---

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

              Wednesday, December 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 234

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Curtis Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Similac False Advertising Class Action
ABSOLUTE FENCING: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACTION EMERGENCY: Faller Sues Over Unlawful Tow Charges
AEROWAYS STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges

AETNA INSURANCE: Kentucky District Court Dismisses Smith Class Suit
AETNA INSURANCE: Smith Suit Over ERISA & RICO Violations Dismissed
AFFORDABLE INSURANCE: Baus Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
ALDER BOUTIQUE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALMOND COW: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ALT PLATFORM: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALUMINUM FABRICATORS: New York District Court Tosses Klimczak Suit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: $18MM Settlement Hearing Set on February 10
AMERICAN 3B: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN RED: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Files Amicus Curie Brief

AMERICAN STANDARD: Duckworth Sues Over Vehicle Insurance Claims
AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Baumann Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Nunez Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
BETTY LOU: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BINANCE CAPITAL: Kuklineski Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 22 Deadline
BLOOF LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOTANIKA LIFE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOXFOX INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRIDE BOX: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BROOKLYN WINERY: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASCADE DESIGNS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHARLES J. BECKER: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEEF HOLDINGS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHUCKANUT BAY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 18 Deadline
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cops' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
CITY HOME: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLEAN CLOTHES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CLICKSTOP INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLUTCHPOINTS INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLUMBIA PROPERTY: Jones Sues Over Sale to Pacific Investment
COMMERCIAL METALS: Flores Suit Removed to C.D. California
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Reynolds Files Suit in D. Minnesota

CONSTELLATION NETWORK: Faces Morgan Suit Over Crypto Token Swap
CONTACT LENS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cook Sues Over FDCPA Violation
DBH WORLDWIDE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIAMOND SOURCE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DO YOUR GIN: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DOLAN NORTHWEST: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DONALD E. BRIGANDI: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRINKMORE WATER: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUNN TIRE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DYKES LUMBER: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
E & J GALLO: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EARGO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of December 6 Deadline
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: $63.4MM Class Settlement Hearing Set on Feb. 23
ENJOY FLOWERS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ENVY GAMING: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ESKENAZI HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
EWINDOWCOVERINGS LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXCLUSIVE FURNITURE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXPAND FOOD: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

EXTRACT LABS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EZ BOOK: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FASTENAL CO: Prelim. Approval Hearing on Jackson Settlement Vacated
FIA LIQUIDATION: May Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Judge Vacate Class Cert. for Ohio Ratepayers

FISHUSA INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GANNETT CO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GETMYBOAT INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOBROS.COM: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GOFUNDME INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Alleged App Tracking
GOOGLE LLC: Fox Williams Attorneys Discuss DPA Class Action Ruling
HARTFORD FIRE: RV Agate Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
HAY HOUSE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Extension of Discovery Deadline Sought
HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due June 17, 2022
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Martin Files Suit in S.D. New York
HIBERNIA RESOURCES: Acevedo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
HOBBS RENTAL: Fails to Timely Pay OT Wages, Casey Suit Claims

HOEGH LNG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 27 Deadline
HOMEWETBAR LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HONEY PACIFICA: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOUSTON NORTHWEST: Riley Files Appeal in Texas Appeals Court
HP INC: Greenberg Sues Over Defective Laptop Hinges

HUM NUTRITION: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYDE PARK ANTIQUES: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IC SYSTEM: Bid for Class Certification Due Dec 17
IDENTITY REHAB: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IDENTITY THEFT: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ILLINOIS WINGSTOP: Insurer Settles BIPA Coverage Dispute
ILLINOIS: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Bid to Certify Class
IN GOD WE MUST: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INDESTRUCTIBLE SHOES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INGRID & ISABEL: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 13 Deadline
INTEGRATED SECURITY: Suarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
INTERNET SHOPPING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERSECTIONS INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INVENTURE FOODS: Spell Sues Over Misleading Product Labels

JACK HANLEY GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAMES ENTERPRISE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JCS PRODUCTS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOMASHOP INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JP OUTFITTERS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JUDY PREP: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUMA VENTURES: Bedford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JUSTANTOM LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KANGMEI PHARMA: To Pay $385MM to Investors in Securities Class Suit
KATHY KUO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

KDF FORESTRY: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KIIERR INTERNATIONAL: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Court Junks L.N.P. Complaint w/o Prejudice
KIRRIN FINCH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ivy Creek Sues Over Recalled Devices

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lawrence Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KRISP TECHNOLOGIES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KYO AUTISM THERAPY: Gotishan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LA CASA VENTURES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LABRUNA SKINCARE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

LAGUNITAS BREWING: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAMPS PLUS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY: Stawis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
LEIF INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIBERTY HEALTH: Final Judgment & Order Entered in Lin Class Suit

LIFEVAC INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 14 Deadline
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LINDBLAD EXPEDITIONS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LINGERIE BOX: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LIQUIDSPACE INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LISTENER BRANDS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LITTLE COTTAGE: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LITTLE COTTAGE: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LITTLE SPOON: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LIVELEANTODAY.COM: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LONDON SILVER: Bid for Class Status Filed in Antitrust Case
LONGBOW LOGISTICS: Knight Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOOT COMPANY: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOVEBOOK LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MADE BY HAVEN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MAI JOHNSON: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MARQUEZ BROTHERS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARYLAND: Gorres Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
MASS. BAY BREWING: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MASSACHUSETTS: High Court Won't Hear Secret Recording Ban Suit
MATTRESS WAREHOUSE: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MAURY COBB: Thomas Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kitsap County Files RICO Suit in W.D. Wash.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kitsap County Sues Over Deceptive Marketing

MDL 2670: DPPs' Bid for Set Aside Order in Antitrust Suit Denied
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Goldberger Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Marto-Maedel Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
META PLATFORMS: Faces Depot Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
METALS CO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline

METRO DECOR: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICREOS NORTH AMERICA: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Mayer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pollak Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
MILITARY UNIFORM: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MINT MOBILE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MISS JESSIES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOLSON COORS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOO ORGANIC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOOMOO INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MRS BPO: Bullard Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
MYLE VAPE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MYPLASTICHEART LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MYSTERY TACKLE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MYX FITNESS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NATIONAL VITAMIN: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAUTILUS INC: $4.25M Class Settlement in Walker Suit Has Prelim. OK
NDF1 LLC: Albert Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NEATO ROBOTICS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NETARTS HOLDINGS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NETRITION INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW SGC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK EXPRESS: Kotecki Sues Over Failure to Pay Applicable Wages
NEW YORK: Bid for Judgment Denial in Matzell Suit Appealed
NIFTY GATEWAY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NIKOLA CORP: Investor Group to Lead Securities Class Action
NINE ENERGY: Stinson et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
NISSAN NORTH: Martinez Suit Removed to D. Utah
NO CHEWING ALLOWED: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTH AMERICAN BREWERIES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NOUHAUS INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NOVA MARKETING: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NURTURE INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NUTRAE LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NUTRIGOLD INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.

OASIS SNACKS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OFRA COSMETICS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OLD SCHOOL TEES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONCE UPON A FARM: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONLY HUMAN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.

