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qwRlsM at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francesca Kester, Esq.
          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          210 N. Franklin St., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                  fkester@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Kelly Hyman, Esq.
          THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          2881 East Oakland Park Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (954) 315-1780
          E-mail: kellyhyman@thehymanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Chernick, Esq.
          CHERNICK & CHERNICK
          One Monarch Place
          1414 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Springfield, MA 01144
          Telephone: (413) 733-1312
          E-mail: attorneys@chernicklawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P. Bueker, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7951
          Facsimile: (617) 235-0609
          E-mail: john.bueker@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          Alyssa Shauer, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
          HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
                  ashauer@sheppardmullin.com

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs File TRO Over Vaccine Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Does 1-14, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM, Case No.
1:21-cv-05683 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2021), is brought to file this
Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction.

In the Prayer for Relief in their Verified Class Action Complaint,
the Plaintiffs seek a TRO and Preliminary Injunction against
Defendant's discriminatory, unlawful, and unconscionable refusal to
grant Plaintiffs religious exemptions and reasonable accommodations
for sincerely held religious beliefs which prohibit Plaintiffs from
complying with NorthShore's policy mandating that all of its
employees receive one form of the COVID-19 vaccine. The Plaintiffs
are healthcare professionals, all of whom have sincerely held
religious beliefs against the COVID-19 vaccines because they were
either developed from, or tested with, aborted fetal cells lines.
Because of NorthShore's unlawful actions in denying all or
virtually all meritorious exemption requests, Plaintiffs are facing
an immediate "choice" to either (a) receive a COVID-19 vaccination
in direct violation of their conscience and sincerely held
religious beliefs, or (b) be terminated from their employment with
NorthShore as a consequence of exercising their fundamental and
statutory rights to refuse administration of the COVID-19
vaccines.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
          Horatio G. Mihet, Esq.
          Roger K. Gannam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Schmid, Esq.
          LIBERTY COUNSEL
          P.O. Box 540774
          Orlando, FL 32854
          Phone: (407) 875-1776
          Facsimile: (407) 875-0770
          Email: court@lc.org
                 hmihet@lc.org
                 rgannam@lc.org
                 dschmid@lc.org

               - and -

          Sorin A. Leahu, Esq.
          LEAHU LAW GROUP, LLC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., #1527
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 847-529-7221
          Email: sleahu@leahulaw.com


ON24 INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 3, 2022 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion no later than January 3, 2022 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the securities of ON24, Inc. ("ON24" or the "Company")
(NYSE: ONTF) in connection with ON24's February 3, 2021 initial
public offering. The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges
violations of Secs. 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
Secs. 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o.

If you purchased ON24, Inc. securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit ON24, Inc.
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

On or about February 3, 2021, ON24 conducted its IPO, offering
8,560,930 shares of its common stock to the public at a price of
$50 per share (the "Offering Price") for anticipated proceeds of
approximately $428,046,500.

According to the complaint, ON24, Inc. and the Offering Documents
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that
the surge in COVID-19 customers observed in the lead up to the IPO
consisted of a significant number that did not fit ON24's
traditional customer profile, and, as a result, were significantly
less likely to renew their contracts.

On August 10, 2021, ON24 offered revenue guidance for the remainder
of the year of no more than $48.5 million in third quarter 2021 and
$204.2 million for fiscal year 2021, missing analyst consensus by
$2.7 million and $4.5 million, respectively. During ON24's analyst
call held that same day, ON24's President and CEO, defendant Sharat
Sharan, admitted that ON24 "experienced higher than expected churn
and down-sell from customers [it] signed up in the second quarter
of last year during the peak of COVID." He then added, "[t]his
higher churn was primarily in the first-time renewal cohort,
customers who signed . . . one-year contracts last year and who are
up for renewal." On this news, ON24's stock price declined
approximately 31%, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 3, 2022. 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 ON24, Inc. securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/on24inc-ontf-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-453/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@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:

Joe Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]

ON24 INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 3, 2022 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of ON24, Inc. (NYSE: ONTF) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's February 3, 2021 initial
public offering ("IPO"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than January 3, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased ON24 securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the IPO 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 ON24 class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2196.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 January 3, 2022. 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, representations made
in the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the
Company's IPO were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or
incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things,
that the surge in COVID-19 customers observed in the lead up to the
IPO consisted of a significant number that did not fit ON24's
traditional customer profile, and, as a result, were significantly
less likely to renew their contracts.

To join the ON24 class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2196.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:

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]

ORGANIFI LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Organifi, LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Organifi, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09169-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5,
2021).

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

Organifi -- https://www.organifishop.com/ -- produces a mix of
organic, vegan superfood blends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


OS RESTAURANT: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY MOXLEY and THOMAS
SPIEGAL individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC and  BLOOMIN' BRANDS,
INC., together d/b/a BONEFISH GRILL, Case No. 8:21-cv-01760-JLB-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
extending time to November 29, 2021, to respond to the Motion to
conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
Action and Authorize Notice filed by the Plaintiffs Troy Moxley and
Thomas Spiegal.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA
collective action and authorize notice on October 27, 2021.

The Defendants' response to the Motion for Certification is
currently due on November 17, 2021.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ngUBXr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: avitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
                  christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gretchen M. Lehman, Esq.
          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: (813) 289-1247
          Facsimile: (813) 289-6530
          E-mail: gretchen.lehman@ogletree.com
                  patrick.hulla@ogletree.com

OZARK TRUCKING: Oliver Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ozark Trucking Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Camron Oliver, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Ozark Trucking Inc., a
California corporation, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00310217-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
25, 2021).

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

Ozark Trucking, Inc. -- http://ozarktruckinginc.com/-- was founded
in 1989. The company's line of business includes providing trucking
transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
          FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
          1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
          Phone: 818-456-6168
          Email: josh@falakassalaw.com

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
          1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
          Phone: 310-975-1493
          Fax: 310-675-0861
          Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com


PARAMEDICS LOGISTICS: Nettles Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Simone Nettles, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Paramedics Logistics Operating Co., LLC, a Texas limited liability
company; Paramedics Logistics California, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; Case No. RG21108566 was removed from the
Superior Court of California to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on Oct. 28, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-08401-TSH to the
proceeding.

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

Paramedics Logistics Operating Co LLC --
https://patientcareems.com/who-we-are/ -- is located in Tyler,
Texas and is part of the Other Ambulatory Health Care Services
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021
          Email: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tracy R. Williams, Esq.
          Timothy Michael Wojcik, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          2050 Main Street, Ste. 900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 705-3000
          Email: trwilliams@littler.com
                 twojcik@littler.com


PEC GROUP: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Lopez a/k/a Neri Lopez, William Ramones, and Jorge Molina,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PEC
GROUP LTD, d/b/a PEPOLINO RISTORANTE ITALIANO (a/k/a PEPOLINO),
PATRISIO SIDDU, and ENZO PEZONE, Case No. 1:21-cv-08806 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 28, 2021), is brought against the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing
to pay the Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs often worked over 40 hours per week. Nevertheless,
the Defendants regularly altered the Plaintiffs' time-cards on
these weeks and paid them for less than 40 hours. On many occasions
the Plaintiffs worked at Pepolino for more than 90 hours in two
week pay cycles however they frequently only paid for less than 80
hours of work. The Defendants had and operated under a decision,
policy and plan of willfully failing and refusing to pay the
Plaintiffs at one and one half times the greater of their regular
rate or the full federal minimum wage for work in excess of 40
hours per workweek and willfully failing to keep records required
by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.

The Defendants own and operates the restaurant Pepolino located in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussabaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 688-5640


PICHARDO 2230: Castillo Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pichardo 2230
Restaurant Corp., et al. The case is styled as Domingo Lachapel
Castillo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp., Edwin Pichardo, David Pichardo,
Ruben Pichardo, Case No. 1:21-cv-08756-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26,
2021).

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

Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp. is a restaurant in Bronx, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford Ryan Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Avenue, Ste. 3rd Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Phone: (718) 269-2243
          Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com


POINT PICKUP: Medeiros Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIC MEDEIROS and
SHEILA MARCIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. POINT PICKUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-01056-RNC (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. permitting a notice to issue to other similarly situated
      employees of Defendant by conditionally certifying a
      collective pursuant to section 216(b) of the FLSA, defined
      as follows:

      "All individuals who executed a Delivery Provider
      Agreement and personally delivered products for Defendant
      in Massachusetts from November 1, 2018 to the present;"

   2. allowing them then to send notice to class members by
      email, text message, and U.S. Mail as "justice is best
      served by notice reaching the largest number of potential
      plaintiffs;" and

   3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to mail, email, and text a
      reminder to all individuals who have not yet opted-in to
      this matter within 45 days of the first notice mailing.

The Defendant is a merchandise delivery company that employs
delivery drivers who are dispatched through a mobile phone
application to deliver products from Walmart, Shaw's, and GameStop
to customers at their homes and businesses. As Defendant states on
its website, it is "the leading enterprise-only, retail-branded
provider of fulfillment and last-mile delivery services for the
country's top retailers in all 50 states."

The Plaintiff Dominic Medeiros worked for the Defendant as a
delivery driver from February 2021 to June 2021. The Plaintiff
Sheila Marcil worked for Defendant as a delivery driver from
February 2021 to August 2021. The Defendant classifies Plaintiffs
and other delivery drivers as independent contractors and does not
pay them any overtime compensation when they work more than 40
hours per week.

All delivery drivers are required to sign a "Delivery Provider
Agreement," as well as an "End User License Agreement." Once
Plaintiffs and other drivers have been onboarded through Point
Pickup's system, Plaintiffs then begin delivering merchandise from
retail stores that contract with Defendant, such as Walmart,
Shaw's, and GameStop.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qs9CaJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com
                  hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com

POLARITYTE INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PTE), Hyzon Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ: HYZN), Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
(NASDAQ: NNOX), and Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR). Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.

PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE)

Class Period: April 30, 2020 to August 23, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2021 On April 30, 2020,
PolarityTE issued a press release announcing that the Company had
decided to pursue a plan to submit an Investigational New Drug
Application ("IND") and thereafter a Biologics License Application
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for SkinTE. On
July 23, 2021, PolarityTE submitted an IND to the FDA seeking
authorization to commence a clinical trial to evaluate SkinTE for
the proposed indication of treatment of chronic cutaneous ulcers
(the "SkinTE IND"). On August 24, 2021, PolarityTE issued a press
release "provid[ing] an update regarding correspondence from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to its
Investigational New Drug Application (IND) for SkinTE® with a
proposed indication for chronic cutaneous ulcers, which was filed
on July 23, 2021. The FDA provided feedback that certain Chemistry,
Manufacturing, and Control items need to be addressed prior to
proceeding with a pivotal study. As a result, the study proposed in
the IND has been placed on clinical hold. In accordance with
standard practice and regulations, the FDA has advised that it will
issue a clinical hold letter providing details on the basis for the
hold to the Company by September 21, 2021."

On this news, PolarityTE's stock price fell $0.08 per share, or
9.52%, to close at $0.76 per share on August 24, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the SkinTE IND was deficient
with respect to certain Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control
items; (ii) as a result, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve
the SkinTE IND in its current form; (iii) accordingly, the Company
had materially overstated the likelihood that the SkinTE IND would
obtain FDA approval; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the PolarityTE class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PTE

Hyzon Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ: HYZN)

Class Period: February 9, 2021 to September 27, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2021

On September 28, 2021, Blue Orca Capital published a report
alleging, among other things, that "channel checks reveal . . .
that Hiringa was not actually a customer, but a 'channel partner'
assisting Hyzon in marketing vehicles to real end customers in New
Zealand." Though the Hyzon claims that "Hiringa will account for
24% of the Company's projected deliveries in 2021," the report
alleged that "Hiringa stated point blank that no deliveries would
be taken in 2021," so Blue Orca "expect[s] a major guidance miss."
Moreover, multiple executives left Hyzon because they "became
uncomfortable with how Hyzon was presenting customer orders to
investors" as it felt "a bit like unfortunately what Nikola was
doing."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 28%, to
close at $6.63 per share on September 28, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Hyzon was
misrepresenting the nature of its "customer" contracts and severely
embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2)
Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its
stated timeline; and (3) 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.

For more information on the Hyzon Motors class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/HYZN

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX)

Class Period: June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021 On June 17, 2021, Nano-X
submitted a 510(k) submission to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (the "FDA") for its multi-source version of the
Nanox.ARC. A 510(k) is a type of premarket submission made to the
FDA to demonstrate that a device to be marketed is as safe and
effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed
device. Following this submission, defendants touted the Nanox.
ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects in various public
statements and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The
Nano-X class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Nano-X's 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC
was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would
approve the 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC in its current
form; (iii) as a result, Nano-X had overstated the Nanox. ARC's
regulatory and commercial prospects; and (iv) consequently,
Nano-X's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On August 19, 2021, Nano-X reported that Nano-X
"received a request for additional information from the [FDA]
concerning the Company's last 510(k) submission of its multi-source
device, Nanox.ARC," and that "[t]he submission file is placed on
hold pending a complete response to the FDA's list of
deficiencies," with "[t]he Company's response . . . due within 180
days from the date of the request for additional information." On
this news, Nano-X's ordinary share price fell nearly 10%, damaging
investors. For more information on the Nano-X class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NNOX

Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR)

Class Period: June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021

On August 12, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed that
claims submitted to the Company's largest third-party payor, which
accounted for 80% of Eargo's accounts receivable, had not been paid
since March 1, 2021.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.00, or over 24%, to
close at $24.70 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On September 22, 2021, after the market closed, Eargo revealed that
"it is the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice (the 'DOJ') related to insurance
reimbursement claims the Company has submitted on behalf of
customers covered by federal employee health plans." Moreover, the
DOJ is the "principal contact related to the subject matter of the
[ongoing] audit" of Eargo by an insurance company that is the
Company's largest third-party payor. As a result of the foregoing,
Eargo withdrew its full year financial guidance.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.81, or over 68%,
to close at $6.86 per share on September 23, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

For more information on the Eargo class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/EAR

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

Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]

POWER OF PURE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Power of Pure LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Power of Pure LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09229 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2021).

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

Power Pure LLC -- http://www.powerpurellc.com/-- is located in
Mentor, Ohio and is part of the Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies
Merchant Wholesalers 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



POWER PARAGON: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Scheduling Order in Burns
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK BURNS, v. POWER
PARAGON, INC., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01452-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by 22 November 24, 2022. Discovery motions must
      be filed and heard prior to this date.

   2. The parties shall have until January 23, 2023 to file and
      have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings.

   3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, March 27,
      2023 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
      required.

   4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, April 4, 2023
      at 08:30 AM.

   5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 -- Private  
      Mediation. The parties shall have until December 8, 2022
      to conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file
      with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five
      days after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the
      Court of their settlement efforts and status.

   6. The Plaintiff shall have until June 27, 2022 to file and
      have heard any class certification motion.

Power Paragon provides engineering, development, manufacture, and
integration of power conversion and distribution systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cah6Bd at no extra charge.[CC]

PRIMARY AIM: Fissella Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primary Aim, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Ryan Fissella, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Primary Aim, LLC, Does 1 to 25,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01592-MPK (W.D. Pa., Nov. 4, 2021).

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

Primary Aim, LLC -- https://www.primaryaimllc.com/ -- is a Wendy's
franchise with restaurants located in Ohio, West Virginia and
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104
          Pittsburgh, PA 15243
          Phone: (412) 857-5350
          Email: ben@nshmlaw.com


PRIME NOW: Pope Has Until Jan. 14, 2022 to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amber Pope v. Prime Now,
LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10912-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order extending deadline to
move for class certification to January 14, 2022.

The Court also entered an order denying without prejudice parties'
request for modified deadlines for the opposition and reply.

The Court said, "As class disposition of wage-and-hour matters can
be superior to other forms of resolution, the Court grants the
Stipulation in part and orders that Plaintiff's motion for class
certification must be filed by January 14, 2022. Given that the
parties have been aware of the class certification deadline since
August 10, 2021, this one-month continuance provides ample time to
prepare a motion to certify a class in a wage-and-hour matter such
as this where the class and the issues are relatively well defined.
Requests for additional continuances must be supported by a
concrete showing of good cause. Similarly, the request for modified
deadlines for the opposition and reply is denied without
prejudice."