OPTIMUM NUTRITION: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORGANIC OLIVIA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ORGANICIX LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAR-A-DICE: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 17, 2022
PARADE INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PATTERN BRANDS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAWN AMERICA: Thomas Files Suit in D. Minnesota
PEARL BANYAN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
PHH MORTGAGE: Salter Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

PIGGY LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POPCORNOPOLIS LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRIME STAFFING: Court Enters Case Management Plan & Sched Order
PRINTFLY CORPORATION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Aviles Sues Over Defective Products

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Old Spice Benzene Class Action in N.Y.
PROCTORU INC: Thakkar Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Carroll Files Suit in C.D. California
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Senser Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Freeman Suit Removed to D. South Carolina

PROSPINACH LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PULTE HOME: Mount, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Families
PURE ENERGY: Metzler Files Suit in S.D. New York
PURE STEEPS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Court Certifies Rule 23 Injunctive Relief Class

PUSH INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUEBEC: Authorizes Class Suit Against Religious Order Over Assault
QUEBEC: Partial Settlement Reached in Detention Period Lawsuit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Mass.
RAE WELLNESS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RCMG LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Branch Suit Claims
RE-THINK IT: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RECLAIM REAL: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REDLINE GLOBAL: Howard Seeks Relief Workers' Unpaid Overtime Pay
REMRISE INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

REVIVE BRANDS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RICE'S HONEY: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RING BOXES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RIVIERA SEAFOOD: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ROB'S BRANDS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Suit
ROBLOX CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Facial Biometrics
ROCK PARADISE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROMINA FURNITURE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROVER'S ROMPHOUSE: Lugo Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages

ROWDY MERMAID: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RYDER SYSTEM: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAILO INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAILORS' TAILOR: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SALADINO'S INC: Taft Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SANDHILLS GLOBAL: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SASOL LTD: Execs Insured Against Lake Charles Class Action Damages
SAVOR BEAUTY: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCANPAN USA: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.

SCOTTS CHEAP: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHATTUCK LABS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SHIPBOB INC: Chichester et al. Seek BDRs' Unpaid Overtime Wages
SIGNET JEWELERS: Distribution Plan in Securities Suit Approved
SNAP INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 10, 2022 Deadline

SOCLEAN INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit for CPAP Foam Degradation
SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Settlement Class Initially OK'd in Harding
SPOKEO INC: Kellman Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights
STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Jaunich Suit
STATE FARM: Wiggins Suit Removed to D. South Carolina

STEELE, MN: Settlement in Coffey Suit Gets Initial Nod
STONECO LTD: Ray Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
STONECO LTD: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 18 Deadline
SYDNEY'S TRANSPORT: Edwards Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Mississippi
TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

TENET FINTECH: Boxtel Hits Share Drop Over Shady Acquisition
TENGRAM CAPITAL: Kallamni Sues Over Benzene in Body Spray Products
TVN ENTERPRISES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ULTRA PRO: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

UNIFIN INC: Sanchez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
UNION PACIFIC: Adkins' Reply to Opposition of Remand Bid Due Dec. 6
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Ellis Files Suit in E.D. Texas
UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Barlow Suit Wins Approval
UNITED STATES: USCIS Revises Guidance in Response to Class Action

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: BOT Appeals Ruling in Rojas Fee Refund Suit
UNPLUGGED PERFORMANCE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
US PATRIOT: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VALLEY FORGE: JDL Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir.
VALVE CORP: Judge Tosses Antitrust Class Action Filed by Wolfire

VANMOOF USA: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VERIZON CONNECT: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VIRGINIA: Upgrades Unemployment System Amid Class Action Lawsuit
VONACHEN SERVICES: Faegre Drinker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
VSC HOLDINGS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VXL ENTERPRISES: Duff Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WASHINGTON: Seyfarth Attorney Discusses Long-Term Care Act Suit
WBQ USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WE COMPANY: California Appeals Court Affirms Stay of Goldstein Suit
WELLACO INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses Herrera Class Suit With Prejudice
WELLS FARGO: Lau Team May Object Naming of Lanning's Acting Counsel
WHEATON VILLAGE: Peoples Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Warren Terzian Investigates Loan Class Action
WM. MICHAEL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

WONOLO INC: Misclassifies Employees, Bogle Suit Claims
WORLDPANTRY.COM: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
ZILLA HOLDINGS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Barua Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price

ZILLOW GROUP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
[*] New South Wales LECC Investigates Strip Searches Following Suit

                            *********

7-ELEVEN INC: Curtis Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Devon Curtis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No.
2021-CH-05029 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Nov. 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-06079 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

7-Eleven, Inc. -- https://corp.7-eleven.com/corp/home -- is an
American chain of convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas in
the U.S. state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW PC
          55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Fax: (312) 275-7895
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Michael Blouin, Esq.
          Tyler Christian Richards, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 558-5981
          Email: dblouin@winston.com
                 trichards@winston.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Similac False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges certain label claims touting Similac
Pro-Advance infant formula as able to confer benefits the same as
or similar to those of breast milk are false and misleading.

The 11-page lawsuit contends that the misrepresentation that
defendant Abbott Laboratories' formula is "Our Closest Formula to
Breast Milk" has both dissuaded consumers from breastfeeding, even
though it is widely recommended by pediatricians and global health
bodies, and led buyers to wrongly believe Similac Pro-Advance is
"almost equivalent" to real breast milk. Moreover, the suit alleges
Abbott Labs' claim that Similac Pro-Advance is "non-GMO" is
misleading and a "half-truth" given the product is made from dairy
ingredients from cows who have consumed genetically modified feed.

"These claims are false, deceptive and misleading," the complaint
alleges. "No competent and reliable scientific evidence, which
would include studies with control groups of exclusively breastfed
infants, compared to infants fed the Product, and show the
similarities between breast milk and the Product, exists."

The filing argues that consumers must and do rely on a company to
honestly identify and describe the components, attributes, and
features of a product relative to itself and other comparable
products or alternatives. By labeling Similac Pro-Advance in the
manner at issue in the suit, Abbott Labs, the case alleges, has
gained an advantage over other companies and consumers looking to
buy infant formula that can confer immune system and brain and eye
development benefits similar to breast milk.

"The value of the Product that plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by defendant," the suit charges.


According to the filing, representations found prominently on the
formula's front label include "Immune Support," "Brain & Eye
Development," "Lutein," "Vitamin E," "DHA," "'2'-FL HMO - Human
Milk Oligosaccharide (not from human milk)," "NON-GMO" and "Our
Closest Formula to Breast Milk." The case relays that breast milk,
which contains myriad molecular and live tissue components unique
to each mother and that cannot be manufactured, is the "gold
standard" for infant feeding, according to the World Health
Organization and U.S. authorities.

Noting that infant formula is critical for children whose mothers
may be unable to breastfeed or produce enough milk, the marketing
of infant formula, according to the suit, "sometimes goes beyond
meeting these limited needs, to tout itself as equivalent to breast
milk." With regard to Similac Pro-Advance, the complaint contends
that the defendant's representations that the product contains
lutein, vitamin E, DHA and HMO imply that the inclusion of these
constituents "can approach the benefits from breast milk." As such,
appropriate studies to substantiate these claims should include a
control group of breastfed infants given the structure/function
benefit of the formula is compared to outcomes for breastfed
infants, the case says.

According to the lawsuit, however, no competent and reliable
scientific evidence exists to back the close-to-breast-milk claims
on which Similac is touted.

The lawsuit looks to represent consumers in Illinois, North Dakota,
Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia, Kansas, Wyoming and Delaware who
bought Similac Pro-Advance infant formula during the relevant
statute of limitations period. [GN]

ABSOLUTE FENCING: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Absolute Fencing Gear
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Absolute Fencing Gear Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10061 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Absolute Fencing Gear -- https://www.absolutefencinggear.com/ --
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey, is the world's leading
manufacturer and supplier of equipment and services for
Olympic-style fencing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


ACTION EMERGENCY: Faller Sues Over Unlawful Tow Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
Karl Faller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Action Emergency Management Services, Inc., Action
Towing, Inc., Action Enterprises Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 21-2607D (Commonwealth of Mass., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought
against the Defendants to seek damages based on unlawful tow
charges.

The Massachusetts Towing Law, "Trespass Tow" statute allows for the
towing of a car from private property. The statute only allows a
tow company to charge for the "removal and storage" of vehicle. The
towing charges "shall not exceed" the towing fees determined by
what is not the Department of Public Utilities and storage charges
"shall not be more than" $35.00. Additionally, any towing company
that does not comply with the statute (including the towards nd
storage fees) "shall release such vehicle to its owner without
assessing any charges for its removal or storage.

On July 3, 2021, the Defendant towed the Plaintiff's car from a
sparking spot in Malden, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff has
mistakenly parked in the wrong parking lot. After the Plaintiff
realized his car was towed, he called the Defendant to get his cr
back. When the Plaintiff went to retrieve his car on July 24, 2021,
the Defendant refused to release the car unless the Plaintiff pay
$1,222.00. The invoice included unlawful charges including a
one-hour pre-tow recovery fee of $108.00, a relocation fee for
moving the car within the Defendant's own lot of $108.00, and a
certified mail fee of $75.00 for sending the Plaintiff a letter.
The Defendant would not release the Plaintiff's car until he paid
the full balance on the invoice. The Plaintiff protested the
additional fees included on the invoice, but the Defendant refuses
to release the car, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Boston, Massachusetts.

Action Emergency Management Services, Inc. is Massachusetts
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C
          One State Street, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-390-7570
          Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


AEROWAYS STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YANKO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC.;
PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP.; ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN
CORP.; ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL; and JANETTE SUAREZ, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-24028-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 16, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cruz was employed by the Defendants as janitor.

AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC. is in the employment agencies
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AETNA INSURANCE: Kentucky District Court Dismisses Smith Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLOMAN SMITH, Individually and as class action
representative on behalf of all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA INSURANCE, Defendant, Civil Action No.
5:20-332-KKC (E.D. Ky.), Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central
Division, Lexington, granted Aetna's motion to dismiss in
accordance with the opinion and order she entered.

The matter is dismissed and stricken from the Court's active
docket.

The judgment is final and appealable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/uxezu42p from Leagle.com.


AETNA INSURANCE: Smith Suit Over ERISA & RICO Violations Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLOMAN SMITH, Individually and as class action
representative on behalf of all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA INSURANCE, Defendant, Civil Action No.
5:20-332-KKC (E.D. Ky.), Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central
Division, Lexington, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Smith receives disability benefits under a disability
insurance plan that is administered by Aetna. He asserts that Aetna
is wrongfully deducting from his long-term disability payments the
amount of the Social Security retirement benefits he receives. He
appears to assert a claim for wrongful denial of disability
benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), and a claim under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
U.S.C. Section 1964(c).

The policy provides that the monthly benefits payable under the
plan "will be the lesser of the Scheduled Monthly LTD Benefit; and
the Maximum Monthly Benefit; minus all other income benefits, but
not less than the Minimum Monthly Benefit." The plan defines "Other
Income Benefits" to include "disability, retirement, or
unemployment benefits required or provided for under any law of a
government," including "benefits under the Federal Social Security
Act." Thus, looking just to these provisions, Aetna must deduct
from Smith's long-term disability benefits the Social Security
retirement benefits he receives.

Mr. Smith's claim is based on an exception to this rule set forth
in the plan. That exception provides that the Social Security
retirement benefits that the insured received "before the date you
become disabled under this LTD plan will not reduce your monthly
benefits."

Thus, the sole issue on the Defendant's motion is whether Smith
began receiving Social Security retirement benefits before or after
the date he became disabled under the plan. If Smith began
receiving Social Security benefits before the date he became
disabled under the plan, then Aetna should not deduct the Social
Security benefits from his disability benefit payments. If, on the
other hand, Smith began receiving the Social Security benefits
after the date he became disabled under the plan, then Aetna must
deduct the Social Security benefits from his disability benefit
payments.

Mr. Smith asserts that he became disabled in August 2015 and began
receiving short-term disability insurance benefits at that time. He
asserts that he began receiving Social Security retirement benefits
about three months later, in December 2015. Thus, Smith began
receiving Social Security retirement benefits after the date he
became disabled under the plan. Accordingly, under the plan's plain
language, Aetna must deduct the retirement benefits from Smith's
disability payments.

Mr. Smith argues that he should be deemed to have become disabled
on Feb. 9, 2016 because that was the date he became eligible to
receive monthly long-term disability benefits. The date that
matters in determining whether Social Security benefits must be
deducted from the long-term disability benefits, however, is the
date the insured becomes disabled; not the date he becomes eligible
to receive long-term disability benefits. The two dates are not the
same.

Judge Caldwell opines that an insured must be disabled as defined
by the plan for a certain "Elimination Period" before he is deemed
eligible to receive long-term disability benefits. The period of
disability begins "on the first day you are disabled as a direct
result of a significant change in your physical or mental condition
occurring while you are insured under this Plan." In Smith's case,
this date would be in August 2015. That is the date he ceased
working and began receiving short-term disability benefits.

As to the date that Smith became eligible to receive long-term
disability benefits, that date did not occur until after the
"Elimination Period" had passed. The Elimination Period is the
"later of 26 weeks or the end of your short term disability
benefits." Thus, by the plan's plain language, the date that a
person becomes disabled under the plan is before the date that he
is eligible to receive long-term disability benefits.

Mr. Smith asserts he became disabled in August 2015. He further
asserts that he did not begin receiving Social Security Retirement
benefits until December 2015. Thus, by the policy's plain language,
Aetna must deduct the retirement benefits from the disability
payments due Smith under the policy.

Moreover, even if there were any ambiguity in the policy on this
issue, Judge Caldwell would have to uphold Aetna's interpretation
of the policy unless it was "arbitrary and capricious." This is
because the plan provides that the claims administrator and plan
administrator "have absolute authority and sole discretion to
interpret and apply plan provisions and determine facts, benefits,
and eligibility." The plan administrator decided that Smith's
Social Security retirement benefits must be deducted from his
disability payments because the retirement benefits began after the
date he became disabled. At the very least, this decision was not
arbitrary and capricious because it is at least a rational
interpretation of the plan's provisions.

Accordingly, any claim for benefits due under the plan pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) must be dismissed.

As to Smith's claim under RICO, Smith must assert that Aetna
committed an "illegal predict act." Smith appears to assert that
Aetna committed the illegal predicate act of mail fraud. He asserts
that Aetna mailed him and other similarly situated insureds a
letter stating that the long-term disability plan required that
their Social Security retirement income be deducted from their
long-term disability benefits.

Mail fraud has two elements: A scheme or artifice to defraud and a
mailing to execute the scheme. The scheme to defraud must involve a
misrepresentation or omission reasonably calculated to deceive. As
Judge Caldwell finds, the plan administrator's decision was based
on the plan's plain language and, at the very least, was a rational
interpretation of the plan's provisions. Accordingly, Smith has not
alleged any misrepresentation by Aetna. For this reason, his RICO
claim must also be dismissed.

For all these reasons, Judge Caldwell granted Aetna's motion to
dismiss. She dismissed the matter and struck from the Court's
active docket. Smith's pending motions for partial summary judgment
and for class certification are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fnxem9m5 from Leagle.com.


AFFORDABLE INSURANCE: Baus Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Baus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AFFORDABLE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No.
CACE-21-020446 (Fla. 17th Judicial, Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov.
12, 2021), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), arising from the Defendant's violations of the TCPA and its
implementing regulations.

To promote its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, waste of time,
and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and
Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "person" who the Defendant
called.

The Defendant is a corporation doing business as an insurance
agency which sells Medicare coverage through private insurance
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


ALDER BOUTIQUE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alder Boutique LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Alder Boutique LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09976 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Alder Boutique LLC -- https://aldernewyork.com/ -- is located in
Brooklyn, NY, United States and is part of the Clothing Stores
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


ALMOND COW: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Almond Cow, Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Almond Cow, Inc. doing
business as: Almond Cow, Case No. 1:21-cv-06581 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24,
2021).