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

PRIMERICA LIFE: Stipulated Pre-Trial & Trial Dates in Palmer OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYSON D. PALMER, JUDITH
PALMER, and JENNIFER WITHERSPOON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00914-AB-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. entered an order granting stipulation regarding
pre-trial and trial dates as follows:

   -- Trial set for:                       April 11, 2023

   -- Final Pretrial Conference            March 24, 2023
      set for:

   -- Last Date to Hear Motion to          Dec. 17, 2021
      Amend Pleadings/Add Parties:

   -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:        July 15, 2022

   -- Expert Disclosure (Initial):         July  29, 2022

   -- Expert Disclosure:                   Aug. 26, 2022

   -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:            Sept. 23, 2022

   -- Motion for Class Certification       Sept. 30, 2022
      Due:

   -- Opposition to motion for             Oct. 14, 2022
      Class Cert. Due:

   -- Reply in support of motion           Oct. 21, 2022
      for Class Cert. Due

   -- Hearing for Motion for Class         Nov. 4, 2022
      Certification

   -- Last Date to Hear Motions:           Dec. 16, 2022

Primerica provides insurance, investment and financial services to
middle income families in the United States and Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c2mk7F at no extra charge.[CC]

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Toporek Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Michael Toporek, individually on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Procter
& Gamble Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-06185 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James
Gamble.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Parties Want Judge to Reconsider Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that for more than five years of exceptionally
contentious securities fraud litigation against Puma Biotechnology
Inc, the company's lawyers and shareholders' lead counsel have
agreed on precisely nothing: not in the run-up to a rare securities
class action trial in 2019, not in how to interpret the jury's
split verdict and absolutely not in a blistering post-trial war
over damages.

Yet on Nov. 5, defense lawyers from Latham & Watkins and
plaintiffs' lead counsel from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd united
in a joint motion asking U.S. District Judge David Carter of Santa
Ana, California, to reconsider a pair of rulings that ostensibly
disposed of the litigation.

That's right: The only thing that has brought these feuding squads
together is their shared conviction that the judge made a mistake
when he decided to enter a $54.2 million judgment for investors and
to abruptly dismiss the case from his docket.

The judge's orders seem to have been in response to a one-paragraph
Oct. 29 notice that because Puma and shareholders had reached a
tentative settlement there was no need for Carter to hold a
scheduled Nov. 1 hearing on Puma's motion to exclude thousands of
investors' claims.

Latham and Robbins Geller said in the Oct. 29 notice that they'd
move for preliminary approval of the deal by Dec. 3. They did not
disclose the deal's terms.

Instead of waiting for the proposed settlement to be filed, Carter
entered judgment for the full amount investors sought, presumably
signaling that he'd accept no less in the proposed deal. Two days
later, citing the settlement, he dismissed the class action. Carter
said he would retain jurisdiction for only 60 days, in case the
proposed deal fell through.

In the Nov. 5 joint motion, Latham and Robbins Geller said Carter's
rulings had created two grave problems. First, they said, the order
of judgment started the clock on additional post-trial and
appellate motions, meaning that the firms will have to get busy on
that briefing even as the two sides finalize settlement terms.

And second, the joint motion said, Carter hadn't allowed enough
time for a settlement to be approved under procedural class action
rules. The judge's dismissal order said he would retain
jurisdiction for only 60 days, the brief said, but the Class Action
Fairness Act requires a 90-day wait between preliminary approval of
a proposed settlement and a final fairness hearing.

The carefully worded joint motion never says outright that Carter
made a mistake, but it asks the judge to vacate the dismissal order
and to direct the clerk not to enter any judgment.

Carter, whose chambers does not accept phone calls, did not respond
to emails I sent to his chambers and to his courtroom deputy.
Latham declined to provide a statement on the joint motion. Jason
Forge of Robbins Geller said he was "pleased the judge agreed
investor claimants are entitled to full recovery."

The judge inherited the class action in 2020 after the retirement
of U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford, who oversaw the 2019 trial
of claims by the lead investor, Norfolk Pension Fund. Norfolk
alleged that Puma and its CEO, Alan Auerbach, deceived investors in
2014 about clinical test results on its sole product, the
anti-breast cancer drug Nerlynx. The jury found Puma liable for one
of the four alleged misstatements, ruling that the fraud had
inflated the company's share price by $4.50 per share. (Puma
nevertheless claimed victory because shareholders had asked for
much more in damages.)

The claims process was under way when Carter got the case. The
post-trial bickering heated up in late 2020 when the claims
administrator reported that it had verified about 4,500 claims
totaling about $51 million. Latham proposed conducting discovery on
each claim to determine whether individual investor actually relied
on the statement jurors had deemed to be fraudulent. Robbins Geller
responded that Puma had no such right under the final pre-trial
order (or, for that matter, under any existing case law).

Carter ordered Latham to narrow its demands by pinpointing which
claims Puma was challenging and explaining why it needed additional
information. Latham came back with a brief insisting that it
intended to challenge every investor claim based on the inadequate
records submitted to the claims administrator. (Latham said it
spent hundreds of hours re-auditing those records.) The firm also
said that post-trial discovery was the only fair way to guard
against recovery for investors who weren't actually defrauded.

Carter denied Puma's request in June, ruling that the company had
no post-trial right to sweeping discovery and that it had failed to
tailor its demand to justify a narrower investigation of specific
investors. The request, he said, would unjustifiably delay a
judgment for investors.

Latham and Puma refused to take no for an answer. In August, Latham
moved to exclude claims by clients of The Capital Group Companies
Inc, an investment manager. The brief argued that Capital Group
didn't rely on the alleged misstatement in advising clients to
trade Puma shares and proposed "a short trial" on the reliance
issue.

Robbins Geller revived its accusations of delay, arguing that the
jury already rejected the very arguments in Puma's motion to
exclude. Capital is the investment advisor for the Norfolk fund
that is the lead shareholder in the case. Puma argued at trial that
Capital, as Norfolk's investment manager, didn't rely on Puma's
allegedly fraudulent statements. The jury found otherwise, Robbins
Geller told Carter. Capital's lawyers at Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr also chimed in with a brief saying the same thing.

With the post-trial mess mushrooming, I'm sure the judge was
thrilled to hear that the two sides had reached a deal. Who
wouldn't want to get this case off their docket?

The order of judgment appears to have been a signal that Carter
wasn't buying Puma's damages arguments. But the rush to dismiss the
case seems odd. The two sides haven't even filed the proposed deal,
nor has Robbins Geller asked for fees, which must be approved by
the court.

It's all very confusing. Then again, that befits the entire
litigation. [GN]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Remaining Deadlines in Stewart Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart v. Quest
Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-02043 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen S. Crawford entered
an order vacating all remaining dates and deadlines in the second
amended scheduling order pending the District Court's rulings on
the pending motion for class certification and motion to strike:

  -- A telephonic case management conference has been set for
     March 25, 2022 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen S.
     Crawford.

  -- No later than March 21, 2022, counsel must file a joint
     status report advising the Court how they wish to proceed
     based on the rulings from the District Court, including
     whether summary judgment motions or private mediation are
     contemplated by the parties.

  -- To participate in the conference, counsel must dial the
     toll free number: 1-877-873-8017; enter the Access Code:
     2924630 (participants will then be put on hold until the
     Court activates the conference call); and when prompted,
     press to bypass the Security Code.

  -- The Court will continue the Case Management Conference if
     the District Court has not ruled on the pending motions by
     March 21, 2022.

Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500
company, Quest operates in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico,
and Brazil.

The nature of suit states diversity-employment discrimination.[CC]

R.R. DONNELLEY: Faces Class Action Over $1.2-Bil. Take Private Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reports that R.R. Donnelley &
Sons Co. stockholders have opened a class suit in Delaware's
Chancery Court accusing the company of bias in shielding a
purportedly lower price, $2.1 billion take private deal with Atlas
Hodlings from competitors and unfairly deploying a "poison pill"
takeover defense. [GN]

RALLY LABS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rally Labs LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Rally Labs LLC doing business
as: Blowfish For Hangovers, Case No. 1:21-cv-06213 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
9, 2021).

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

Rally Labs LLC doing business as Blowfish For Hangovers --
https://forhangovers.com/ -- is real medicine specifically
formulated to relieve hangover symptoms.[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


REAMIR & CO: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reamir & Co.
Enterprises. Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Reamir & Co. Enterprises. Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09208 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2021).

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

REAMIR & Co. -- https://www.reamir.com/ -- is a barber shop chain
in NYC providing excellent traditional men's grooming
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

RECKITT BENCKISER: Prescott Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ROBERT PRESCOTT,
DONOVAN MARSHALL, MARIA CHRISTINE ANELLO, DARLENE KITTREDGE,
TREAHANNA CLEMMONS, and SUSAN ELIZABETH GRACIALE, individually and
on behalf of all others situated, v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case
No. 5:20-cv-02101-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Classes:

      -- California Class

         "All residents of California who purchased Woolite
         laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases
         "Color Renew" and/or "revives colors" from February 1,
         2017 to the present;"

      -- New York Class

         "All residents of New York who purchased Woolite
         laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases
         "Color Renew" and/or "revives colors" from February 22,
         2018 to the present;" and

      -- Massachusetts Class

         "All residents of Massachusetts who purchased Woolite
         laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases
         "Color Renew" and/or "revives colors" from February 22,
         2017 to the present;"

         Excluded from the Classes are the Defendant, any entity
         in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and
         Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives,
         successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded
         are any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding
         over this matter and the members of their immediate
         families and judicial staff;

   2. designating them as Class representatives; and

   3. appointing Eric Kafka of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
      PLLC as Class Counsel.

In 2017, Reckitt implemented a for Woolite laundry detergent using
a bold new claim. Reckitt told consumers that Woolite laundry
detergent revives colors in clothing. To market this new claim,
Reckitt created new labels for Woolite laundry detergent with the
phrases "Color Renew" and "revives colors."

Based on the new promised color revival benefit, Reckitt Reckitt's
color revival representation is false and deceptive: Woolite
laundry detergent does not renew or revive color in clothing, the
lawsuit says.

Reckitt manufactures cleaning products. The Company produces
cleaners, disinfectants, and deodorizers for household use.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31RfkbP
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore Leopold, Esq.
          Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
          Brian Johnson, Esq.
          Eric Kafka, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                  bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Charles Reichmann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN
          16 Yale Circle
          Kensington, CA 94708-1015
          Telephone: (415) 373-8849
          E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com

RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Owen Sues Over False & Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff M. Owen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY AFRICA LTD. f/k/a LUND
ENTERPRISES CORP., JAMES JAY PARK, SCOT EVANS, IAN D. BROWN, CARLOS
ESCRIBANO, SHIRAZ DHANANI, MARK GERLITZ, JAMES GRANATH, CLAIRE
PREECE, NDAPEWOSHALI SHAPWANALE, CHRIS GILMOUR, and SINDILA MWIYA,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06176 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2021), is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of ReconAfrica between February 28, 2019 and September
7, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as a
result of the Defendants materially false and misleading
statements; and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.

Specifically, Defendants 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.

On September 7, 2021, Viceroy published a report entitled
"ReconAfrica – Another swing, another miss: Despite significant
polish, Netherland Sewell's presentation on ReconAfrica's 6-2 well
is another set of disappointing results." On this news,
ReconAfrica's shares fell $0.68, or 12%, to close at $4.65 per
share on September 7, 2021, further damaging investors. As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

ReconAfrica purports to engage in the identification, exploration,
and development of oil and/or gas assets in Namibia and Botswana,
including in the Kalahari Desert and other fragile areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


RESULTS CUSTOMER: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANE SMITH, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. RESULTS CUSTOMER
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-06071-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order the following schedule
related to class certification.

   1. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or
      before February 4, 2022.

   2. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or
      before February 4, 2022.

   3. The Court will not entertain any discovery motion absent
      full compliance with Local Rule 37.1. In the event that a
      teleconference is needed, email your request to the
      Courtroom Deputy at Tracey_Richard@mow.uscourts.gov.

   4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
      filed on or before June 24, 2022.

If and when a class is certified, the Court will enter a schedule
governing the second stage in this proceeding and set the matter
for trial.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3otarxp at no extra charge.[CC]

RHOINTER USA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rhointer Usa Corp.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Rhointer Usa Corp., Case No.
1:21-cv-09282 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021).

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

Rhointer Usa Corp. doing businesss as Magefesa USA --
https://www.magefesausa.com/ -- is a Spanish cookware manufacturer
specializing in pressure cookers, paella pans and other
cookware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RITE AID: Burch Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Esther Burch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, a Delaware
corporation; Does 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-08622,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on Nov. 10, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01102 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY LLP
          8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (858) 375-7385
          Fax: (888) 422-5191
          Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Mark D Potter, Esq.
          CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
          8033 Linda Vista Road Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (858) 375-7385
          Fax: (888) 422-5191

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason J. Kim, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: kimj@hunton.com


RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Stipulation on Class Cert. Deadlines Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN,
v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY),
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:21-cv-00743-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Parties stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the
Court, that the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class
certification will be stayed until a date to be determined at the
Parties' FRCP 26(f) conference and any Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference that follows.

The Plaintiff Johnson filed her complaint on June 7, 2021. The
Western District of Washington Local Rule 23(i)(3) requires
Plaintiff to move for class certification within 180 days after the
filing of a class action complaint. Under Western District of
Washington Local Rule 23(i)(3) Plaintiff's motion for class
certification would be due December 4, 2021.

On November 1, 2021, Defendants Royal Caribbean and the Investment
Committee (the "Royal Caribbean Defendants") filed a motion to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Russell Trust Company operates as an investment advisor.

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

The Attorneys for Defendant Russell Investments Trust Company,
are:

          Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
          Karl J. Ege, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          E-mail: kege@perkinscoie.com
                  nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
          Robert C. Hora, Esq.
          Vanessa Gonzalez-Ahmed, Esq.
          MILBANK LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 530-5688
          E-mail: smurphy@milbank.com
                  rhora@milbank.com
                  vgonzalez-ahmed@milbank.com
                  mortiz@milbank.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Investment Committee, are:

          Jeffrey G. Maxwell, Esq.
          BARLOW COUGHRAN MORALES &
          JOSEPHSON, P.S.
          1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 910
          Seattle WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 674-5212
          E-mail: jeffreym@bcmjlaw.com

          - and -

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          Samuel I. Levin, Esq.
          Nathaniel W. Ingraham, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 861-6615
          E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
                  slevin@groom.com
                  ningraham@groom.com

               - and -

          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, P.S.
          401 Union Street, Suite 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Ben Bauer, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  bbauer@nka.com

SAG-AFTRA: Loses Bid to File Appeal in Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Clough, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Nov. 8 shot down a request by the SAG-AFTRA health plan to
file an interlocutory appeal of part of her ruling that denied its
motion to dismiss a purported class action brought by the late
actor Ed Asher alleging discrimination against older participants
and a breach of fiduciary duty. [GN]



SCOTIA PBA: Scotia Village Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scotia PBA, Inc. The
case is styled as Village of Scotia v. SCOTIA PBA, INC. ON BEHALF
OF MICHAEL PECKMAN, JEREMY ECKER, AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED UNIT
EMPLOYEES, Case No. 2209/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Schenectady Cty.,
Nov. 4, 2021).

The case type is stated as "ARTICLE 75 (ARBITRATION)."

Scotia Capital Inc. provides investment services. The Company
offers financial services, technology, mining, and consumer
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          COUGHLIN & GERHART, LLP
          1 MARINE MIDLAND PLAZA POB2039
          BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-2039
          Phone: (607) 723-9511

The Defendants are represented by:

          BRYON, KEITH
          263 ROUTE 17K, SUITE 1400
          NEWBURGH, NY 122550
          Phone: (845) 566-4066



SHUFERSAL: Consumer Organizations File Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Zev Stub, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that the
revelation that Israel's largest supermarket chain, Shufersal, was
offering a website with discounted prices for haredi
(ultra-Orthodox) shoppers, touched a nerve in Israeli society. With
high consumer prices among the country's most contentious social
issues, the idea that one segment of society would receive
preferential treatment from one of the nation's most powerful
corporations begs new questions about some of Israel's oldest
challenges.