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

Almond Cow -- https://almondcow.co/ -- is a plant-based milk maker
that works with any nut, seed, or grain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ALT PLATFORM: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alt Platform Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alt Platform Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10044 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Alt -- https://www.onlyalt.com/ -- is an alternative asset platform
that allows people to buy, sell, and store sports cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


ALUMINUM FABRICATORS: New York District Court Tosses Klimczak Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed the case, MARK KLICH, ALUMINUM
FABRICATORS CORP., and R. KING WINDOWS CORP., Plaintiffs v. KONRAD
KLIMCZAK, ZDZISLAW KLIMCZAK, WOJCIECH KLIMCZAK, and MAREK JAROS,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-4812 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.).

Background

The Plaintiffs, who previously employed or currently employ the
Defendants, have sued for breach of a confidentiality provision in
a settlement agreement. The parties entered into the settlement
agreement in 2015 (the "FLSA settlement agreement") to resolve an
ongoing lawsuit that Defendants (appearing in that case as the
Plaintiffs) had brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law (Klimczak v. Aluminum & Vinyl Prod., Inc., No.
14-cv-4675 (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 6, 2014) (the "FLSA action")). The
complaint in the underlying FLSA action alleged that the Defendants
had a policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly
work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying overtime
compensation as federal and state law require. It was styled as a
putative collective and class action, but the parties settled the
case before a motion was made to approve the collective action or
for class certification. The docket reflects that the case was
dismissed by a plain vanilla stipulation and order of dismissal
between the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); the settlement
agreement was not filed nor was the Court apprised of its terms.

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs (formerly the Defendants in the
FLSA action), allege that their former employees breached the
settlement agreement's confidentiality provision by telling other
employees about the terms of the settlement. The confidentiality
clause upon which the Plaintiffs' complaint relies provides, among
other things, that all parties agree to the extent reasonably
permitted by law to keep the existence, terms and events leading up
to and incorporated within this Agreement confidential.

The complaint alleges that notwithstanding this provision, the
Defendants disclosed the terms of the settlement to at least three
co-employees, and those co-employees commenced a new action in the
Supreme Court, New York County, entitled Dylo et al. v. R. King
Windows Corp. et al., No. 157253/2019, seeking similar relief to
that previously demanded in the underlying FLSA action. Plaintiffs
seek damages and an injunction for the violation of the
confidentiality provision.

Because confidentiality clauses in FLSA settlement agreements are
generally not enforceable, Judge Cogan raised the issue sua sponte
of whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the action or
whether doing so would violate the FLSA. The Plaintiffs have
responded by arguing that because the parties entered into the FLSA
settlement prior to the Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), court
approval was not required and the confidentiality clause is
enforceable. The Defendants have responded that regardless of
whether court approval was necessary, confidentiality clauses in
agreements settling FLSA litigation are not enforceable and the
action must be dismissed.

Discussion

Prior to the Second Circuit's decision in Cheeks, district courts
within the Circuit were divided on whether court approval was
required before dismissal of an action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a). Often, the issue of confidentiality arose in the
context of a motion to seal a court docket to the extent that it
disclosed the terms of a court-approved FLSA settlement. The courts
almost always rejected those requests, not only because of the
public right of access to court filings, but also because of the
public character of FLSA settlements.

Judge Cogan explains that an unenforceable confidentiality
provision in an FLSA settlement agreement does not become
enforceable merely because the settlement was not filed in or
approved by a court, regardless of whether the settlement is
pre-Cheeks. Cheeks merely established the procedure for vetting
proposed settlement agreements for fairness and objectionable
provisions. It did not alter the substantive rule that
confidentiality provisions in FLSA settlement agreements are rarely
enforceable.

There may be special circumstances in which a court will allow
confidentiality clauses in an FLSA agreement. But, Judge Cogan
finds that the Plaintiffs have pointed to no special circumstances.
This confidentiality provision, he says, like most, was clearly
designed to reduce the employer's exposure to having to pay FLSA
wages to other employees, or having to litigate its obligation to
pay other employees, by preventing other employees from learning of
their rights. Indeed, the whole basis of this lawsuit is that the
Defendants' alleged violation of the confidentiality clause
resulted in other employees learning of and asserting their rights
under the FLSA.

Using a confidentiality clause for that purpose is inimical to the
FLSA's public policy objectives, and, accordingly, the action
cannot be maintained.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Cogan dismissed case. The Clerk
is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pb9jzpd from
Leagle.com.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: $18MM Settlement Hearing Set on February 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Shah LLP on Nov. 15 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
Common Stock (NYSE: AMC):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON
STOCK OF AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. ("AMC" OR THE "COMPANY"
(TICKER SYMBOL: AMC)) BETWEEN DECEMBER 20, 2016 AND AUGUST 1, 2017,
BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), INCLUDING PURSUANT TO
AMC'S SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING (THE "SPO") ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 8,
2017

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a proposed Settlement has been reached
in this Action. A hearing will be held with respect to the
Settlement on February 10, 2022, at 3:00 P.M. before the Honorable
Alison J. Nathan in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 906, New York, NY 10007.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class action
claims asserted in the Action, pursuant to which AMC, on behalf of
all Defendants, will cause to be deposited into a Settlement Fund
the sum of eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) in exchange for
the dismissal of the Action with prejudice and a release of claims
against the Defendants and other Released Parties, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of the Class. If you purchased or acquired AMC
common stock (ticker symbol: AMC) during the Class Period,
including pursuant to the SPO, you may be entitled to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund if you submit a Proof of Claim
Form to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services (see
address below), postmarked no later than February 28, 2022 or
submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on February 28, 2022 at
wwww.strategicclaims.net/amc/, and if the information and
documentation you provide in that Proof of Claim Form establishes
that you are entitled to a recovery.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and the Settlement. The Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement (a "Detailed Notice" or the
"Notice") describing the Action, the proposed Settlement, and the
rights of Class Members to appear in Court at the Final Approval
Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Class, and/or to object
to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the request by
Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known to be
potential Class Members. You may obtain a copy of that Notice and
the Proof of Claim Form as well as other information at
www.strategicclaims.net/amc/, or by writing to the following
address or calling the following telephone number.

AMC Securities Settlement
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (866) 274-4004

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the request by Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, or
otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection in
accordance with the procedures described in the Notice. The
objection must be filed and served so that it is received no later
than January 20, 2022. You also have the right to exclude yourself
from the Class by submitting a written request for exclusion from
the Class in accordance with the procedures described in the
Notice. The request for exclusion must be postmarked no later than
January 20, 2022. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you
will be bound by the Settlement and the Judgment, including the
releases provided for in the Stipulation and the Judgment, unless
you submit a request to be excluded.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed Notice
referenced above and/or a Proof of Claim Form, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff:

MILLER SHAH LLP
James E. Miller
Laurie Rubinow
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412

Toll-Free: (866) 540-5505
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367

Email: jemiller@millershah.com
Email: lrubinow@millershah.com

DATED: NOVEMBER 2, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1 This Summary Notice incorporates by reference the definitions in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 1, 2021
(the "Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms used, but not
defined herein, shall have the same meanings as in the Stipulation.
A copy of the Stipulation can be obtained at
www.strategicclaims.net/amc/. [GN]

AMERICAN 3B: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American 3B
Scientific, L.P. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American 3B
Scientific, L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-09962 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24,
2021).

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

American 3b Scientific, L.P. -- https://www.3bscientific.com/ --
wholesales surgical and other medical instruments, apparatus, and
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


AMERICAN RED: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Files Amicus Curie Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellspring Financial Partners disclosed that historically, there
has been little litigation involving retirement plans. But in
recent years such litigation has exploded. This began with what are
known as "stock drop cases" filed following the market crash of
2008 and 2009. These cases were class actions bought against large
corporate plans where publicly traded company stock was included as
an investment option. The plaintiffs alleged that company stock was
an imprudent investment due to a steep drop in value. Many of these
cases settled for large amounts as plan sponsors were anxious to
resolve these lawsuits because of the negative publicity they
generated.