N12's "Tochnit Chisachon" (Saving Plan) program revealed that
Yashir L'Mehadrin, a site run by Shufersal targeted at the
ultra-Orthodox community, was offering products for cheaper than
the chain's main website. Prices for as many as 2,000 identical
products were found to be 10%-20% cheaper on Yashir L'Mehadrin, and
in some cases, the difference was even greater. The price of frozen
salmon went from NIS 64.90 on the mainstream site to NIS 34.90 on
the mehadrin site, and the price of a jelly donut for Hanukkah fell
from NIS 5.90 to NIS 2.90.

Shufersal responded to the outcry by noting that while Yashir
L'Mehadrin was marketed very quietly within haredi circles, it was
available to be used by anyone. However, it was too late. Following
the investigation, consumer organizations have called for boycotts
of Shufersal and filed class-action suits against it, charging that
the site was in violation of anti-discrimination and consumer
protection laws. By the weekend, Shufersal gave in to the public
pressure and suspended the site.

The scandal came out at an extremely sensitive time for Israel's
economy. A new national budget was approved for the first time in
3.5 years, with a wide-ranging list of reforms promising to bring
down the cost of living by making it cheaper and easier to import
goods from abroad. However, skeptical shoppers are doubtful as to
whether the savings for importers will translate into lower prices
in the stores.

Meanwhile, supply chain delays and other pandemic-related factors
have led food prices to start creeping up significantly for the
first time in a decade. Ever since a rise in cottage cheese prices
spiraled into the 2011 social-justice protests that brought
hundreds of thousands of angry Israelis to the streets, grocery
chains have been fearful that the social cost of raising prices
would not be worth it.

Shortly before the Yashir L'Mehadrin story broke, Shufersal CEO
Itzhak Aberkohen said in an interview in Hebrew that in light of
global shortages, there was no way to avoid raising prices. Now
that it is clear that most goods can be sold for significantly
cheaper when needed, many Israelis feel like they have been treated
like friars (suckers).

The case could be made that Shufersal was wise to target haredi
shoppers with their own grocery site. The haredi population has
been among the hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and it has
been slow to adopt shopping for groceries online. Israel already
has a number of discount grocery chains focused on ultra-Orthodox
neighborhoods, including Shufersal's own Yesh Chessed chain.

But preferential treatment for the haredi community has been a sore
topic for secular -- and many religious -- Israelis for ages.
Secular organizations took to calling the higher prices on
Shufersal's main site a "tax" on the secular, while some on the
other side complained that taking the discounted site down was akin
to "punishing" the religious and hindering the development of
further haredi stores online.

While issues like exemptions for the general Ultra-Orthodox
population from serving in the IDF and participating in the
workforce have been on the political agenda since the state was
founded, what is interesting about the Yashir L'Mehadrin episode is
that it reflects not a political power struggle, but an economic
one.

"This example just highlights the large and fast-growing --
demographically -- market and political power of the haredim," said
Prof. Dan Ben-David, president of the Shoresh Institution for
Socioeconomic Research and an economist at Tel Aviv University.
"It's not new, it's just increasing at an exponential pace."

"The Israeli airline El Al used to fly on Shabbat until the 1970s,"
Ben-David said. Today, not only are they closed on Shabbat, but
even Arkia is now considering shutting down on that day as well.
These companies are more fearful of haredi market power than they
are of being closed one-seventh of the time in a cutthroat airline
industry that takes no prisoners."

"The Shufersal issue is one of cross-subsidization," Ben-David
continued. "Specifically, the chain enables the haredim to buy at
substantially lower prices, while all their other customers pay
more to cover these expenses. If non-haredim wake up and realize
that they are still the majority, with that kind of market power,
then (a) their prices will fall, and (b) the discounts given to
haredim will have to decline as well."

"With the haredi share in the total Israeli population doubling in
every subsequent generation, the Shufersal story is only a preview
of things to come," Ben-David concluded. [GN]

SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Reminds of Jan. 4, 2022 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that
purchasers of: (a) Silverback Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: SBTX)
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with Silverback Therapeutics' initial public
offering conducted on or about December 3, 2020 (the "IPO"); and/or
(b) Silverback Therapeutics securities between December 3, 2020 and
September 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until
January 4, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Dresner v.
Silverback Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-01499 (W.D. Wash.).
Commenced on November 5, 2021, the Silverback Therapeutics class
action lawsuit charges Silverback Therapeutics as well as certain
of its executives and directors with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Silverback
Therapeutics class action lawsuit, please provide your information
by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Silverback
Therapeutics class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than January 4, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Silverback Therapeutics' lead product candidate
is SBT6050, which is in a Phase 1/1b clinical trial, a TLR8 agonist
linker-payload conjugated to a HER2-directed monoclonal antibody
that targets tumors, such as breast, gastric, and non-small cell
lung cancers. On November 10, 2020, Silverback Therapeutics filed a
registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with its IPO, which,
after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on
December 3, 2020. On or about December 3, 2020, Silverback
Therapeutics common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market
("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "SBTX." Pursuant to its IPO,
Silverback Therapeutics issued 11.5 million shares of common stock
priced at $21.00 per share.

The Silverback Therapeutics class action lawsuit alleges that the
offering documents and defendants made false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that:
(i) Silverback Therapeutics' lead product candidate SBT6050 was
less effective than Silverback Therapeutics had represented to
investors; (ii) accordingly, Silverback Therapeutics had overstated
SBT6050's commercial and/or clinical prospects; and (iii) as a
result, the offering documents and defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On September 13, 2021, Silverback Therapeutics issued a press
release "announc[ing] that interim data from the dose-escalation
portion of its Phase 1/1b clinical trial evaluating SBT6050 as a
monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with
advanced or metastatic HER2-expressing or amplified solid tumors
will be presented at the upcoming European Society for Medical
Oncology (ESMO) 2021 Congress from September 16-21, 2021" and
advising that "[t]he accepted abstract . . . is now available on
the ESMO website." Per the accepted abstract, while there was a
manageable safety profile for Silverback Therapeutics' experimental
therapy, SBT6050 yielded only one partial response among 14
HER2-positive solid tumors. On this news, Silverback Therapeutics'
stock price fell by more than 23%, damaging investors. When the
Silverback Therapeutics class action lawsuit was filed, the price
of Silverback Therapeutics common stock continues to trade below
the $21.00 per share IPO price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased: (a)
Silverback Therapeutics common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the offering documents issued in connection with Silverback
Therapeutics' IPO; and/or (b) Silverback Therapeutics securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the Silverback Therapeutics 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 Silverback Therapeutics
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Silverback Therapeutics class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Silverback Therapeutics 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]

SIMON & SCHUSTER: Contreras Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC.,, Case No. 1:21-cv-09300
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people who use
screen-reading software.

According to the complaint, in November 2021, the Plaintiff browsed
and attempted to transact business on the Defendant's website,
www.pimsleur.com. The main reason the Plaintiff visited the website
was to, inter alia, purchase products, goods, and/or services. The
website sells/offers language learning services. The website had
the following accessibility issues: The screen reader fails to read
advertisement pop up links. The website then requires the use of
the cursor to close the advertisement. The screen reader fails to
read the company logo icon located on the website. The screen
reader fails to read the link found on the promotional images. The
screen reader abruptly stops functioning in the middle of a
sentence or speech. The screen reader fails to describe the images.
The screen reader fails to read the social media icon links. The
screen reader skips over certain text on the page.

The accessibility issues the Plaintiff experienced are still found
on the Defendant's website as of the date of the filing of this
complaint. The Plaintiff still intends to purchase certain goods
and/or services from the Defendant's website in the future, but
currently cannot. The Defendant and its website violate Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the New York
City Human Rights Law, as the website is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired, handicapped person.

The Defendant is an online retail company that owns and operates a
website offering products that Defendant delivers to New York and
across the country.[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
          Fax: 212/595-9700
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Gagnier Suit Removed to D. Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David D. Gagnier, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Siteone Landscape
Supply LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Does 1-50,
inclusive; Case No. 30-02021-1213816, was removed from the
California Superior Court County of Orange to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 29, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01834-JVS-DFM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

SiteOne -- https://www.siteone.com/en/ -- is the green industry's
No. 1 destination for landscape supplies, irrigation tools and
agronomic maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          James R Hawkins, Esq.
          Jeanne M Sarmiento, Esq.
          Michael J. S. Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 jeanne@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andy Guarionex Mercado, Esq.
          Hardy R. Murphy, Esq.
          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 330-0180
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: david.szwarcsztejn@ogletree.com
                 hardy.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com
                 aaron.cole@ogletreedeakins.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: AG Appeals Ruling in Kenny Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ALAN WILSON filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Kenny, et al., v. Wilson, et al. Case No.
2:16-cv-02794-MBS, in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina at Charleston.

Defendant Alan Wilson is sued in his official capacity as Attorney
General of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs Kenny, Nesmith, D.S., S.P., and D.D. are or were
enrolled in the South Carolina public school system. Plaintiff
Girls Rock Charleston, Inc. is a nonprofit organization "whose
members are directly impacted by and face ongoing risk of arrest or
referral under S.C. Code section 16-17-420." Since the filing of
the suit, the organization changed its name to the Carolina Youth
Action Project.

Together, the Plaintiffs asserted a challenge pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
sections 1983 that the Disturbing Schools Law, codified at S.C.
Code Ann. Section 16-17-420, is unconstitutional on its face and
the Disorderly Conduct Law, codified at S.C. Code Ann. section
16-17-530, is unconstitutional as applied to children in public
school grades K-12.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 21, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Margaret B. Seymour entered an order:

   1. dismissing the Plaintiffs Kenny and Nesmith from this
      action;

   2. denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;

   4. permanently enjoining the State's enforcement of S.C. Code
      Ann. section 16-17-530 as to elementary and secondary
      school students in South Carolina while they are attending
      school;

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

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

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Order entered by Judge
Seymour.

The appellate case is captioned as Carolina Youth Action Project v.
Alan Wilson, Case No. 21-2166, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Oct. 18, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of South Carolina, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Emory Smith, Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA
          P. O. Box 11549
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 734-3680
          E-mail: esmith@scag.gov

Plaintiffs-Appellees CAROLINA YOUTH ACTION PROJECT; D.S., by and
through her next of kin Juanita Ford, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; and S.P., by and through her next of kin
Melissa Downs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David Allen Chaney, Jr., Esq.
          Shirene Carole Hansotia, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA
          P. O. Box 20998
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 287-7953

               - and -

          Sarah Hinger, Esq.
          Galen Leigh Sherwin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 519-7882
          E-mail: shinger@aclu.org
                  gsherwin@aclu.org

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Kogan Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Kogan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, LP, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-08914-ER (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2021), is brought for damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the Defendant's
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and
unfair practices.

According to the complaint, on May 20, 2021, the Plaintiff
allegedly incurred a financial obligation to Charter
Communications. The Charter obligation arose out of a transaction
in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the
subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or
household purposes. On or before May 20, 2021, the Charter
obligation was assigned to Southwest.

On May 30, 2021, Southwest caused to be mailed to Kogan a letter
concerning the Charter obligation. The May 30, 2021 letter does not
state who assigned the obligation to Southwest. The May 30, 2021
letter instructs KOGAN to contact Southwest directly for assistance
or to make payment. The May 30, 2021 letter advises Kogan that if
he request Southwest in writing within 30 days after receipt of the
letter, Southwest would provide the name and address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor. The May
30, 20201 letter does not advise Kogan if Charter is the original
creditor, the current creditor, or both. The bottom of the May 30,
2021 letter contains a payment coupon, directing Kogan to make
payment directly to Southwest.

On June 18, 2021, Kogan dispute the alleged Charter obligation by
sending a letter to Southwest. On June 25, 2021, Southwest
responded to Kogan's dispute. The June 25, 2021 response from
Southwest stated in part: Includes: Equipment/Client Admin Fee -
$59.00. Upon reading the June 25, 2021 response Kogan was unsure of
the character of the alleged debt, Upon reading the June 25, 2021
response Kogan was unsure whether the alleged debt was for
Equipment or for a Client Admin Fee. Southwest could have taken the
steps necessary to bring its actions within compliance with the
FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review its
actions to ensure compliance with the law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of New York
County.

The Defendant SOUTHWEST is a "Debt Collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 101065
          Phone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          Email: jkj@legaljones.com


SUNSET FOOD: Jenner & Block Attorneys Discuss 7th Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenner & Block, Esq., Gabriel Gillett, Esq., Kelsey Stimple, Esq.,
and Howard Suskin, Esq., of Jenner & Block, in an article for
JDSupra, report that in n Railey v. Sunset Food Mart, Inc., --
F.4th --, No. 21-2533, 2021 WL 4808222 (7th Cir. Oct. 15, 2021),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's order remanding a class action asserting claims
under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act because the
removal was untimely. Beyond the specific holding, the Court's
opinion serves as a useful reminder about some of the contours
around removal of class actions, including under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA). We discuss some of those key principles below,
through the lens of the Court's decision.

Appellate courts can review remand orders in some situations.
Though appellate courts typically lack jurisdiction to review
remand orders, they have the discretion to do so for orders
remanding a case removed under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453(c)(1), and
are "free to consider any potential error in the district court's
decision." Slip op. 4-5, 9 (quoting Brill v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 451 (7th Cir. 2005)).

Removal may be permitted based on "complete preemption." The
defendant in Railey first argued that removal to federal court was
appropriate because the named plaintiff -- an employee at one of
the defendant's grocery stores -- was represented by a union, and
her claims were therefore preempted by the Labor Management
Relations Act. See Slip op. 2. The court acknowledged that removal
is appropriate if the plaintiff's claims are "completely preempted"
by federal law and that one of its recent decisions indicated that
the plaintiff's claims "may, in fact, be preempted by the Labor
Management Relations Act." Slip op. 9 (citing Fernandez v. Kerry,
Inc., No. 21-1067, 2021 WL 4260667, at *1-2 (7th Cir. 2021)).

A defendant's time to remove may be triggered by its own subjective
knowledge or ability to learn key facts related to removal. The
court held, however, that the defendant's November 2020 notice of
removal was untimely because it was not filed within 30 days of the
plaintiff serving her complaint in February 2019. Slip op. 11.
Defendants can remove a class action within 30 days after the case
is filed, or 30 days after "the defendant receives a pleading or
other paper that affirmatively and unambiguously reveals that the
predicates for removal are present." Walker v. Trailer Transit,
Inc., 727 F.3d 819, 824 (7th Cir. 2013) Though the defendant
claimed that the 30-day clock was triggered by the plaintiff
confirming her union membership in an October 2020 interrogatory,
it had acknowledged in oral argument that the complaint supplied
enough information -- the plaintiff's name, dates of employment,
job title, and job location -- to ascertain that she was
represented by a union. Slip op. 10. "Based on this information,
diligent counsel had everything necessary to recognize that the
Labor Management Relations Act may preempt [the plaintiff's] or the
class's claims." Slip op. 11.

The court was careful to caution that its opinion should not be
read "to impose any meaningful burden on defendants" and it stood
"fully by [its] prior determination that district courts are not
required to engage in a 'fact-intensive inquiry about what the
defendant subjectively knew or should have discovered' about the
plaintiff's case to assess the timeliness of a defendant's
removal." Slip op. 11 (quoting Walker, 727 F.3d at 825. The court
pointed out that the plaintiff was a union member working at the
defendant's store and "a defendant can be held to information about
its own operations that it knows or can discern with ease." Id.
"That reality mean[t] that the 30-day removal clock in Sec.
1446(b)(1) began to tick when [the plaintiff] served her complaint
in February 2019" and the November 2020 notice of removal was
therefore untimely. Id.

Still, the Seventh Circuit's statement seems to be in at least some
tension with the First Circuit's categorical statement that "[t]he
defendant has no duty, however, to investigate or to supply facts
outside of those provided by the plaintiff." Romulus v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., 770 F.3d 67, 75 (1st Cir. 2014). The First Circuit
explained its view as follows: "The district court reasoned that
information on damages is not 'new' if the defendant could have
discovered it earlier through its own investigation. This is not
how the statute reads and would produce a difficult-to-manage test.
. . . Determining what the defendant should have investigated, or
what the defendant should have discovered through that
investigation, rather than analyzing what was apparent on (or
easily ascertainable from) the face of the plaintiff's pleadings,
will not be efficient, but will result in fact-intensive
mini-trials." Id. at 73-76 (surveying somewhat different approaches
the circuits have adopted). According to the First Circuit,
"[e]very circuit to have addressed this issue has . . . adopted
some form of a bright-line rule that limits the court's inquiry to
the clock-triggering pleading or other paper" provided by the
plaintiff to the defendant. Id. at 74 (internal quotations
omitted).