Other class action lawsuits have been filed against plan sponsors
typically alleging excessive fees and/or imprudent investment
selection. The amounts involved in these lawsuits are large, but
small on a per participant basis. Most settlements and judgments
have amounted to, at most, a few hundred dollars per participant.

The number of these cases continues to increase. In 2020, over 100
class actions were filed against plan sponsors. Until recently,
these lawsuits involved only very large plans but now are being
filed against smaller plans as well.

The US Chamber of Commerce filed an Amicus Curie brief (i.e.,
friend of the court) in an excessive fee suit brought against the
American Red Cross. The gist of this brief is that these class
action lawsuits are of no benefit to anyone other than plaintiffs'
attorneys. In its brief, the Chamber states the rapid increase in
excessive fee litigation is not "a warning that retirees' savings
are in jeopardy, but proof that converting subpar allegations into
settlements has proven to be a lucrative endeavor for attorneys
bringing these lawsuits."

The Chamber's brief makes a number of good points about these class
action lawsuits:

   -- There is little or no communication between the attorneys and
the plan participants they purport to represent;

   -- These lawsuits are similar from case to case and are not
based on the details of any particular plan;

   -- Most complaints are cookie cutter and simply lift allegations
from complaints filed in other lawsuits -- case in point, the
complaint filed in a case against the University of Miami was cut
and pasted from complaints in other cases right down to the typos;

   -- The allegations in these lawsuits simply second guess, with
the benefit of hindsight, the decisions of plan fiduciaries rather
than alleging the use of a flawed process in making decisions; and

   -- Plaintiffs' attorneys have effectively been able to hide
behind ERISA's perceived complexity and avoid the dismissal of
these suits regardless of the merits, leaving sponsors with the
choice of either expensive and protracted litigation or entering
into a settlement.

The negative consequences of these lawsuits are many. Most obvious,
sponsors must devote time and resources to defending against these
lawsuits or pay significant settlements. The cost of fiduciary
insurance has increased and there is now, arguably, too much of a
focus on fees because the least expensive choice available is not
always the best option. [GN]

AMERICAN STANDARD: Duckworth Sues Over Vehicle Insurance Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN DUCKWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY OF OHIO, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00214-SCJ (N.D. Ga.,
Nov. 16, 2021) is an action alleging that the Defendant failed to
pay the the full amount of motor vehicle title ad valorem tax
("TAVT") under the uniform automobile insurance policies (the
"Policy" or "Policies").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and each Class Member's
Policies required the Defendant to pay for "loss" and "actual cash
value" including cost to purchase a replacement vehicle from a new
or used vehicle dealer, TAVT, and title and registration fees,
minus deductible and depreciation.

Allegedly, the Defendant's underpayment of TAVT was the result of
its calculating TAVT by applying the 6.6% rate to a $6,875.00
valuation of the Plaintiff's vehicle found in the 2021 Georgia
Motor Vehicle Assessment Manual for Title Ad Valorem Tax ("TAVT
Manual"), which is a manual that provides valuation for determining
TAVT on vehicles purchase in a private non-dealer sale. The
Defendant used the TAVT Manual for valuation to determine TAVT
instead of the valuation that Defendant used in adjusting the
Plaintiff's claim so that Defendant could save money on the
Plaintiff's and other Class Members' claims, added the suit.

AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty
insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com

               -and-

          Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 876-8100
          Email: chall@hallandlampros.com

               -and-

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

AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Baumann Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerisave Mortgage
Corporation. The case is styled as Darlene Baumann, Toby Hoy, Robin
Taylor, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04696-TWT (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 12, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation -- https://www.amerisave.com/ -- is
a direct mortgage lender operating in 49 states and DC (It does not
originate mortgages for properties in NY).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 513-6651
          Fax: (404) 549-4654
          Email: shkoval@aol.com


B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Nunez Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANIA NUNEZ, JOHNNY CHU,
ASHOK D. PANDYA and DAVID E. STERN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF B.
BRAUN MEDICAL INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-04195-EGS
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
      members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
      Plan, at any time between August 26, 2014 through the date
      of judgment;"

   2. appointing them as representatives of the certified Class;
      and

   3. appointing Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel.

B. Braun Medical manufactures medical products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://surl.li/aukuxat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          E-mail: Markg@capozziadler.com
                  agabriellek@capozziadler.com
                  Donr@capozziadler.com

BETTY LOU: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betty Lou's, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Betty Lou's, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09952 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Betty Lou's -- https://www.bettylousinc.com/ -- offers gluten-free
snacks, nutrition bars, candy bars, protein shakes and crackers
that are made with healthy ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


BINANCE CAPITAL: Kuklineski Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Kamil Kuklineski, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Binance Capital Management Co.,
Ltd. d/b/a Binance; BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US;
Jumio Corporation; Case No. 21L0962 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01425-SPM the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Binance -- https://www.binance.com/ -- is a cryptocurrency exchange
which is currently the largest exchange in the world in terms of
daily trading volume of cryptocurrencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel D. Beckwith, Esq.
          FREEARK, DENNIS, MURPHY & MOSKOP, P.C.
          115 West Washington Street
          P.O. Box 546
          Belleville, IL 62222-0546
          Phone: (618) 233-2686
          Fax: (618) 233-5677
          Email: jbeckwith@freeark.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel P. Roeser, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 813-8800
          Fax: (212) 355-3333
          Email: droeser@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Ezekiel L. Hill, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          1900 N. Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 346-4000
          Fax: (202) 346-4444
          Email: ehill@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Debra R. Bernard, Esq.
          PERKINS COLE, LLP – Chicago
          110 North Wacker Dr., Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 324-8559
          Email: dbernard@perkinscoie.com


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

BMRN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=21431&wire=1

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=21431&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.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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. [GN]


BLOOF LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloof, LLC. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bloof, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10029
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Bloof, LLC is in the Comic Books business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com



BOTANIKA LIFE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Botanika Life, Inc.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Botanika Life, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10009 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Botanika Life -- https://botanika.life/ -- is a collection of
clean, hand-crafted luxury lifestyle + wellness products loaded
with powerhouse plant-based ingredients.[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


BOXFOX INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BoxFox Inc. The case
is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BoxFox Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09954
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

BOXFOX -- https://shopboxfox.com/ -- is an ecommerce company that
seeks to modernize the age-old art gifting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRIDE BOX: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bride Box, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Bride Box, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The Bride Box -- https://www.thebridebox.com/ -- is the original
monthly subscription box for brides-to-be delivered straight to
your doorstep.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


BROOKLYN WINERY: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Winery LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Brooklyn Winery LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10005 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Brooklyn Winery -- https://bkwinery.com/ -- is a unique venue
featuring our fully functioning winery as the understated backdrop
to a wedding day.[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


CASCADE DESIGNS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cascade Designs, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Cascade Designs, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09942 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Cascade Designs -- https://www.cascadedesigns.com/ -- is an
American company specializing in outdoor recreation products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


CHARLES J. BECKER: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles J. Becker &
Bro., Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Charles J. Becker &
Bro., Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09972 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Becker's -- https://www.shopbecker.com/ -- has been providing
school supplies for public and private schools, Head Start, Early
Head Start, and childcare programs nationwide since 1928.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHEEF HOLDINGS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheef Holdings. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cheef Holdings, Case No. 1:21-cv-09923
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Cheef Botanicals doing business as Holistapet --
https://www.holistapet.com/ -- offers CBD products that are made
from all natural, organically grown hemp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHUCKANUT BAY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chuckanut Bay
Distillery, Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chuckanut Bay
Distillery, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09967 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24,
2021).

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

Chuckanut Bay Distillery -- https://chuckanutbaydistillery.com/ --
is an award winning grain-to-glass distillery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Nov. 22 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
common stock of Citrix Systems, Inc. ("Citrix") (NASDAQ: CTXS)
between January 22, 2020 and October 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Citrix common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Citrix Systems, Inc Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe
Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

Citrix is a software company that provides users with secure remote
access to computer networks. Historically, Citrix's technology was
located "on-premise," meaning it was installed directly onto
computer servers owned and operated by its customers. The
technology was purchased through a perpetual license model, meaning
a purchaser would pay upfront for lifetime access and support for
each user.

In 2019, prior to the Class Period, Citrix announced that it would
be shifting from a perpetual license model to a subscription
license payment model, as well as transitioning from a software
solution previously provided on-premise to cloud-based services.

According to the complaint, Defendants willfully or recklessly made
false and misleading statements to the investing public that failed
to disclose that the cloud product was substantially similar to the
on-premise offering, and that the Company was experiencing
significant challenges transitioning customers from on-premise to
the cloud.

On April 29, 2021, Citrix announced lower than expected license
conversions of the Business Continuity Licenses. Specifically, the
Company stated that the Business Continuity Licenses did not
transition to long-term cloud contracts as expected. Instead, many
customers "rolled to another short-term" on-premise license, citing
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of these disclosures,
the price of Citrix common stock declined by $10.48, or 7.6%.
However, the Company continued to assure investors that this was a
"very isolated item" and that the "transition to the cloud is
progressing well."

On July 29, 2021, the Company reported that, despite prior
assurances, the transition to cloud was not as successful as the
Company had led investors to believe. Specifically, Citrix cited
"the challenge associated with transitioning the business to
[cloud] and the need to evolve our sales strategy to deliver more
predictable results." Citrix also announced a major restructuring
of its sales leadership in order to "enhance [its] focus on" cloud
migration. According to the Company, these changes were
"significant and may cause short-term disruption before yielding
tangible results." These disclosures caused the Company's stock to
decline 13.6%, from $114.55 per share to $99.00 per share.

Finally, on October 6, 2021, after market close, the Company
announced that Defendant David Henshall had stepped down as
President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Citrix. This
disclosure caused the Company's stock to decline 7.2% over the next
two days, from $105.96 per share to $98.32 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 18, 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 or otherwise acquired Citrix common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/citrixsystemsinc-ctxs-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-462/
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]

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Citrix Systems, Inc. ("Citrix" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CTXS) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Citrix securities between January
22, 2020 and October 6, 2021, both dates included, (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until January 18, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On July 29, 2021, the Company disclosed that its transition to
cloud-based services had not been as successful as the Company had
led investors to believe, citing to "the need to evolve our sales
strategy to deliver more predictable results" as well as a major
restructuring of its sales leadership in order to "enhance [its]
focus on" cloud migration.

On this news, shares of Citrix fell 13.6%, from $114.55 per share
to $99.00 per share.

Then, on October 6, 2021, post-market, the Company disclosed that
its President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") had stepped
down.

On this news, shares of Citrix fell 7.2% over the next two days,
from $105.96 per share to $98.32 per share.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Citrix shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

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.

Contacts:

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

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cops' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Citrix Systems, Inc., David Henshall, Robert M. Calderoni, Arlen
Shenkman, PJ Hough and Mark Schmitz, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-62380 (S.D. Fla., November 19, 2021) seeks compensatory
damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, plus attorneys' fees and expert fees and
equitable/injunctive or other further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Citrix is a software company that provides users with secure remote
access to computer networks. Historically, Citrix's technology was
installed directly onto computer servers owned and operated by its
customers. The technology was purchased by seat through a perpetual
license model, meaning a purchaser would pay upfront for lifetime
access and support for each user. In 2019, Citrix announced that it
would be transitioning to cloud-based service and to a subscription
pricing model.

On April 29, 2021, Citrix announced that most of its business did
not transition to long-term cloud contracts as expected. These
disclosures caused the company's stock to decline 7.6%, from
$138.51 per share to $128.02 per share. On July 29, 2021, Citrix
reported that, despite prior assurances, the transition to cloud
was not as successful as the company had led investors to believe.
These disclosures caused the Company's stock to decline 13.6%, from
$114.55 per share to $99.00 per share. Then, on October 6, 2021,
after markets closed, the company announced that Henshall had
stepped down as President and Chief Executive Officer of Citrix.
This disclosure caused the company's stock to decline 7.2% over the
next two days, from $105.96 per share to $98.32 per share.

City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, a pension
plan providing benefits to eligible police officers in Hollywood,
purchased Citrix common stock and suffered damages as a result of
the alleged violations of federal securities laws. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: avi@blbglaw.com
             scottfoglietta@blbglaw.com
             hannah@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
      KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
      7080 Northwest 4th Street
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
      Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
             stu@robertdklausner.com

CITY HOME: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Home, LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. City Home, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09944
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

City Home -- https://cityhomepdx.com/ -- is an inspired collection
of vintage, reclaimed, mid-century modern and industrial home
furnishings, home decor and furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


CLEAN CLOTHES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Clothes Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Clean Clothes Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10034 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Clean Clothes Inc is an apparel & fashion company based out in
Kenosha, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


CLICKSTOP INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clickstop, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Clickstop, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10054 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Clickstop -- https://clickstop.com/ -- owns and operates a suite of
online retail stores that serve a diverse set of consumers from the
cargo control industry to eco-friendly builders/renovators.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


CLUTCHPOINTS INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ClutchPoints, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ClutchPoints, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09969 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

ClutchPoints -- https://clutchpoints.com/ -- is a sports media
company owned by ClutchPoints, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


COLUMBIA PROPERTY: Jones Sues Over Sale to Pacific Investment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Columbia Property Trust, Inc., Carmen M.
Bowser, John L. Dixon, David B. Henry, Murray J. Mccabe, E. Nelson
Mills, Constance B. Moore, Michael S. Robb, Thomas G. Wattles and
Francis X. Wentworth, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08996 (N.D.
Cal., November 19, 2021), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Columbia Property Trust
by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC through their
affiliates Panther Merger Parent, Inc. and Panther Merger Sub, LLC.
The lawsuit further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 7, 2021, Columbia announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger pursuant to which, each Columbia
stockholder will receive $19.30 in cash for each share of Columbia
common stock they own.

Jones alleges that the proxy statement issued in connection with
the transaction omitted material information concerning Columbia's
financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by its financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
including all line items underlying the calculation of Property
Cash NOI, Adjusted EBITDA, Normalized FFO per Share, AFFO per Share
and unlevered free cash flow.

Columbia Property Trust operates as a real estate investment trust
for federal income tax purposes and owns and operates commercial
real estate properties. It acquires, develops, or redevelops
strategic and premier office assets with workplace environment that
appeals to quality tenants in target markets. Columbia concentrates
on office buildings that are competitive within the top tier of
their markets or that can be repositioned as such through value-add
initiatives. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

             - and -

      Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 860-9158
      Fax: (212) 214-0506
      Email: raymond@bespc.com


COMMERCIAL METALS: Flores Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Radames Flores, Frank Villagran, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Commercial Metals Company, CMC Steel California, Case
No. CIVSB2124129, was removed from the San Bernardino County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Nov. 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01992 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Commercial Metals Company -- https://www.cmc.com/ -- is a steel and
metal manufacturer based in Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher William Decker, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: christopher.decker@ogletree.com


CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Reynolds Files Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia University,
St. Paul. The case is styled as Amelia Reynolds, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. Concordia University, St.
Paul, Case No. 0:21-cv-02560-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Concordia University, St. Paul -- https://www.csp.edu/ -- is a
private university in Saint Paul, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P Renz, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Email: crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
                 jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                 bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