The 30-day deadline to remove is triggered (or not) based on the
particular removal theory and related facts; "separate removal
attempts are governed by separate removal clocks." In January 2021,
the defendant raised CAFA's minimal diversity requirements as a
second basis for removal to federal court. The court emphasized
that the timeliness of this basis was unaffected by the timeliness
of the earlier preemption argument because "[a] defendant may
remove even a previously remanded case if subsequent pleadings or
litigation events reveal a new basis for removal." Slip op. 6. If
they attempt to do so, "separate removal attempts are governed by
separate removal clocks." Id.

The court held that this minimal diversity basis for removal was
not untimely. Slip op. 8. Though the plaintiff had moved out of
Illinois and changed her domicile to Georgia in February 2020, the
defendant only discovered this fact through its own investigation
in January 2021. Slip op. 7; see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453(b)
(eliminating Sec. 1446's one-year limitation on diversity-based
removal for class actions); cf. id. Sec. 1332(d)(7) (evaluating
diversity when case is filed or when diversity becomes apparent
later based on "an amended pleading, motion, or other paper"). The
court noted that "[a] plaintiff may trigger a removal clock -- and
protect itself against a defendant's strategic maneuvering -- by
affirmatively and unambiguously disclosing facts establishing
federal jurisdiction in an initial pleading or subsequent
litigation document." Slip op. 7 (internal quotations omitted). But
because the plaintiff had not done so here and the defendant
discovered the federal jurisdiction basis independently, the
defendant could "remove the case at whatever point it deems
appropriate, regardless of whether the window for removal on
another basis already opened and closed." Slip op. 7.

CAFA's exception for "home-state controversies" may bar even timely
removals. The case still had to be remanded to state court,
however, because the minimal diversity exception faced a different
barrier. CAFA removal is subject to an exception for "home-state
controversies," where "two-thirds or more of the members of all
proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary
defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was
originally filed." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(4)(B); see Slip op. 8.
"By limiting the class to Illinois citizens, [the plaintiff]
eliminated any concern that any [defendant] employees domiciled
outside the state comprise greater than one-third of the class and
all but 'guaranteed that the suit would remain in state court.'"
Slip op. 8 (quoting In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 593 F.3d 669, 676
(7th Cir. 2010)). [GN]

SWEET EARTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due August 19, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELA SOTO HURTADO, v.
SWEET EARTH, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-04894-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Court entered a case management order:

            Event                          Date

  -- Last Day to Request Leave      60 Days from Date of this  
     to Amend the Pleadings per     Order
     F.R.Civ.P 15

  -- Last Day to File Motion        Aug. 19, 2022
     for Class Certification

  -- Last Day to Hear Dispositive   Feb. 8, 2024 at 9:00 AM
     Motions

  -- 12 Pretrial Conference         May 9, 2024 at 1:30 PM

  -- Trial                          July 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM

Sweet Earth, Inc. was founded in 1978. The company's line of
business includes manufacturing prepared foods and miscellaneous
food specialties.

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

T-MOBILE US: Another Data Breach Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that another
proposed class action filed against T-Mobile US Inc. following its
role in a massive data breach has been put on ice after a
Washington federal judge found it'd be best to wait until the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules on a transfer
motion.

Waiting for that JPML decision will promote judicial efficiency and
likely won't unduly prejudice plaintiff Daniel Simaan, Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein wrote in an order filed Nov. 5 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Attorneys representing Simaan didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment. [GN]

TACORI ENTERPRISES: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tacori Enterprises.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Tacori Enterprises, Case No.
1:21-cv-09144 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2021).

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

Tacori Enterprises -- https://www.tacori.com/ -- founded in 1975,
designs and manufacturers platinum and diamond jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TD BANK: Norville Sues Over Unfair Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Norville, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-09167 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
5, 2021), is brought to seek monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from the unfair and
improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees on
transactions that should not have been assessed a fee.

This practice breaches contractual promises made in TD's contracts.
The language in TD's checking account contract documents that
address overdraft fees ("OD Fees") promise that TD will reduce
balances to reflect debit card transactions immediately, thus
precluding such approved debit card transactions from being
assessed an OD Fee. TD nevertheless charges OD Fees on these
transactions. TD also breaches its duty of good faith and fair
dealing when it charges OD Fees even when customers did not
actually have insufficient funds because the funds were taken from
the available balance and held at the time of approval. TD's
customers have been injured by TD's improper practices to the tune
of millions of dollars taken from their accounts in violation of
their agreements with TD, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Bronx, New York who is a
customer of the Defendant.

TD Bank is an American national bank and subsidiary of the Canadian
multinational Toronto-Dominion Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          EMail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com


TEAPIGS US: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teapigs US LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Teapigs US LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09204 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2021).

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

Teapigs US LLC -- https://teapigs.com/ -- is in the Tea
business.[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


TERRI BIAS: Berry Files TCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terri Bias &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Phil Berry, individually and
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated
v. Terri Bias & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00854 (M.D.N.C.,
Nov. 4, 2021).

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

Terri Bias & Associates, Inc. -- https://www.findhomesintriad.com/
-- is a real estate agency in Clemmons, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ted L. Johnson, Esq.
          TED LEWIS JOHNSON
          POB 5272
          Greensboro, NC 27435
          Phone: (336) 252-8596
          Fax: (336) 868-0886
          Email: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com


TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Appeals Ruling in FMLA Suit to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carole Ann Sawyer filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Carole Ann Sawyer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tidelands
Health ASC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01612-SAL, in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Charleston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993 ("FMLA") by interfering with her right to take FMLA
leave and by retaliating against her for using her FMLA leave time.
Plaintiff also brings individual and class claims for unpaid wages
under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA).

Plaintiff has a condition called have pseudo pheochromocytoma. This
causes her to suffer episodes of palpitations, chest pain,
headache, nausea, dizziness. The episodes have a rapid onset and
can last from a few minutes up to a few hours. Despite having this
condition, Plaintiff can and did perform the essential functions of
her job. Plaintiff submitted the required paperwork from her
physician and applied for intermittent FMLA on or about May 14,
2018. The Defendant approved Plaintiff's Intermittent FMLA leave on
May 17, 2018. FMLA Intermittent leave allowed for Plaintiff to take
leave in separate blocks of time to include leave periods from an
hour or more to several weeks. Since her FMLA leave was approved,
Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation and interference when she
attempted to exercise her right to take FMLA leave, says the
complaint.

Specifically, Plaintiff received three disciplinary actions in the
months following her approved leave and was terminated, the
complaint notes. Moreover, Plaintiff worked for Defendant with the
clear understanding and agreement by Defendant, that her
compensation would be consistent with all applicable laws,
including state and federal wage laws. However, the Defendant
seized Plaintiff's last paycheck for a medical procedure Plaintiff
had that was unrelated to her employment. The Defendants also did
not notify Plaintiff at least seven calendar days that they
intended to reduce her hourly wage from $25.51 to $7.25. The
Defendants also violated state law regarding garnishment of wages,
says the complaint.

On October 20, 2020 the Plaintiff asked the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of the following individuals
      pursuant Federal Rule 23 (b)(3) of Civil Procedure:

      "all former employees who during the period of June 4,
      2016 and continuing through the entry of judgment in this
      case, had their wages reduced due to financial obligations
      owed to Tidelands Health ASC, LLC for medical services for
      themselves or other family members for whom the employee
      was the guarantor";

   2. appointing herself as class representative; and

   3. appointing her counsel, Marybeth Mullaney, as class counsel.

On July 26, 2021, a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge
Molly H. Cherry suggested that Defendant's motion for summary
judgment be granted and that the action be dismissed.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated September 21, 2021, granting Defendant's motion for summary
judgment and denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class,
and the consent motion to modify class definition.

The appellate case is captioned as Carole Sawyer v. Tidelands
Health ASC, LLC, Case No. 21-2161, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CAROLE ANN SAWYER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW FIRM
          652 Rutledge Avenue
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 588-5587
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

Defendant-Appellee TIDELANDS HEALTH ASC, LLC is represented by:

          Thomas Alan Bright, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          P. O. Box 2757
          Greenville, SC 29602-0000
          Telephone: (864) 240-8352
          E-mail: thomas.bright@ogletree.com

TILLAMOOK COUNTY CREAMERY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tillamook County
Creamery Association. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Tillamook County Creamery Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-09264
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021).

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

The Tillamook County Creamery Association --
https://www.tillamook.com/ -- is a dairy cooperative headquartered
in Tillamook County, Oregon, United States. The association
manufactures and sells dairy products under the "Tillamook" brand
name.[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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Martin Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 22, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARTIN and LORI
MITCHELL, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10518-JVS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James V. Selna entered an order granting stipulation
regarding extension of non-trial deadlines as follows:

   -- Last day for Plaintiffs' to file        Feb. 22, 2022
      Motion for Class Certification

   -- Hearing on Motion for Class             April 25, 2022
      Certification

   -- Fact Discovery Cutoff                   May 27, 2022

   -- Last Day to File for Summary            June 10, 2022
      Judgment

   -- Expert Discovery Cutoff                 July 29, 2022

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HiMvFn at no extra charge.[CC]

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over Emeril Lagasse Airfryer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassACtion.org, reports that The Emeril
Lagasse Power Airfryer 360 is at the center of a proposed class
action filed that claims the appliance is defective and could pose
a significant safety risk to users and their property.

According to the 57-page case out of Florida, the Emeril Lagasse
Power Airfryer 360, 360 XL, Deluxe and Plus models are plagued by a
"serious and dangerous" design or manufacturing defect that
allegedly causes the appliances to overheat, catch fire or smoke
during regular use.

More specifically, the lawsuit claims the air fryers' improper air
circulation and "excessive heating elements" can cause the
appliances to overheat, reaching temperatures hundreds of degrees
above what's considered safe. Compounding this issue is the
apparently defective design of the Emeril air fryers' drip tray,
which the suit says allows flammable food drippings to come in
contact with the bottom heating elements.

Moreover, the lack of an operational safety mechanism to turn off
the appliance when it becomes too hot further exacerbates the risk
that the air fryer will catch fire, overheat or smoke, the lawsuit
alleges.

The case claims defendant Tristar Products, Inc. knew about the
Emeril Lagasse Power Airfryer's propensity to overheat and catch
fire yet failed to warn potential buyers or recall the products.
Per the lawsuit, consumers overpaid for the defective air fryers
and have been robbed of the represented value of their purchases.

"The Defect renders the Air Fryers unfit for the ordinary purpose
for which they are used, which is to reliably and safely cook
food," the complaint contests. "Had Plaintiffs, Class Members, and
the consuming public known that the Air Fryers were defective and
would cause damage to other property, or a serious risk of personal
injury, they would not have purchased the Air Fryers at all or
would not have paid the price they did."

Lawsuit Claims Emeril Lagasse Power Airfryers Are Defectively
Designed, Manufactured
The lawsuit alleges the Emeril Lagasse Power Airfryers' tendency to
overheat and potentially catch fire is the result of a perfect
storm of excessive heating elements, improper air circulation and a
poorly designed drip tray.

According to the suit, the air fryers are designed and manufactured
with five heating elements and a "smart fan" that Tristar touts as
able to provide "a whirlwind of super-heated air for even cooking."
The case alleges, however, that the "excessive heating elements"
and the fan's failure to properly circulate the air inside the
Power Airfryers allows them to reach temperatures of 537°C (or
1000°F), well above the 310 to 360°C range considered to be the
maximum for safe air fryer cooking.

The lawsuit goes on to claim that the Power Airfryer's drip tray
design unsafely allows food drippings to come into contact with the
appliance's bottom heating elements. Because Tristar "[r]emarkably"
instructs consumers to place the drip tray below the bottom heating
elements, which do not have any protection above or around them,
flammable drippings inevitably land on the heating elements while
food is being cooked, the suit relays. This is "particularly
dangerous," the case says, given overheated cooking fats are known
to spontaneously ignite when they reach temperatures between 310
and 360°C.

"Thus, the fact that the Air Fryers reach up to 537°C (1000°F)
due to the lack of air circulation and proper ventilation, almost
ensures that the drippings from the food will ignite while in use,"
the complaint attests.

The lawsuit adds that if Tristar had installed an operational
safety mechanism in its Power Airfryers, the devices would shut off
when they became too hot.

The Plaintiffs' Experiences
The two plaintiffs in the case are a Miami resident and a Bayonne,
New Jersey resident who claim to have purchased their Emeril
Lagasse Power Airfryer 360s in April and August 2020,
respectively.

The Miami plaintiff says she noticed her air fryer "would overheat
and smoke excessively during every use" and leak oil even though
she cleaned it each time she cooked with the device. Moreover, the
fan on the woman's air fryer "acted uncontrollably" and sometimes
turned itself on, prompting her to unplug the appliance whenever
she wasn't using it, the suit relays.

While the plaintiff contacted Tristar to express her growing
concern about the personal safety of her family and home, the
company ultimately denied her claim for a replacement because it
had been more than 90 days after she purchased the device and her
"90-Day Money Back Guarantee" had expired, the case says.

The New Jersey plaintiff says that although she carefully followed
the safety and usage instructions that came with her air fryer, the
"entire interior" of the appliance caught fire in March 2021 while
she was cooking a chicken. While the plaintiff attempted to contact
Tristar about the incident, she allegedly received no response.

The lawsuit claims "numerous" consumers have reported similar
experiences in online complaints, including reviews on Amazon.com,
Walmart.com and Bed Bath & Beyond's website. Despite consumers'
complaints, Tristar has "fraudulently concealed" the apparent
defect and failed to remedy the Power Airfryers' problems, the suit
alleges. Instead, the defendant has improperly denied warranty
claims, replaced the defective products with similarly defective
air fryers, required consumers to ship back their appliances to
Tristar at their own expense, and refused to recall the products,
according to the complaint.

Who Does the Lawsuit Look to Cover?
The proposed class action seeks to represent anyone in Florida or
New Jersey who purchased a Tristar-manufactured air fryer from an
authorized retailer.

What if I Live in a Different State?
The case is currently looking to cover only Florida or New Jersey
residents, but that doesn't mean you can't take action if you live
in a different state.

If you want to find out more about your legal rights and options as
they apply to you, you may want to reach out to an attorney. Most
offer free initial consultations.

How Do I Join the Lawsuit?
There's usually nothing you need to do to join a class action
lawsuit when it's first filed. If the case moves forward and
settles, that's when those covered by the lawsuit (called class
members) should receive notice of the settlement and be able to
claim whatever compensation the court deems appropriate.

Check back to this page for notable updates about the case's
progress, but keep in mind that it could take months or even years
before a resolution is reached. [GN]


UNIFIN INC: Montenegro Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Yuraima Montenegro, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson
Capital Systems LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-23970-MGC (S.D. Fla., Nov.
10, 2021).

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

Unifin, Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a full-service
Business Process Outsourcing and Accounts Receivable Management
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Workers Seek Class Cert. in Vax Mandate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto J. Rocha, writing for Law360, reports that United Airlines
employees requesting medical and religious exemptions from their
company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate have asked a Texas federal judge
to grant them class certification, arguing that the company has
uniformly violated the rights of thousands of exemption-seeking
workers. [GN]


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Moran, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed Nov. 4 is accusing United Behavioral
Health, a branch of UnitedHealthcare, of unjustly denying mental
health claims.

The lawsuit claims that United Behavioral Health denied coverage of
behavioral health services to which members are allegedly entitled
under UBH's "Level of Care Guidelines," which the insurer uses to
evaluate medical necessity of services. The guidelines challenged
by the suit are similar to those used from 2011-17, which a
previous court found were "pervasively more restrictive than the
generally accepted standards," according to a Nov. 5 news release
from the legal team representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit also alleges that a policy requiring providers to
"bundle" all services a patient receives in one day into a single
claim is restrictive to coverage. According to the complaint,
denying the bundled claim on the grounds that some care was
unnecessary could also deny necessary care included in the bundle.


A UnitedHealthcare spokesperson told Becker's that the insurer will
defend itself against the allegations.

"We are committed to ensuring all our members have access to care
consistent with the terms of their health plan and state and
federal rules -- and will vigorously defend ourselves in this
case," the spokesperson told Becker's. "As part of our broader
commitment to quality care, we continue to support our members with
increased access to providers and new ways to quickly get the
effective behavioral support they need." [GN]

UNITED STATES: AGs File Amicus Brief in Title IX Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Parfitt, writing for KDRV.com, reports that Oregon is leading
a coalition of states and the District of Columbia intervening in a
class action lawsuit against the federal government for Trump-era
changes to the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws at religious
schools.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and 18 other attorneys
general filed an amicus brief on Nov. 2 with the US District Court
for the District of Oregon, joining the class action Hunter v. US
Department of Education case. The brief supports the plaintiffs in
the suit, students who oppose the federal government's
implementation of religious exceptions from Title IX
anti-discrimination laws that started during the Trump
administration.

Title IX generally prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded
schools, and requires that schools act to prevent discrimination
and harassment on campus. However it originally provided a slight
carve-out for schools run by religious institutions. That exception
expanded under Trump-era officials.

"It's outrageous that the US Department of Education under the
Trump administration gutted protections for women, members of the
LGBTQ+ community and other classes of students that have been in
place for 40 years. The new rules put students at direct and
serious risk of discrimination and harassment," said Oregon
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. "Even worse, the rules allow
schools to avoid providing notice to their students before they
enroll as to whether or not they will comply with Title IX's
protections."

According to Rosenblum's office, the Trump-era rule allows any
school that claims its mission statement is predicated on religious
beliefs can claim an exemption from the anti-discrimination
requirements of Title IX. Moreover, schools no longer have to claim
this exemption in writing to the Dept. of Education, making the
process of skirting Title IX faster and easier.

The elimination of a written request for exemption happened in
August of 2020, and schools were then allowed to invoke it
immediately in response to a student's complaint. By November, the
scope of the religious exemption under Title IX had been
"substantially" expanded.

"In combination, the rules harm students, place them at higher risk
of being victims of sex discrimination, and make it more difficult
to hold schools accountable for resulting harm," the coalition of
AGs wrote in their amicus brief. "States have a duty to protect
students from the short-term and long-term harm of discrimination
and harassment. States also have an interest in ensuring that
students can learn in an environment free from those harms. For
those reasons, the States support plaintiffs in requesting that
this court set aside the August 2020 and November 2020 rules."

The US District Court decided earlier this month that three
Christian post-secondary schools that could be impacted by a
decision in the Hunter case would be allowed to join the Department
of Education in its defense.

Attorney General Rosenblum was joined in the filing by the
attorneys general of California, Connecticut, the District of
Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Biden Comments on Migrant Families' Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Daily News reports that President Biden got caught
flat-footed when asked about a Wall Street Journal report that
Justice Department attorneys were considering settlements of around
$450,000 per claimant in a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf
of the thousands of migrant families separated under former
President Trump's barbaric zero-tolerance policy.

Biden called this report "garbage" and said it was "not going to
happen." Later, the White House partly walked back the comments,
with Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying the
administration would be "comfortable" with settlements at a lower
level than what was reported. With all due respect to the
president, his personal comfort level with the settlements is
irrelevant and he should stay out of this. As with his gaffe of
weighing in on DOJ's decisions in the Jan. 6 investigation, this is
a matter for Justice personnel to work out in court, independent of
political considerations.

For their part, DOJ attorneys reportedly told the ACLU that the
tentative figures are much too high. We'll remind them that we're
talking about a policy that got the United States denounced by the
United Nations Human Rights office in a bulletin alongside Egypt
and Ethiopia, was described by a consortium of physicians as
"torture," and potentially caused permanent neurological damage to
thousands of small children.

The lawsuit at issue alleges six constitutional violations and two
counts of conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. We're not in
the business of pricing policy mistakes, but it sounds pretty
expensive to us.

While the administration has an obligation to protect taxpayers'
funds, these families have been waiting very long for some
semblance of justice after they were monstrously wronged by our
government. Monetary compensation won't undo the PTSD or bring back
the lost time between parents and children. It can, however, at
least help them move forward.

Let's not draw this out longer than necessary. It's time to pay up
and, as another president once said, turn the page. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Federal Employees With Natural COVID Immunity Sue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Piper, writing for Just the News, reports that federal
employees with natural immunity from COVID-19 infection filed a
class-action lawsuit on Nov. 5 against the members of President
Biden's task force that enforces his COVID vaccine mandate for
government workers, intending to stop it before a deadline this
month.

The defendants include National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases director Anthony Fauci, CDC director Rochelle Walensky,
White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeffrey Zients,
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis
McDonough.

The mandate is "at the very least, arbitrary and capricious in
addition to being overbroad and poorly designed," violating
constitutional rights against "unnecessary medical treatment" and
the emergency use authorization (EUA) statute that still governs
all but one vaccine, the suit claims.

Moreover, it lacks exemptions for both natural immunity and fully
remote workers, calling into question whether it's "designed to
accomplish a legitimate federal purpose," according to the
plaintiffs. At the same time, they argue, the mandate accepts
"foreign vaccines that the FDA has not approved in any fashion" and
which are measurably less effective than natural immunity.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, where plaintiff and civilian Navy employee Isaac
McLaughlin lives and where some of the plaintiffs' agencies have
offices.

The court is overseen by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
which halted the related employer COVID vaccine mandate over the
weekend, citing "grave statutory and constitutional issues."

The other 10 representatives of the naturally-immune class of
federal employees live in Texas, Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
Louisiana, New Jersey and California. They work for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, the
Department of Agriculture and the Secret Service.

The mandate is not saved by FDA's full approval of Pfizer's
Comirnaty vaccine, which is in short supply but also "legally
distinct" from Pfizer's BioNTech vaccine that is still under EUA,
the suit claims.

The FDA further acknowledges the two have unspecified "differences"
while claiming they're interchangeable through nonbinding guidance.
Even if they were the same, "no federal employee can be guaranteed
access" to the fully approved version, the suit claims.

"Accepting federal employment does not mean serving as a guinea pig
for emergency use drugs," the complaint continues. Even if a
vaccine raised their "antibody levels even higher," the increase
would "provide no discernible, let alone compelling, benefit" to
the plaintiffs or the federal workforce.

The plaintiffs are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance
and Texas Public Policy Foundation, which estimates there are "tens
of thousands" more potential class members even if 90% of the
naturally immune federal workforce takes a vaccine.

"If your federal employer can do this," can they also "impose
liposuction for the overweight or take spare kidneys for other
workers in need?" NCLA senior litigation counsel John Vecchione
said in a press release.

The suit includes 20 pages of declarations on the "durable
protection" from natural immunity by Harvard Medical School's
Martin Kulldorff and Stanford Med's Jay Bhattacharya. They did the
same for natural immunity lawsuits against COVID vaccine mandates
at Michigan State and George Mason University.

Clean Power Plan redux

Since the president's Sept. 9 executive order, the Safer Federal
Workforce Task Force "has issued a shifting set of guidance
instructions" through its accordion-style FAQ page, which is
"constantly morphing into new forms via a living web document" that
also directs users to other pages, the suit said.

Among these is a misleading compliance deadline of Nov. 22. Because
the task force defines "fully vaccinated" as two weeks after
receiving either the two-dose Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or the
one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the functional deadline is Nov.
8 — the first business day after the suit was filed.

Due to the dosing schedule for the mRNA vaccines, workers must have
had the first of two doses either Oct. 11 or 18, and well-known
shortages of Johnson & Johnson mean it may not be available nearby
to workers up to Nov. 8, the plaintiffs claim.

Because the stated deadline relies on having met even earlier
deadlines or vaccine availability in a particular area, "federal
employees who object to this illegal Federal Employee Vaccine
Mandate cannot await the issuance of regulations or agency-specific
policies to come into compliance," the suit says.

They face the explicit threat of termination because there's no
"disciplinary grace period," leaving them no choice but to seek an
injunction against the mandate while litigation proceeds.

The task force is "running the same play" as did Environmental
Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy in 2015, the suit
claims.

She issued the sweeping Clean Power Plan, a 2,000-page regulation
that allegedly exceeded its authority, and publicly predicted that
most utilities would comply even if the courts eventually struck it
down.

The Supreme Court issued a stay on the regulation before it was
heard in a lower appeals court, and the Trump administration killed
it the following year. But unlike capital investments in
electricity infrastructure, "which can be unwound at least to some
extent, taking a vaccine is truly irreversible," the suit claims.

The task force and the overlapping White House COVID-19 response
team "set these aggressive deadlines for compliance" to coerce
employees into getting vaccinated before "more detailed guidance
providing true fair notice could be put in place" and courts could
weigh in.

The only action since the suit was filed was a pretrial and
scheduling conference set for Feb. 23 by U.S. District Judge Andrew
Edison. [GN]

UNITED STATES: High Court Struggles to Hear Surveillance Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Gresko, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court struggled on Nov. 8 with whether to allow a lawsuit
by Muslim men claiming religious bias by the FBI to go forward
despite the government's objection that doing so could reveal
national security secrets.

The case the high court was considering involves a group of three
men from Southern California. They filed a class action lawsuit
claiming the FBI spied on them and hundreds of others in a
surveillance operation that began several years after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks. The men, represented by lawyers from the American
Civil Liberties Union and others, claimed religious discrimination
and violations of other rights, saying they were spied on solely
because of their faith.

A lower court dismissed almost all their claims after the
government said allowing the case to go forward could reveal "state
secrets" -- whom the government was investigating and why. But an
appeals court reversed that decision in 2019, saying the lower
court first should have privately examined the evidence the
government said was state secrets.

The Biden administration, like the Trump administration before it,
told the justices that decision is wrong.

A number of the justices suggested they were inclined to agree with
the government but also seemed to favor sending the case back to a
lower court for additional proceedings. That could give both sides
something of a win because it would allow the lawsuit to continue,
as the group that sued wants.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that sending the case back to a
lower court would let issues be "fleshed out and come back" to the
Supreme Court later.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree, saying the lower court's
decision was "in some important way premised on an incorrect
understanding of when dismissal is appropriate in a state secrets
case."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch also
asked about sending the case back at various points in the
arguments, which lasted two hours.

The case involves a confidential informant, Craig Monteilh, the FBI
used from 2006 to 2007. Monteilh pretended to be a new convert to
Islam as a way to become part of Southern California's Muslim
community.

Monteilh told people he was a fitness consultant, but he was really
working as part of a surveillance program known as Operation Flex.
Monteilh regularly attended the Islamic Center of Irvine in Orange
County and has said that he was told to collect as much information
on as many people as possible. He gathered names and phone numbers
and secretly recorded thousands of hours of conversations and
hundreds of hours of video using a camera concealed in a shirt
button.

Ultimately Monteilh's handlers told him to ask about jihad and
express a willingness to engage in violence. Those questions caused
members of the community to report him to the FBI and other
authorities and seek a restraining order against him.

The FBI has acknowledged Monteilh was an informant, and the story
was covered in the news media including on the National Public
Radio show "This American Life."

Three of the men Monteilh allegedly recorded sued, seeking damages
and asking the government to destroy or return the information it
had gathered.

This is the second case the court has heard involving the state
secrets privilege since beginning its new term in October. Last
month the court heard a case involving a Guantanamo Bay detainee
that also involved the states secrets privilege. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Idea of Compensating Migrant Families Endorsed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kake.com reports that President Joe Biden on Nov. 6 strongly
endorsed the idea of the US government compensating immigrant
families separated at the border under the Trump administration's
"zero-tolerance policy," saying the previous administration's
"outrageous behavior" warrants cash payments -- but he didn't go
into detail about specific amounts.

"If in fact, because of the outrageous behavior of the last
administration, you coming across the border, whether it was legal
or illegal, and you lost your child, you lost your child! . . . you
deserve some kind of compensation no matter what the circumstance.
What that will be, I have no idea. I have no idea," Biden said,
raising his voice and gesturing emphatically as he tore into his
predecessor's onetime policy.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced its "zero tolerance"
policy, in which the Justice Department initiated criminal
prosecutions of every adult illegally crossing the border, and was
ended after widespread opposition. The policy resulted in the
separation of thousands of families, including those with infants,
some only a few months old, because children can't be kept in
federal jail with their parents.

A source familiar with the matter told CNN that migrant families
who were forcibly separated at the US-Mexico border under the
policy could receive hundreds of thousands dollars in compensation
as part of a settlement being negotiated between the Justice
Department and the families' lawyers.

The comments from Biden come several days after he denied a recent
report from The Wall Street Journal that the federal government was
considering payments of $450,000 per individual affected by the
policy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a
class-action lawsuit in 2019 seeking damages for the toll the
separations took on families, and attorneys representing families
have filed separate claims.

The Justice Department has told attorneys representing those
families that the settlement figures reported in the media "are
higher than anywhere that settlement can land," ACLU Executive
Director Anthony D. Romero told CNN.

More than 3,000 children were separated from their families at the
US-Mexico border under former President Donald Trump. It's unclear
how many people would be eligible for payments. [GN]

UNITED STATES: L2 Visa Class Action v. Homeland Security Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shivani Shinde & Neha Alawadhi, writing for Business Standard,
report that in a breather to thousands of Indian-Americans, the US
administration has agreed to provide automatic work authorisation
permits to the spouses of H1-B visa holders, a majority of them are
from the Indian IT services.

A settlement was reached by the Department of Homeland Security in
a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) on behalf of immigrant spouses this summer.

A H-4 visa is issued to the dependent member of the family of H1-B
visa holders. L2 visa is given to dependent spouses and unmarried
children under the age of 21 of the person holding L1 visa. L2 visa
holder can seek employment opportunity in the US, however holder of
H4 visa cannot seek employment opportunity automatically and they
need to file an employment authorization document.

"Although this is a giant achievement, the parties' agreement will
further result in a massive change in position for the USCIS, which
now recognises that L-2 spouses enjoy automatic work authorisation
incident to status, meaning these spouses of executive and managers
will no longer have to apply for employment authorisation prior to
working in the United States," the AILA said according to a PTI
report.

Moreover, the spouses of L1 visa holders will no longer have to
apply for a separate work permit before arriving in the US.

This will be a breather not only in terms of getting clarity on the
work environment but also in terms of financial burden because each
work permit application costs $495 for submission, according to
media reports.

Poorvi Chothani, founder and managing partner, LawQuest, an
immigration law firm, said: "This is a huge win for the people who
fought for this in a US court. Though the USCIS (US Citizenship and
Immigration Services) is yet to come up with specific guidelines,
they have agreed to grant automatic extensions to employment
authorisation documents (EAD) or work authorisation to qualified
H-4 spouses."

She said: "An H-4 visa holder, spouse of an H-1B worker who is
approved for the green card (but can't be granted the green card),
required an EAD card to be able to work in the US. These are
generally valid for two years or until the validity of H-4 status
ends and have to be extended before the expiry date. In recent
times, EAD extensions are taking between six and 12 months to be
adjudicated. This required the H-4 worker to stop working until the
EAD extension was approved. As part of a court settlement, the
USCIS has granted 180-day automatic extensions provided the EAD
extension was filed timely. This benefit is also granted to those
workers who are on the L-2 visa. In addition, L-2 visa holders no
longer require an EAD before they can begin working in the US. The
right to work is inherent in the L-2 visa."

There is no agency that tracks the number of H4 visa holders in the
US, according to a Cato Institute write-up. Indians dominate the
category with 106,162 H-4 visas issued in 2019.

The H1-B visa application has a cap of 85,000 each year. Of these
the cap of 65,000 is regular and the remaining 20,000 is for an
H1-B visa holder with a master's degree or a higher US university
degree. The H1-B visa is valid for three years with an extension of
six years.

A statement from international immigration law firm Fragomen on its
website says: "The Shergill settlement is good news for some H-4
and L-2 spouses who could see relief from disruptions to their
employment due to USCIS processing delays. However, there are some
limitations in the new policies. Based on the terms of the
settlement, H-4 nonimmigrants who file EAD renewals concurrently
with an I-539 extension may receive only a brief auto-extension,
just to the end of their current I-94 date. L-2s who do not hold an
I-94 specifically noting their spousal status will still need an
EAD to work until they are issued a new L-2 spousal I-94."