CONSTELLATION NETWORK: Faces Morgan Suit Over Crypto Token Swap
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY MORGAN; JESSE SMITHNOSKY; VINCENT LAM; ETE ADOTE; YINGZHI
CHUA; MATT SZYMASZEK; IAN JOHNS; DOUGLAS SCHADEWALD; ROGER LU;
SILVESTER RUCKDASCHEL; JEFFREY SLUZINSKI; ADAM NORTH; PHILIPPE LEE;
HIO FONG MAK; TODD SPAFFORD; STEPHEN MARSHALL; KASPER LUND; ANDREAS
RASMUSSEN; ANTOINE MEREMANS; VINCENT WONG; GEOFFREY CAPELLI; RALPH
PORTER; ROBERT COMO; DANIEL FREEMAN; COLIN HARTLEY; DANIEL LEE;
HERSH STERN; ANDREAS OEE; BASTIAN BLUEM; BILAL AMAJJAR; CHRIS
MONEY; CHRISTOPHER BEDDIE; DANIEL RICEBERG; KISHAN NAZRE; MIKKEL
FABRICIUS; MOUSTAFA ACHEFY; NELSON CHANG; THEO MOUSTROU; TAYLOR
PAUR; MARCUS HOLLAND; SCOTT BOHLMAN; DIANA KISLITSYNA; QI HU; SEAN
GETZWILLER; MOJCA PERS; CALVIN LEE; WILLIAM AYERS; HANSU CHU;
MATTHEW FARMER; DAVID LEE; DOMINIQUE MARCEL COULOMBE; HUN WEI LEE;
YAEL FAZY; MAURICE TAN; JEAN FERREIRA; ABDOU YEKINI; DHERAJ
AGARWAL; FRANKIE FAREED PATADEEN; JAN-EIKE WILKEN; TIMOTHY BARANY;
ANTHONY DEGOL; MATTHEW HOYLE; LUQMAAN RAWOOT; FRANCISCO JAVIER
FRANCO ALGARRADA; and ZACHARY GRUNEBERG, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CONSTELLATION NETWORK, INC.; BENJAMIN JORGENSEN; WYATT
MELDMAN-FLOCH; BENJAMIN DIGGLES; MATHIAS GOLDMANN; ALTIF BROWN;
BRENDAN PLAYFORD AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-08869 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2021) is a case arising from
Constellation's refusal to allow investors to participate in a
"swap" that the Company had arranged from its original
cryptocurrency token (the "ERC-20 DAG Tokens") to its second
cryptocurrency token (the "Mainnet DAG Tokens").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants
purposefully designed the "Token Swap" in such a manner that the
Company could exclude a large swath of investors from exchanging
their ERC-20 DAG Tokens to the Mainnet DAG Tokens. These unswapped
ERC-20 DAG Tokens do not, however, simply disappear. As a result of
the Defendants' actions with the Token Swap, they created a
secondary market for the unswapped ERC-20 DAG Tokens. The
Defendants' simultaneous use of misleading marketing further
compounded the problem by artificially inflating interest in
Constellation generally, which, in turn, led investors seeking to
invest in the Mainnet DAG Token into mistakenly purchasing the
unswapped ERC-20 DAG Tokens. The Defendants are incentivized to
continue to exclude ERC-20 DAG Token holders from swapping their
tokens because doing so increases their proportional share of the
Mainnet DAG Token supply and increases the monetary value of
Defendants' Mainnet DAG holdings, the Plaintiffs added.

CONSTELLATION NETWORK, INC. is engaged in the business of
designing, implementing, and providing cybersecurity for various
"big" data sets and data sources. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

CONTACT LENS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contact Lens King,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Contact Lens King, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09971 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Contact Lens King -- https://www.contactlensking.com/ -- is an
online contact lens reseller.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cook Sues Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Cook, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00619-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Nov. 14, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by knowingly and
intentionally procuring credit reports of consumers whose debts had
been discharged in bankruptcy and for which there was, therefore,
no permissible purpose for accessing such reports, and attempting
to collect debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy.

The Defendant Convergent routinely procures consumers' credit
reports for the purpose of reviewing credit obligations and
collection of consumer debt.  The Defendant received multiple
notifications from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that Plaintiff's debt
was subject to the bankruptcy case. Thus, the Defendant knew that
the Plaintiff had completed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and had
received a discharge of her debts, including the debts that the
Defendant was attempting to collect.

The Defendant had no permissible purpose for procuring the
Plaintiff's credit report or for viewing the Plaintiff's private,
personal and confidential information. As the result of its
violations of the FCRA, Convergent is liable to Plaintiff for
statutory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs. The Defendant's conduct and actions were willful. The
Defendant received multiple notices that the alleged debt had been
discharged and was no longer collectible. Nonetheless, the
Defendant willfully, deliberately and intentionally procured the
Plaintiff's credit report over a year after receiving notice of the
entry of the discharge order, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a "consumer" as protected and governed by the FCRA
and FDCPA, and resides in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Convergent maintains offices in Renton, Washington and is a
Washington corporation that acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rashad Blossom, Esq.
          BLOSSOM LAW PLLC
          301 S. McDowell St., Suite 1103
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Phone: (704) 256-7766
          Facsimile: (704) 486-5952
          Email: rblossom@blossomlaw.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256


DBH WORLDWIDE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DBH Worldwide, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. DBH Worldwide, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09908 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

DBH Worldwide LLC doing business as Design By Humans --
https://www.designbyhumans.com/ -- offers cool graphic tees
selected by a community of creative and unique designers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIAMOND SOURCE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Source NYC
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Diamond Source NYC Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09989 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Diamond Source NYC -- https://www.diamondsourcenyc.com/ -- is a
luxury watches wholesale available for everyone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


DO YOUR GIN: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Do Your Gin Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Do Your Gin Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The Do Your Gin -- https://us.doyourgin.com/ -- offers a set that
contains the ingredients to make a self-crafted Gin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


DOLAN NORTHWEST: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolan Northwest, LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dolan Northwest, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09982 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Dolan Northwest LLC, doing business as Seattle Lighting -- Seattle
Lighting -- manufactures electrical apparatus and equipment wiring
supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


DONALD E. BRIGANDI: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald E. Brigandi
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Donald E. Brigandi
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10008 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Donald E. Brigandi Company, Inc. doing business as Brigandi Coins
and Collectibles -- https://www.brigandicoin.com/ -- is the
nation's preeminent dealer of rare coins, gold & silver bullion and
rare sports memorabilia.[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


DRINKMORE WATER: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The DrinkMore Water
Store, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The DrinkMore Water
Store, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09920 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

DrinkMore Water -- https://www.drinkmorewater.com/ -- is a locally
owned and operated bottled water delivery company with its world
headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUNN TIRE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dunn Tire LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dunn Tire LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10015
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Dunn Tire -- https://www.dunntire.com/ -- offers Tires & Auto
Services in Buffalo New York, Rochester New York, Syracuse New
York, and Erie Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


DYKES LUMBER: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dykes Lumber Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Dykes Lumber Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10064 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Dykes Lumber Company -- https://www.dykeslumber.com/ -- is a
lumberyard supplying the tri-state area with lumber, moulding and
building materials for over 100 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


E & J GALLO: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E & J Gallo Winery.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. E & J Gallo Winery, Case No.
1:21-cv-10062 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

E & J Gallo Winery -- https://www.gallo.com/ -- is a winery and
distributor headquartered in Modesto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


EARGO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of December 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR) investors
that acquired shares between October 12, 2021 and September 22,
2021. Investors have until December 6, 2021 to seek an active role
in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

After the markets closed on September 22, 2021, Eargo disclosed
that it is the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) related to insurance reimbursement
claims the Company has submitted on behalf of its customers covered
by federal employee health plans. In light of this information,
Eargo also announced it is withdrawing its financial guidance for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021.

On this news, the Company's shares fell over 60% during intraday
trading on September 23, 2021.