"Welcome step by the US Biden Administration to improve access to
talent for enterprises, a critical need in the post-Covid economic
recovery phase," said industry body National Association of
Software and Services Companies (Nasscom) in a tweet on Nov. 5.
[GN]

UNITED STATES: Sued Over Vaccine Mandate on Private Employers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lagasse, writing for Healthcare Finance, reports that on Nov.
5, the states of Missouri, Montana, Arizona and Nebraska co-led an
11-state coalition in filing a lawsuit against President Joe Biden
and his administration to halt the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on
private employers with more than 100 employees. They're the first
states to file suit against the vaccine mandate on private
employers.

Five private employers also joined the challenge. A petition for
judicial review was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, and a motion for stay is expected to be filed
soon.

WHAT'S THE IMPACT?

The lawsuit challenges the Emergency Temporary Standard advanced by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which requires
private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate their
employees to get vaccinated or implement weekly testing and mask
requirements. Noncompliant businesses could face steep fines.

According to the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations, there 3,443 private employers in Missouri with over 100
employees, meaning that roughly 1,289,588 employees in that state
could be impacted by this vaccine mandate, according to a statement
from Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.

The petition states, "This mandate is unconstitutional, unlawful,
and unwise. The federal government lacks constitutional authority
under its enumerated powers to issue this mandate, and its attempt
to do so unconstitutionally infringes on the States' powers
expressly reserved by the Tenth Amendment. OSHA also lacks
statutory authority to issue this mandate, which it shoe-horned
into statutes that govern workplace safety, and which were never
intended to federalize public-health policy.

"For over a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
policies on compulsory vaccination lie within the police powers of
the States, and that 'they are matters that do not ordinarily
concern the national government,'" the petition read.

"Until quite recently, the Biden Administration agreed. The White
House stated on July 23 of this year that mandating vaccines is
'not the role of the federal government.' But on September 9, 2021,
that position underwent a dramatic reversal. The President
announced several sweeping vaccine mandates, including a vaccine
mandate to be issued by OSHA that applies to all employers who
employ more than 100 employees. OSHA published this 'emergency'
mandate two months later, crafting an elaborate post hoc
justification for a policy that the President had already dictated
that it would impose."

The lawsuit is asking the court for an immediate stay pending
judicial review.

In addition to Missouri, attorneys general from Arizona, Montana,
Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, New
Hampshire and Wyoming also joined the lawsuit.

In late October, the Missouri Attorney General's Office also filed
suit to halt the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and
federally contracted employees.

THE LARGER TREND

Biden announced the vaccine mandate in early September. Also, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in collaboration with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, announced at the
time that emergency regulations requiring vaccinations for nursing
home workers would be expanded to include hospitals, dialysis
facilities, ambulatory surgical settings, and home health agencies,
among others, as a condition for participating in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.

Biden also called on large entertainment venues to require proof of
vaccination to gain entry. He said his plan also increases testing
and will keep kids safer in schools. He's also requiring all
federal educators in Head Start to get vaccinated and is calling on
all governors to require vaccines for all staff.

Organizations agreeing to the mandate include trade associations,
research organizations and advocacy groups.

"Given the sharp rise in cases and deaths in the U.S., and
recognizing that most new cases and the overwhelming majority of
deaths occur among the unvaccinated, our organizations believe that
a vaccine mandate is the primary way to assure the health and
safety of our colleagues, family, friends, and communities," they
said in a statement.

The organizations include AcademyHealth, America's Essential
Hospitals, AMCP, AMGA, ASHP, the Association for Community
Affiliated Plans, the Association of Schools and Programs of Public
Health, the Alliance of Community Health Plans, the National
Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, the National Health
Council, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, the
National Pharmaceutical Council, the SNP Alliance, and the Society
for Women's Health Research.

In October, researchers publishing in Scientific Reports found that
mandates likely work to increase vaccine uptake, and appear to be
having a positive effect across various ethnic groups, and for
people predisposed to oppose measures that are forced on them.

A report that same month from the U.S Department of Health and
Human Services found that COVID-19 vaccinations may have helped
prevent hundreds of thousands of new COVID-19 infections and tens
of thousands of deaths among seniors

The findings are being used to underscore the importance of
vaccines in fighting against the still-ongoing pandemic, and to
combat lingering vaccine hesitancy among certain populations. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Thomas Files Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America, et al. The case is styled as D. Thomas, a/k/a musa
'al-qamar 'al-mu 'min and Pharaoh El 'Forever Left 'I Amen El, for
his estate, himself and others similarly situated v. United States
of America, State of Minnesota, Vatican Church, Case No.
0:21-cv-02464-JRT-BRT (D. Minn., Nov. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Discovery Date Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON THOMPSON, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL
CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-61336-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the
Parties file a joint motion to extend the deadline to complete
class certification discovery to permit the Defendant's Rule
30(b)(6) deposition to occur on or before December 15, 2021, and
state as follows:

   1. Pursuant to the Court Order dated August 23, 2021, the
      deadline to complete class certification discovery is
      November 29, 2021 and the deadline for Plaintiff to file a
      motion for class certification is January 19, 2022.

   2. In preparation for drafting his motion for class
      certification, Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of
      the Defendant's corporate representative.

   3. Due to limited availability of Defendant's proposed
      corporate representative in the month of November 2021,
      along with internal corporate requirements of the
      designated corporate representative, Defendant's counsel
      conferred with Plaintiff's counsel to seek leave of Court
      to permit the deposition of Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) to
      occur in the first two weeks of December 2021.

   4. This joint motion is being filed for good cause and not
      for purposes of delay.

   5. The brief extension of time requested in this motion will
      not prejudice either party.

Universal Credit is a financial services company specializing in
credit reports, credit checks, and credit reports services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter A. Hernandez, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Fourth Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 358-7747
          Facsimile: (305) 577-1063
          Secondary: dconnolly@hinshawlaw.com
          E-mail: pahernandez@hinshawlaw.com

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Must Refund Tuition Fees Owed to Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Alachua
County, Florida, Circuit Judge Monica Brasington will not dismiss a
case that could turn into a class-action lawsuit alleging the
University of Florida (UF) should refund fees owed to students who
were forced to learn remotely due to the the coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuit, originally filed in April of this year, seeks prorated
refunds of activity fees, transportation fees, and athletics fees.
It is not seeking tuition refunds.

Brasington issued a nine-page ruling allowing the plaintiff,
Anthony Rojas, to bring a breach-of-contract claim against the
university. Many other similar lawsuits filed have been against
universities across the state of Florida. Rojas was a graduate
student at UF in spring and summer 2020 who had paid tuition and
fees, including those that are of concern in the suit. If certified
as a class action, the case should include thousands of students
who were unable to not take in-person classes, or be on campus at
all, last year.

Adam Moskowitz, a Coral Gables attorney representing Rojas, said,
"We are not challenging the required tuition or the ensuing
diploma, but all of these other charges that were physically
impossible to take advantage of during the height of the pandemic.
Some states like Georgia already agreed to reimburse such specific
funds."

In asking for the lawsuit to be thrown out due to a
breach-of-contract claim, attorneys for the university disputed
that an "express contract" existed, writing in a motion filed over
the summer that Rojas had provided a "hodgepodge of documents that
did not constitute an express contract." They added, "There is no
contract between plaintiff and UF, let alone an express contract,
thereby dictating dismissal of plaintiff's breach of contract claim
based upon sovereign immunity. Plaintiff's request that this court
accept various documents from multiple sources to arrive at an
enforceable express contract does not comport with applicable
law."

As for the claim of sovereign immunity, which shields government
agencies from lawsuits, Brasington was unmoved by their argument.
She wrote in her decision, "When a governmental entity enters into
an express, written contract that is authorized by the powers
granted to it by the Legislature, it waives its sovereign
immunity." Moreover, she wrote, "It is the court's finding that, at
this stage of the litigation, plaintiff has adequately (pleaded)
the existence of an express contract between himself and UF in
which plaintiff agreed to pay fees in exchange for specific
services to be provided by UF during the spring 2020 and summer
2020 semesters, in accordance with (a section of state law), and
its corresponding regulations."

Rojas' attorneys included the "financial liability agreement," a
tuition statement and a fee schedule, as evidence of fees paid for
which Rojas should receive a refund. "UF's main argument is that
plaintiff 'cobbles together' various documents to allege an express
contract and that this is insufficient to show a 'meeting of the
minds.' In Florida, however, any one document, or even several
documents together, may constitute an express contract so long as
they show an 'offer, acceptance and consideration,'" they said.
[GN]

URBAN AMERICAN: Tenants Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Hudson, writing for TheRealDeal, reports that a judge has
determined that Urban American should not have deregulated
apartments in Astoria while receiving tax breaks under New York's
J-51 program.

The landlord had removed the units from rent stabilization between
2010 and 2015 after a  landmark ruling that deemed deregulation
illegal in buildings getting J-51 and required landlord to
recalculate rents. Urban American had defended its conduct by
pointing to a "state of confusion" after the 2009 court ruling.

The judge responded in her Oct. 29 decision that "ignorance of the
law is no defense, and willful ignorance remains willful conduct
sufficient to find fraud."

Tenants at the 101-unit building at 25-21 31st Avenue sued the
landlord in 2018. Queens County Supreme Court Judge Pam Jackman
Brown ruled that Urban American had more than a decade to
re-register 43 units.

If the ruling stands on appeal, a referee would calculate the rent
overpayment that Urban American owes tenants. The calculation will
be based on a formula that defines the legal rent as the lowest
rent charged for a stabilized unit with the same number of rooms in
the building four years prior to the lawsuit's filing. That
so-called default formula will be used because of the finding of
fraud on the landlord's part.

In addition to overpaid rent, Urban American is also on the hook
for legal fees for tenants, who were represented by Lucas Ferrara
and Roger Sachar at Newman Ferrara.

"For an owner of some 15,000 units to profess ignorance of the rent
laws was a laughable defense," Ferrara said in an email.

Urban American was not immediately available for comment, but the
landlord is likely to appeal. It was represented by the law firm of
Adam Leitman Bailey, who declined to comment.

Urban American is an owner-operator that invests in multifamily,
workforce housing. The company's founder and CEO is Philip
Eisenberg, whose son Joshua Eisenberg is executive vice president.
The Astoria rental is part of a 1,400-unit portfolio that Urban
American recapitalized in a $275 million deal last year.

The lawsuit came after Housing Rights Initiative, a watchdog group
led by Aaron Carr, investigated rental histories in the building.
HRI investigations have laid the foundation for a spate of lawsuits
accusing landlords and developers receiving tax benefits from
programs including J-51 and 421a of violating their rules and
ultimately overcharging tenants. At least 40 HRI investigations
have led to J-51 class-action lawsuits, though most are still
pending, according to Carr.

"This is a massive victory for our watchdog group," he said, adding
that New York's Division of Housing & Community Renewal, the state
agency that oversees rent stabilization programs, should audit its
data and catch violators or abolish the tax breaks.

"Hopefully Gov. Hochul will push her agency to do what Cuomo never
had the spine to do, which is enforce rent stabilization laws," he
said.

Industry leaders have said ending the abatement programs would
increase rents.[GN]

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over "Bait-and-Switch Scheme"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Communications Alliance disclosed that a proposed federal
class action filed November 3 against Verizon alleges the company
ran a "bait-and-switch scheme" to sell consumers post-paid wireless
plans then add on unexpected fees to bills, presenting a concern
for any service provider that imposes a Cost Recovery Fee (CRF) or
similar discretionary pass-through surcharge (designed to recoup
otherwise non-recoverable regulatory costs and fees). If
successful, the suit could be a blueprint for consumers and other
plaintiffs' attorneys to pursue lawsuits seeking damages from
telecom & VoIP service providers that use a discretionary
pass-through surcharge (such as a CRF) to recoup certain costs of
doing business, but whose accounting, billing, disclosures and
other policies may fail to adequately support their surcharge(s).

Rather than wait for potential litigation, service providers would
be well-served to conduct a due diligence review of their CRF and
other discretionary pass-through surcharges; a modest investment
and implementation of "best practices" may forestall a potential
future headache and, at a minimum, enhance your company's ability
to defend itself.

FCC-Permitted Cost Recovery Fees

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) current rules and
policies allow service providers to charge "discretionary"
surcharges, which may be used to recover certain compliance costs
associated with federal (or even state and local) rules and
regulations or even costs, beyond those related to compliance with
the Universal Service Fund (USF) program. While the FCC does not
categorically prohibit service providers from recouping such
compliance costs, service providers must follow specified
guidelines. For example, service providers:

   -- Cannot "mark up" or otherwise overstate regulatory fees;
Cannot, suggest the discretionary surcharge is federally mandated
(to avoid passing off a "voluntary pass-through charge" as a type
of government-mandated or FCC-imposed "tax");

   -- Cannot bundle discretionary surcharges with a
government-mandated charge (such as a USF surcharge); and

Must ensure the CRF is sufficiently disclosed, accurately
presented, and capable of being supported by reasonable data.

In addition to these general rules, a service provider must be able
to demonstrate the amount charged (either on a fixed per-line
charge or percentage of invoiced charges basis) is "just and
reasonable." In other words, cost recovery through a discretionary
surcharge should be: (A) associated with actual and demonstrable
costs of compliance and (B) the disclosures to consumers regarding
the nature and constitution of such surcharges should be clear and
discernable.

Class Action Against Verizon

The class action alleges Verizon "prominently advertises" flat
monthly charges then pads customer bills with previously
undisclosed "so-called Administrative Charge [that] is simply a
means for Verizon to charge more per month for the service itself
without having to advertise the higher prices." Id. Further, the
suit claims that, by telling customers the Administrative Charge is
outside Verizon's control and Verizon's "affirmative
misrepresentations on its bills that the administrative charge is
to recover the costs billed to Verizon by the government" not only
does not clearly and accurately state the true cost of service, but
discourages customers from questioning the Administrative Charge.
Finally, plaintiffs allege Verizon "disguises the Administrative
Charge by putting it in the ‘Surcharges' section where it is
lumped together with true government costs billed to Verizon" and
that "labeling and description of the Administrative Charge as a
‘Surcharge' imposed on subscribers to ‘cover the costs that are
billed to us by federal, state or local governments' is a false
statement of material fact intended to fool its subscribers."

Notably, the suit does not reference the FCC, likely in an attempt
to force Verizon to defend its practices. However, the suit does
allege that at least some of the general rules related to
discretionary surcharges were not followed and that Verizon's
Administrative Charge was not a just and reasonable CRF.

Impact of the Verizon Class Action on CRF

While still in the earliest stage of litigation, the proposed class
action against Verizon is a timely reminder for all service
providers to take a hard look at their CRF charges and ensure they
take action to enhance defensibility of their practices. In
particular, providers should ensure they are following the spirit
of the FCC's rules, regulations, and policies while implementing
industry "best practices" to enhance defensibility of their
surcharge(s). In particular, service providers should ensure their
surcharge(s) are just and reasonable, unbundled, tied to actual
compliance costs, adequately reflected in the company's books and
records, and do not imply they are mandated by the government in
any form or fashion. [GN]

VIACOMCBS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of ViacomCBS Inc. (NASDAQ: VIAC)
between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important December 28, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased ViacomCBS 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 ViacomCBS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2190.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 28, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

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

To join the ViacomCBS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2190.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]

VIATRIS INC: Patel Sues Over False Registration Statement
---------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Patel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VIATRIS, INC., PFIZER INC., MICHAEL GOETTLER, SANJEEV
NARULA, BRYAN SUPRAN, MARGARET M. MADDEN, DOUGLAS E. GIORDANO,
ROBERT J. COURY, IAN READ, and JAMES KILTS, (Pa. Ct. of Common
Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Oct. 28, 2021), on behalf of former Mylan
shareholders who acquired Viatris common stock shares pursuant to
the S-4 registration statement and related 424B3 prospectus issued
in connection with a November 2020 transaction by which Pfizer's
subsidiary Upjohn was spun off and merged with Mylan to form the
company now known as Viatris.

In November 2020, in connection with the Merger, Viatris (then
known as Upjohn) issued approximately 560 million new shares of
VTRS common stock to former Mylan shareholders in exchange for
their Mylan shares. Each of these new shares of VTRS common stock
was issued, solicited, and sold pursuant to the Registration
Statement, at a market price of approximately $16.30 per share. The
Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact
and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.

The Registration Statement overstated Viatris's financial
condition, ability to pay dividends, and dividend payout policy.
For example, the Registration Statement touted that, at the time of
the Merger, Viatris "currently anticipated that [it] will initiate
a dividend of approximately 25% of free cash flow beginning the
first full quarter following the consummation of the transactions."
On the approximately $4 billion in annual free cash flow reflected
in the Registration Statement, that indicated a $1 billion dividend
yielding approximately 5% on the current share price. In truth,
Viatris was already internally projecting lowered revenue while at
the same time planning to redirect more free cash to paying down
debt, such that Viatris was already internally projecting a
dividend less than half than touted in the Registration Statement.
The Registration Statement also failed to disclose the increasing
severity and negative internal impact Viatris was already suffering
in China, a purported growth market, from the Chinese government's
mandated price cuts under a national policy of volume-based
procurements. The Registration Statement also failed to disclose
the severe and negative impact Viatris was already suffering due to
generic competitors to Lyrica in Japan. At the time of the Merger,
Defendants represented that Viatris still expected a delayed loss
of exclusivity ("LOE") and thus a longer period of patent monopoly
in Japan.

The Defendants completed the Merger with the foregoing
misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statement. And
with these material misrepresentations and omissions, the Merger
was extremely lucrative for Defendants. But as the truth of
Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions emerged, the price of
Viatris shares suffered sharp declines. By the commencement of this
action, Viatris shares traded as low as $12.97 per share, amounting
to an over $1 billion decline from the offering price, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired newly issued VTRS shares directly from
Viatris in exchange for Mylan shares pursuant to the Merger.

Viatris is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 233-6444
          Fax: (212) 233-6334
          Email: jzimmerman@scott-scott.com


VOLKSWAGEN ag: Faces Class Action Over Audi2-Liter Turbo Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Audi
2-liter turbo problems have caused a class action lawsuit alleging
these vehicles equipped with 2.0T engines consume excessive amounts
of oil.

2012-2017 Audi TT
2012-2017 Audi A3
2012-2017 Audi A4
2012-2017 Audi A5
2012-2017 Audi A6
2012-2017 Audi Q3
2012-2017 Audi Q5

New Jersey plaintiff Hernan A. Gonzalez filed the 2-liter turbo
engine lawsuit after purchasing a new 2015 Audi Q5 in November
2014. The plaintiff says his Audi began consuming oil and losing
power in March 2021, then in May the check engine light came on.

The plaintiff says the Audi 2-liter turbo problems caused him to
take the vehicle to a dealer, and technicians diagnosed the problem
as piston failure and recommended replacement of four pistons.

"Specifically, the dealership found faults for misfires in two
cylinders, number 2 and 4, and found the same faults remained after
swapping the coils and spark plug. The dealership then discovered
that one cylinder had no compression and was cracked. Plaintiff
Gonzalez was charged over $7500.00 for the repairs." -- Audi
2-liter turbo engine lawsuit

According to the Audi class action, the plaintiff says his vehicle
will suffer the same turbo problems because Audi used the same
allegedly defective replacement parts.

Audi 2-Liter Turbo Problems: Pistons
Audi allegedly concealed the 2-liter turbo problems in what is
referred to as the 2.0T engines. The lawsuit alleges the problems
are caused by the pistons, piston rings and piston heads which
cause excessive oil consumption. The piston rings allegedly don't
seat properly in the grooves of the piston heads in the Audi
turbocharged engines.

Too much oil is allegedly consumed because the combustion chamber
is not properly sealed off from the parts of the Audi turbo engine
which require oil for lubrication.

The plaintiff also alleges shrapnel is created from fragments of
the piston rings which circulate through the Audi turbo engines,
damaging vital engine components.

Replacing the piston rings or pistons can allegedly cause thousands
of dollars, and the alleged Audi 2-liter turbo problems can also
cost more than $10,000 to replace the 2.0T engine.

Safety issues are also named in the class action lawsuit because
the Audi 2-liter turbo problems may allegedly cause an immediate
loss of engine power while driving.

The class action further alleges the the 2-liter turbo engines
problems occur before the vehicles reach 75,000 miles, much less
than expected by owners.

The Audi 2-liter turbo engine class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Hernan A.
Gonzalez, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law
APC, and Ladah Law Firm. [GN]

VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: School Board Faces Suit Over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Fernandez, writing for The Daytona Beach News-Journal,
reports that just two months after reaching a settlement with the
U.S. Department of Justice over the treatment of autistic children,
the Volusia County School Board is now facing a $50 million class
action lawsuit filed by an attorney for a mother who says her
autistic son has been mistreated for years in the school system.

Attorney Jason Harr of Daytona Beach filed the lawsuit in federal
court in Orlando on behalf of Kimberly Powell, whose son has been
diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, a condition on the autism
spectrum. No other parents or autistic children are part of the
lawsuit as of now, but Harr said other parents have contacted him

"If you are autistic or you have Asperger's, you shouldn't be
treated differently than anybody else," Harr said. "You should have
the same advantages in the Volusia County school system as anyone
else."

The two-count lawsuit accuses the Volusia County School Board of
violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The lawsuit cites the settlement announced in August that the
Volusia County School Board reached with the Department of Justice,
which opened its investigation after receiving a complaint
involving 11 students with disabilities, including nine with a
diagnosis of autism. Powell's son was not one of those students.

Volusia County Schools Director of Community Information Kelly
Schulz wrote in an email on Oct. 28 that the district does not
comment on pending litigation.

In 2019, The News-Journal interviewed parents, teachers, advocates,
district officials and other experts regarding the system in place
for educating students with autism in Volusia County. The
newspaper's findings were two-fold, and are supported by the
conclusion of the DOJ's investigation.

Autistic student's mom: 'He's lived hell his entire school life'
Powell joined Harr in his office on Oct. 27 in Daytona Beach. She
said her 17-year-old son is now a senior at Atlantic High School
and she asserted school system staff have been mistreating him all
the way back to kindergarten.

"For no better term, he's lived hell his entire school life,"
Powell said. "He's been bullied, he's been mistreated. He's been
manhandled by teachers and parents and behavior specialists."

She said her son would come home "with excessive marks all over
him."

If I'd sent him to school with those you can bet I wouldn't have
been his parent for a long time," Powell said.

She said that her son was bullied by 27 other students at Creekside
Middle School. Powell added that her son was told to leave class
five minutes early to avoid being bullied by other students.

"Instead of them doing something to those children, my son had to
leave class five minutes early to make it to the next class so he
wouldn't get bullied," Powell said. "So my son got treated like he
was the one that was wrong, and it's just not OK."

Powell added that she had to home school her son several times
because of the way he was being treated at school.

She said her son was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and has an
IEP, an individualized education plan. But she said educators were
not following it.

She described her son as "highly functional" but that things such
as yelling, loud noises and chaotic situations will bother him or
prompt him to run.

'We're not here to punish the school board'
Harr said that Powell's son was subjected to many of the same
things cited in the settlement between Volusia County schools and
the Department of Justice.

"We are not here to punish the school board no matter how much they
may be deserving of that," Harr said. "We are here to make sure
that parents such as Mrs. Powell have the monetary resources to
provide services to their autistic children."

Harr said a judge will ultimately decide whether the lawsuit will
be classified as a class action.

Harr said on Oct. 28 that he has been contacted by other families
and he plans to add more plaintiffs to the lawsuit.

"We want to make sure those families are given the opportunity to
join this class action so their kids that were subjected to this
discriminatory practice have the monetary resources to get better
and to be successful in life. That's all we want for any child,"
Harr said.

Asked how he came to the $50 million figure, Harr said that the
issue goes back several years and that the settlement between the
Department of Justice and Volusia Schools found Autistic children
in more than half the schools. He said the money would pay for
medical services, physical therapy, or whatever the children
needed.

Harr added that the figure would be discussed when attorneys meet.

The U.S. Department of Justice reached the settlement with the
Volusia County School District after it found the district's
"systemic and discriminatory practices" were punishing students
with disabilities for behaviors the students couldn't control.

Volusia schools have three years to change and officials have said
change is already underway.  

The federal investigation into the district began in 2017, when an
attorney filed a complaint on behalf of the 11 students with
disabilities, nine of whom were diagnosed with autism spectrum
disorder.

The DOJ found the students' claims to be true. The district relied
on overly punitive disciplinary tactics and law enforcement to
address behaviors that are known, or should be known manifestations
of the students' disabilities.

The district also "routinely sought to exclude these students by
removing them," by asking parents to pick children up from school
or asking them to keep the children home, by suspending the
children, or by using Baker Act procedures to involuntarily hold
children at hospitals.

The settlement was not punitive and was not an admission of
liability or wrongdoing on the district's part.

The settlement gave the district three years to implement new
policies and practices, hire new personnel dedicated to oversight,
and implement new systems for data reporting and tracking, and
checks and balances. During that time, Volusia County Schools are
subject to federal oversight.

News-Journal investigation: Number of autistic students tripled
Autism is a developmental disorder that affects social skills,
communication and behavior. It has become increasingly prevalent in
the U.S. In the last school year, there were 1,233 students with
autism spectrum disorder in Volusia County. Ten years ago, there
were 387.

The News-Journal's investigation found that as the number of
students with autism more than tripled in Volusia County, the level
of staffing, funding and training for general teachers had
stagnated -- creating a system where families had to fight to get
their children the help they are legally entitled to receive. It
also found that the number of children with autism in Volusia
County who are Baker Acted was up 500% over four years, even though
experts that step will almost never help children overcome whatever
behaviors they are exhibiting.

The News-Journal spoke to families whose children had been taken in
police cars and involuntarily held at hospitals for behaviors
related to their disability; to families who took their children
out of the public school system for fear of retribution for their
behaviors; and to families who had to retain professional advocates
or lawyers to help them obtain the necessary support services for
their children to go to school. [GN]

WALGREEN CO: $13.75 401(k) Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walgreen Co.
received early approval for a $13.75 million class settlement in a
lawsuit challenging a suite of target date funds from Northern
Trust held in the pharmacy's 401(k) plan, according to a ruling by
a federal judge in Chicago.

The settlement, which is expected to benefit a class of nearly
200,000 people, is about 40% of the $34 million in estimated
damages calculated by the plan participants' expert, the parties
say. Walgreens has already removed the challenged funds from its
401(k) plan and will use an investment adviser to provide ongoing
investment monitoring services for the next three years, according
to the parties' settlement motion.

Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval to the
deal on Nov. 1. He previously denied the pharmacy's motion to
dismiss and certified the case as a class action.

Walgreens is accused of filling its retirement plan with expensive
and poorly performing Northern Trust target date funds that led to
steep losses. Walgreens allowed nearly 40% of its retirement plan
assets to be invested in these funds, which underperformed
comparable alternatives for nearly a decade, according to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit.

Funds offered by Northern Trust, which isn't named as a defendant,
have driven several recent ERISA lawsuits. Allstate Corp. lost its
bid to dismiss litigation over the Northern Trust funds in its
401(k) plan. Other cases are pending against Takeda Pharmaceuticals
USA Inc. and Northern Trust itself.

Walgreens is represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The class
of plan participants is represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP
and Barnow & Associates PC, which stand to receive more than $4.5
million in attorneys' fees if the deal is approved.

The case is Brown-Davis v. Walgreen Co., N.D. Ill., No.
1:19-cv-05392, preliminary settlement approval order 11/1/21. [GN]

WALMART INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended in Lebby
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LEBBY, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-01365-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
extension of the class certification motion deadline.

The Plaintiffs' time to move for class certification is postponed
until a date to be determined by further order of the Court.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

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

WARNER BROS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09205 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2021).

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

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. -- https://www.warnerbros.com/ --
is an American diversified multinational mass media and
entertainment conglomerate headquartered at the Warner Bros.[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


WEST COUNTY MEDICAL: Adams Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Adams and Alice Puentes, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated current and former employees v. WEST COUNTY
MEDICAL CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
21LBCV00590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 8, 2021), is
brought to seek relief against the Defendant for violations of
numerous Labor Code provisions for: failure to provide meal periods
or premium compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest
periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay all
regular and overtime wages due, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary
business expenditures, and failure to pay all wages due upon
termination of employment.

The Defendant has consistently maintained and enforced the
following unlawful policies and practices against the Plaintiffs:
Willfully refusing to pay for all hours worked, including both
regular and overtime wages; Willfully refusing to permit off-duty
meal periods or provide premium compensation in lieu thereof;
Willfully refusing to permit rest periods or provide premium
compensation in lieu thereof; Willfully refusing to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; and Willfully refusing to pay
all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as a dispensing nurse and
as a Certified Drug Counselor.

The Defendant owns and operates Medical Clinics and maintains its
headquarters in Santa Clarita, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Laura Theriault, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 ltheriault@mahoney-law.net


WEST COVINA: Bustillos TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE BUSTILLOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEST COVINA CORPORATE FITNESS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-04433-SB-AFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class:

      The approximate 4,000 individuals in the United States
      who, on or about February 20, 2021, were sent a call with
      the same or similar message as the following:

      "Hi this is Shannon calling from Gold"s Gym West Covina. I
      hope you"re well, sorry I missed you. I"m calling because
      I can see that you had considered joining our club not too
      long ago and I wanted to share with you a really great
      membership promotion we have going on right now. If you
      join by February 28th we can offer you zero enrollment fee
      with no contract. So if you have any questions, please
      give me a call back at the club. And I"m also going to
      follow up with a text message that includes the link for
      you to join on-line. Can"t wait to have you be a part of
      the Gold"s family. Thank you. Bye."

   2. appointing Hiraldo P.A. as Class Counsel pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

This case concerns the Defendant's blatant disregard for the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of (TCPA), and the use of
prerecorded messages to spam consumers with unwanted telemarketing
calls.

Specifically, on February 20, 2021, the Defendant, through its
management company, sent over 4,000 unsolicited prerecorded
messages to the Class members' telephones in violation of the TCPA,
the lawsuit says.

West Covina is a health and fitness gymnasium operating under the
d/b/a Gold's Gym West Covina.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30cCN6y
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

WESTLAKE PORTFOLIO: Tinoisamoa Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Portfolio
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Laalaai Tinoisamoa,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00281 (W.D.
Tex., Nov. 8, 2021).

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

Westlake Portfolio Management -- https://www.wpmservicing.com/ --
offers solutions for finance companies, private investors, and loan
holders of auto loan portfolios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



WORLD RUGBY: Ex-Rugby Player Carly Hayman Joins Concussion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Ransom, writing for Reuters, reports that Carl Hayman has been
diagnosed with early-onset dementia at the age of 41, shining the
spotlight on concussion-related illness in ex-rugby players.

Hayman, who played the last of his 45 tests at the 2007 World Cup,
revealed to sport website The Bounce that he had also been
diagnosed with probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

"I spent several years thinking I was going crazy. At one stage
that's genuinely what I thought," Hayman said. "It was the constant
headaches and all these things going on that I couldn't
understand."

Hayman, whose playing career ended six years ago with French club
Toulon, has struggled with alcohol abuse and was given a suspended
prison sentence in 2019 after admitting to charges of domestic
violence.

He has joined a class action lawsuit being prepared by former
players alleging rugby federations, including global governing body
World Rugby, failed to protect them from the risks of concussion.
Many former rugby players have been diagnosed with permanent brain
damage, early-onset dementia, depression or symptoms and signs of
CTE.

World Rugby said in July it would partner with independent
healthcare experts, unions and player associations to offer brain
healthcare to former players as part of a new welfare plan.

Hayman said he had hesitated before accepting offers to have his
brain tested for damage.

"I ummed and aahed for about 12 months about whether I'd do
anything about it. . . It would be pretty selfish of me to not
speak up … when I could help a guy in New Zealand perhaps who
doesn't understand what's happening to him and has no support
network to lean on." Reuters/DM168 [GN]

[*] BCF Partners File Submission on Proposed Class Action Reforms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the public consultation process on possible reforms
to the class action regime, BCF Business Law partners Andre Ryan
and Shaun E. Finn have filed submissions to the Quebec Ministry of
Justice.

This public consultation -- which arises out of a research mandate
given to the Class Actions Lab of the Universite de Montreal and
Professor Catherine Piche's report of September 2019 (the "Report")
-- is both timely and welcome.

The class action has evolved considerably since it came into force
in 1979. From a novel procedure, it has become an integral part
Quebec's legal framework and has played a meaningful role in
advancing judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour
modification. The increasing number and size of class actions mean
that the legislature, the judiciary, the legal profession, and all
of society have a vested interest in ensuring that it be as
effective and resilient as possible. It is also important that the
Quebec class action be fully consistent with the culture shift that
is embodied by the current Code of Civil Procedure ("C.C.P.") and
advocated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

While we commend the Report for its depth and creativity, however,
we do not agree with all its observations and proposed reforms.

Reinforcing the Court's Latitude at the Pre-Authorization Stage
Doing away with the authorization process as it currently exists
and replacing it with a hybrid procedural mechanism at the merits
stage (i.e. a truncated authorization test coupled with an elective
application to dismiss) would not simplify or accelerate the
litigation of class actions.

The problem of redundancy is largely illusory as few authorized
class actions in Quebec are subsequently targeted by an application
to dismiss on the merits. Rather than create a hybrid procedural
mechanism of the kind proposed in the Report, it would in our view
be more efficient to explicitly allow defendants to bring
applications to stay or dismiss as quickly as possible following
the filing of an application for authorization of a class action on
the basis of lack of jurisdiction, lis pendens, res judicata,
incapacity, absence of interest, and/or abuse of procedure. As the
"arguable case" criterion of article 575(2) C.C.P. has generated
some notable disagreement, one measured way of ensuring greater
rigour and objectivity would be to replace it with the more robust
criteria contained in article 225.4 (par. 3) of the Securities Act.
The hybrid procedural mechanism proposed by the Report would
reverse the onus of demonstration that has existed since 1979 by
placing it primarily on the defendant rather than the plaintiff,
contrary to what is done in all other North American jurisdictions.
This disharmony with the other provinces will make it much harder
for plaintiffs and defendants to co-operate across jurisdictions,
even though many Quebec class actions have a multijurisdictional
dimension. The adoption of the hybrid procedural mechanism would
have the effect of setting aside 42 years of case law and require
the courts to rebegin from scratch at great institutional cost.
Most of the statistics cited in the Report were collected before
the creation of the Class Actions Chamber in the Judicial District
of Montreal (by far Quebec's most active class action district), a
body of specialist judges whose express purpose is to provide
enhanced efficiency and consistency.

Rethinking the Assessment of Risk When Awarding Counsel Fees
While we make no specific submissions about class counsel fees, we
note that, although the approach of Quebec courts to fee awards is
substantially similar to that of the other provinces, Quebec class
counsel do not face the prospect of obtaining a significant adverse
costs award and do not have to contend with carriage disputes. This
means that they generally assume less risk, a key factor courts
consider when awarding class counsel fees.

Doing Away with Quebec's Controversial "First-to-File" Rule
It would be opportune to replace the "first-to-file rule" with a
preliminary screening of competing applications for authorization
by the case management judge in order to promote quality instead of
simplistic celerity.

The Report and the consultation process to which it has given rise
are very positive developments. The class action is an important
procedural mechanism whose principle vocation is to provide access
to justice to large numbers of consumers and ordinary citizens. It
is therefore entirely appropriate to study the Quebec class action
more closely and, if necessary, adopt reforms in order to improve
it. While some of the more substantial reforms outlined in the
Report are certainly innovative, we respectfully submit that the
hybrid procedural mechanism it proposes would not facilitate,
streamline, or enhance class action practice in Quebec. We submit
that other, more measured changes are likelier to produce benefits
for all stakeholders, most notably the class members themselves.
[GN]

[*] Bill to Promote Fair Distribution of Class Action Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paulinet Tamaray, writing for Australian Lawyer, reports that the
government has introduced new legislation that it said would
promote the fair and reasonable distribution of class action
proceeds.

The bill, which was introduced to parliament on 27 October, is
expected to improve outcomes for litigation funding participants.

The proposed law addresses issues on litigation funding and the
regulation of the class action industry. It will enhance court
oversight over the process of distributing the proceeds from a
class action between the litigation funder and the litigation
participants.

Under the bill, courts will be given the power to either approve or
change methods for distributing claim proceeds to non-members of a
litigation funding scheme in consideration of scheme members'
interests to ensure fairness, the government said.

The proposed legislation establishes the following rebuttable: "If
more than 30% [of class action proceeds] is to be paid to entities
who are not scheme members, including funders and lawyers, the
distribution of claim proceeds is not fair and reasonable."

To ensure that the interests of class members are properly
represented, the bill will require plaintiffs to consent to
becoming members of a class action litigation funding scheme before
funders can impose fees or commissions.

The proposed legislation also strengthens the role of independent
experts in helping the courts to assess proposed litigation funding
fees.

These legal reforms aim to address the kinds of misconduct
demonstrated in the recent Banksia case, which led to a criminal
investigation into the lawyers involved. As a result of Banksia's
2012 collapse, investors had lost more than $660m; in response, a
group of elderly investors sued the company.

The lawyers involved in the class action subsequently attempted to
claim more than $19m million in legal and funding fees from the
plaintiffs. The overcharged expenses were described as "grossly
unethical conduct," and the government was called upon to stop
lawyers from "gouging disproportionately high fees from class
action members," Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said in a report
published by AFR. [GN]

[*] Consumers Balk at Attorneys' $68MM Fee Request in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Edward Moreno, writing for Law360, report that a member of a
class action of consumers who brought price-fixing claims against
broiler-chicken producers told an Illinois federal court that their
attorneys' request for $68 million for their work in the suit is
inflated by $3 million and should be rejected. [GN]

[*] Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Provides Update on 2021 Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP's update provides an overview of key
class action developments during the third quarter of 2021.

Part I covers two important decisions from the Third and Ninth
Circuits regarding the scope of the Section 1 exemption under the
Federal Arbitration Act.

Part II addresses a Ninth Circuit decision endorsing the use of a
motion to deny class certification at the pleadings stage.

Part III reports on a Fourth Circuit decision vacating a class
certification order because of the numerosity requirement.

Part IV discusses a Third Circuit decision rejecting the
certification of an "issue" class under Rule 23(c)(4) where the
district court did not find that one of the Rule 23(b) factors was
satisfied.

And finally, Part V analyzes a Ninth Circuit decision clarifying
that a defendant need not raise a personal jurisdiction defense as
to a putative absent class member at the outset of a case, and
instead can assert that defense for the first time at the class
certification stage.

I. The Third and Ninth Circuits Address the Federal Arbitration
Act's Section 1 Exemption

The Third and Ninth Circuits both weighed in this past quarter on
the so-called Section 1 exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA"), which exempts "workers engaged in foreign or interstate
commerce" from having to arbitrate their claims under federal law.
9 U.S.C. Sec. 1. The Section 1 exemption has been the subject of
substantial litigation in recent years, particularly in the context
of class actions involving "gig" economy workers, and the decisions
from the Third and Ninth Circuits provide additional clarity to
litigants regarding the scope of this exemption. Gibson Dunn served
as counsel to the defendants in both appeals.

In Harper v. Amazon.com Services, Inc., 12 F.4th 287 (3d Cir.
2021), a delivery driver claiming he was misclassified as an
independent contractor asserted that he could not be compelled to
arbitrate his claim because he and other New Jersey drivers made
some deliveries across state lines and therefore qualified for the
Section 1 exemption. Id. at 292. The district court deemed that
contention to raise a question of fact and it ordered discovery,
without examining Amazon's contention that state law would also
require arbitration even if the Plaintiff was exempt from
arbitration under the FAA. Id. The Third Circuit vacated the
district court's order and "clarif[ied] the steps courts should
follow -- before discovery about the scope of Sec. 1 -- when the
parties' agreement reveals a clear intent to arbitrate." Id. at
296. Under this three-part framework, a district court must first
determine, based on the allegations in the complaint, whether the
agreement applies to a class of workers that fall within the
exemption. If it is not clear from the face of the complaint, the
court must assume Sec. 1 applies and "consider[] whether the
contract still requires arbitration under any applicable state
law." Id. If the arbitration clause is unenforceable under state
law, only then does the court "return to federal law and decide
whether Sec. 1 applies, a determination that may benefit from
limited and restricted discovery on whether the class of workers
primarily engage in interstate or foreign commerce." Id.

In Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 7 F.4th 854 (9th Cir.
2021), the Ninth Circuit addressed whether rideshare drivers are
transportation workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce;
it joined the growing number of courts holding that such drivers do
not fall within this Section 1 exemption. Although the plaintiffs
claimed they fell under the Section 1 exemption because they
sometimes cross state lines, and also pick up and drop off
passengers from airports who are engaging in interstate travel, the
Ninth Circuit held this was not enough to qualify for the
exemption. Id. at 863. In particular, the Ninth Circuit cited the
district court's finding that only 2.5% of trips fulfilled by Uber
started and ended in different states, and that only 10.1% of trips
began or ended at an airport (and not all of the customers' flights
involved interstate travel). Id. at 864. This sporadic interstate
movement "cannot be said to be a central part of the class member's
job description," and thus a driver "does not qualify for the
exemption just because she occasionally performs" work in
interstate commerce. Id. at 865. The Ninth Circuit's holding
"join[s] the growing majority of courts holding that Uber drivers
as a class of workers do not fall within the 'interstate commerce'
exemption from the FAA." Id. at 861.

II. The Ninth Circuit Affirms the Granting of a Motion to Deny
Class Certification at the Pleadings Stage

The propriety of class certification is typically decided after
discovery occurs and the plaintiff moves to certify a class. But in
some cases, a defendant can properly move to deny class
certification at the outset of a case. That is exactly what the
Ninth Circuit endorsed this quarter in Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 13
F.4th 908 (9th Cir. 2021), a case in which Gibson Dunn served as
counsel for the defendant.

In Lawson, the district court granted the defendant's motion to
deny class certification on the ground that the vast majority of
putative class members were bound by arbitration agreements with
class action waivers. Lawson, 13 F.4th at 913. The Ninth Circuit
affirmed, explaining that because only the plaintiff and one other
person had opted out of the arbitration clause and class action
waiver in their contracts, the plaintiff was "neither typical of
the class nor an adequate representative," and the proceedings were
"unlikely to generate common answers." Id. The Ninth Circuit also
rejected the plaintiff's argument that the denial of class
certification was premature because the plaintiff had not yet moved
for certification, and specifically held that Rule 23 "allows a
preemptive motion by a defendant to deny class certification." Id.

III. The Fourth Circuit Addresses the Numerosity Requirement

Plaintiffs seeking class certification often have little trouble
satisfying Rule 23(a)(1)'s requirement that "the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." With
proposed classes commonly covering thousands or millions of
members, appellate courts rarely have an opportunity to address
this numerosity requirement. But in certain areas, including in
pharmaceutical antitrust class actions, it has become increasingly
common for plaintiffs to seek certification of small classes of
sophisticated and well-resourced businesses claiming substantial
damages. This past quarter, however, the Fourth Circuit vacated an
order certifying such a class after finding that the district court
had applied an erroneous standard for assessing numerosity. Gibson
Dunn represented one of the defendants in this action.

In re Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation, 7 F.4th 227 (4th Cir.
2021), rejected a district court's conclusion that a putative class
of 35 purchasers of certain prescription drugs had satisfied Rule
23's numerosity requirement. The court explained that the district
court's numerosity analysis rested on "faulty logic" and neglected
to consider that "the text of Rule 23(a)(1) refers to whether 'the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,'
not whether the class is so numerous that failing to certify
presents the risk of many separate lawsuits." 7 F.4th at 234-35
(quoting In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837 F.3d 238 (3d Cir.
2016)). Accordingly, when evaluating numerosity, the question is
whether a class action is preferable as compared to joinder -- not
as compared to the prospect of individual lawsuits. Id. at 235. And
with respect to class members' ability and motivation to litigate,
the court emphasized that the proper comparison is not individual
suits, but rather whether it is practicable to join class members
into a single action. Significantly, the Fourth Circuit emphasized
that Rule 23(a)(1) requires plaintiffs to produce evidence that,
absent certification of a class, the putative class members would
not join the suit and that it would be uneconomical for smaller
claimants to be individually joined. Id. at 235-36 & nn. 5 & 6.

IV. The Third Circuit Heightens the Standard for the Certification
of "Issue" Classes

Rule 23(c)(4) provides that, "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be
brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular
issues." Some courts have read this language as permitting the
certification of classes without a separate showing that the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) are satisfied. In
practice, this view of Rule 23(c)(4) can permit plaintiffs to
bypass the need to establish that common questions predominate. The
Third Circuit this quarter refused to adopt such a reading of Rule
23, and instead held that a certification of an "issue" class under
Rule 23(c)(4) is not permissible unless one of the Rule 23(b)
requirements is also satisfied.

In Russell v. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates,
the Third Circuit reversed a district court's certification of an
"issue" class under Rule 23(c)(4) because the district court had
not found that any subsection of Rule 23(b) was satisfied. 15 F.4th
259, 271 (3d Cir. 2021). The court explained that "[t]o be a 'class
action,' a party must satisfy Rule 23 and all of its requirements,"
and concluded that class certification was improperly granted
because there had been no determination if Rule 23(b) could be met.
Id. at 262, 271-73. Thus, plaintiffs in the Third Circuit seeking
to certify an issue-only class under Rule 23(c)(4) must still
satisfy the other requirements of Rule 23, including showing that
"action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3)." Id. at
267.

V. The Ninth Circuit Holds That a Defendant Does Not Waive a
Personal Jurisdiction Defense to Absent Class Members by Not
Raising It at the Pleadings Stage

In our First Quarter 2020 Update on Class Actions, we covered
decisions from the Fifth and D.C. Circuits holding that the proper
time to adjudicate whether a court has personal jurisdiction over
absent class members is at the class certification stage, not at
the pleading stage. This past quarter, the Ninth Circuit aligned
itself with these other Circuits.

In Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., 8 F.4th 872 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth
Circuit ruled that a defendant can raise a personal jurisdiction
objection as to absent class members at the class certification
stage, even if the defendant did not raise it in its first
responsive pleading. In Moser, a California resident filed a
putative nationwide class action alleging that the defendant, a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Florida, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
calls to persons across the country. Id. at 874. When the plaintiff
moved to certify a nationwide class, the defendant argued that the
district court could not certify a nationwide class because the
court lacked personal jurisdiction over any of the non-California
plaintiffs' claims under the Supreme Court's decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). But
the district court declined to consider the argument, holding that
the defendant waived it by failing to raise the objection to
personal jurisdiction in its first Rule 12 motion to dismiss.
Moser, 8 F.4th at 875.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that the defendant had not
waived its personal jurisdiction objection to nationwide
certification by not raising it in the first responsive pleading.
Id. at 877. The court reasoned that because defendants do not yet
have "available" a "personal jurisdiction defense to the claims of
unnamed putative class members who were not yet parties to the
case" at the pleadings stage, defendants could not waive such an
objection before the certification stage. Id. This ruling clarifies
that defendants in the Ninth Circuit do not need to raise personal
jurisdiction challenges to putative absent class members at the
outset of the case, and instead should raise such challenges at the
class certification stage.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers contributed to this client
update: Christopher Chorba, Kahn Scolnick, Bradley Hamburger,
Lauren Blas, Wesley Sze, Emily Riff, Jeremy Weese, and Dylan
Noceda.

Gibson Dunn attorneys are available to assist in addressing any
questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact
the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm's
Class Actions or Appellate and Constitutional Law practice groups,
or any of the following lawyers:

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7000,
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher Chorba - Co-Chair, Class Actions Practice Group - Los
Angeles (+1 213-229-7396, cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
Theane Evangelis - Co-Chair, Litigation Practice Group, Los Angeles
(+1 213-229-7726, tevangelis@gibsondunn.com)
Kahn A. Scolnick - Co-Chair, Class Actions Practice Group - Los
Angeles (+1 213-229-7656, kscolnick@gibsondunn.com)
Bradley J. Hamburger - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7658,
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren M. Blas - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7503,
lblas@gibsondunn.com) [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 ***