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
6, 2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: $63.4MM Class Settlement Hearing Set on Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ENDO INTERNATIONAL, PLC ("ENDP")
ORDINARY SHARES FROM MARCH 2, 2015 THROUGH FEBRUARY 27, 2017,
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION
OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and by Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action
and that a Settlement has been proposed for $63,400,000.00 in cash.
A hearing will be held on February 23, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. EST,
before the Honorable Michael M. Baylson, at the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Courtroom 3-A,
James A. Byrne Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106, or remotely per details that will be made publicly available
on the Settlement website (www.EndoSecuritiesLitigation.com), for
the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore
should be approved; and (3) the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund,
including interest earned thereon, should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received
a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may
obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator: Endo Securities Litigation, c/o Angeion Group, LLC,
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
info@EndoSecuritiesLitigation.com; 1-855-895-5522. You may also
obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice and Proof of
Claim at www.EndoSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim by mail postmarked no later than February 14, 2022, or submit
it online by that date. If you are a Class Member and do not submit
a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be
bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation
(including the releases provided for therein).

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a written request
for exclusion so that it is received by February 2, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you
will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this
Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you submit a written request
for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to
the Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of
Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be
filed with the Court no later than February 2, 2022.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any
questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement, you may contact Co-Lead Counsel at the following
address or by calling 1-800-449-4900:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

NOAM MANDEL
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
New York, NY 10170
noam@rgrdlaw.com

DATED: October 25, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA [GN]

ENJOY FLOWERS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enjoy Flowers LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Enjoy Flowers LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09912 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Enjoy Flowers -- https://enjoyflowers.com/ -- is a Colombian
e-commerce startup thriving in the US online fresh flower market
offering Pinterest-worthy wedding flowers and an outstanding
subscription-box.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENVY GAMING: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Envy Gaming, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Envy Gaming, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10065
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Envy Gaming, Inc. -- https://envy.gg/ -- is a collective esports
and gaming company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


ESKENAZI HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Mitchell, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
a patient is seeking class-action status in a lawsuit against
Indianapolis-based Eskenazi Health after a May ransomware attack
that potentially affected 1.5 million people, Nov. 19 documents
filed in the Indiana Commerical Court reveal.

Six things to know:

1. Terri Ruehl Young sued Eskenazi after she discovered a
fraudulent charge of $370 on her credit card she used to pay the
hospital. Ms. Young also said she discovered someone had tried to
change her name on her Equifax credit report, and she lost money
and time attempting to repair the damage from the breach. Her
complaint stated that patients, employers and others entrusted the
health system with sensitive, personal information, and that trust
was betrayed.

2. Hackers accessed the hospital's network on or about May 19, and
the hospital shut down its computer network and went on diversion
Aug. 4 in response to what it called an attempted ransomware
attack.

3. About three weeks after shutting down its network, the safety
net health system admitted that there indeed had been a data
breach, during which data had been obtained and released online.

4. The system warned employees, patients, former patients,
providers and vendors to closely monitor their bank and credit card
statements for suspicious activity and to report it if discovered.
It also recommended that anybody potentially affected review a free
credit report. It maintained there was no evidence of bank or
credit card fraud.

5. But on or about Nov. 11, the health system notified more than
1.5 million patients, current and former patients, employees and
providers that their names, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, credit card information and medical-related
information might have been exposed back in May.

6. Todd Harper, a spokesperson for Eskenazi, told Becker's that the
health system has not been formally served with the lawsuit. [GN]

EWINDOWCOVERINGS LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against eWindowCoverings LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. eWindowCoverings LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09943 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

eWindowCoverings LLC doing business as Blindster --
https://www.blindster.com/ -- offering custom blinds, shades, and
shutters from window treatment professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


EXCLUSIVE FURNITURE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exclusive Furniture,
L.P. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Exclusive Furniture, L.P., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09991 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Exclusive Furniture -- https://www.exclusivefurniture.com/ -- makes
a house full of furniture affordable for everyone in Houston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


EXPAND FOOD: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Expand Food USA LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Expand Food USA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10002 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Expand Food USA LLC -- https://expandfoodusa.com/ -- is an importer
and developer of gourmet food brands in the US & LATAM market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


EXTRACT LABS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extract Labs Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Extract Labs Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09916 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Extract Labs -- https://www.extractlabs.com/ -- is a veteran-owned,
Colorado CBD company known for making the highest quality CBD &
minor cannabinoid products on the market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EZ BOOK: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EZ Book Recycle Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. EZ Book Recycle Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09934 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

EZ Book Recycle Inc. doing business as Sell Back Your Boo --
https://www.sellbackyourbook.com/ -- is a Book store in Montgomery,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FASTENAL CO: Prelim. Approval Hearing on Jackson Settlement Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIESHIA MARIE JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. FASTENAL
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00345-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California vacated the hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion for order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

The action was removed from the Stanislaus County Superior Court to
the Court on March 4, 2020. On Oct. 22, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a
motion for order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

Having considered the unopposed moving papers, Judge Boone finds
the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.
Accordingly, the hearing set for Nov. 24, 2021, is vacated and the
parties will not be required to appear at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2pxme5yn from Leagle.com.


FIA LIQUIDATION: May Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIA Liquidation
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jamie May, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIA Liquidation Company,
Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01994 (M.D. Fla.,
Nov. 24, 2021).

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

FIA Liquidation Company, which also operates under the name
Fiorella Insurance Agency -- https://fiorellainsurance.com/ -- is a
destination for a clients insurance needs and will eliminate the
need to shop around.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Judge Vacate Class Cert. for Ohio Ratepayers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto J. Rocha, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
vacated his class certification for Ohio ratepayers suing electric
utility FirstEnergy Corp. over corruption claims, finding that he
granted certification before the utility company had run out of the
clock on its chance to oppose the motion. [GN]

FISHUSA INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FishUSA, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FishUSA, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10067
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

FishUSA -- https://www.fishusa.com/ -- is a leading online retailer
of quality fishing gear, apparel, and services for the enthusiastic
angler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


GANNETT CO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gannett Co., Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09970 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Gannett Co., Inc. -- https://www.gannett.com/ -- is an American
mass media holding company headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in
the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


GETMYBOAT INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GetMyBoat, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GetMyBoat, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09914 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

GetMyBoat -- https://www.getmyboat.com/ -- is the world's largest
boat rental and water experience marketplace.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GlobalTranz
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GlobalTranz
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09931 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24,
2021).

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

GlobalTranz -- https://www.globaltranz.com/ -- is a leading
provider of technology-driven transportation and supply chain
management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOBROS.COM: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoBros.com, LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GoBros.com, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10010 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

GoBros.com -- https://www.gobros.com/ -- offers socks from Darn
Tough, Balega, Thorlo, Feetures, Fox River, Swiftwick, Drymax,
Smartwool, Sockwell, Stance, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


GOFUNDME INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoFundMe Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GoFundMe Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09932
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

GoFundMe Inc. -- https://www.gofundme.com/ -- operates a social
fundraising platform. The Company enables clients to raise money
online for life's important moments and personal causes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE LLC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Alleged App Tracking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Vittorio, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Alphabet
Inc.'s Google faces a potential consumer class action in a
California federal court for allegedly monitoring app usage on
mobile phones using its Android operating system.

The tech giant allegedly tracks phone users on non-Google apps
without their permission, in violation of its own privacy pledges
and the state's laws, according to the complaint filed Nov. 19 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit echoes another suit that Google will resolve out of
court through arbitration. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Fox Williams Attorneys Discuss DPA Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hill, Esq., Kolvin Stone, Esq., Ben Nolan, Esq., and Anisha
Patel, Esq., of Fox Williams, disclosed that the Supreme Court has
issued its long-awaited ruling in the Lloyd v Google case,
overturning the Court of Appeal's 2019 ruling which granted
permission for 'opt-out class action' proceedings relating to
Google's alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA") to
be served on Google in the USA.

The Supreme Court ruled that the claim had no likely prospect of
success, reversing the grant of permission to serve. The decision
will likely be well received by businesses but disappoint privacy
activists and consumer rights groups.

The case is not only important from a data protection perspective,
as it clarifies the circumstances in which damages for data
protection breaches under the DPA can be obtained; but also helps
clarify the situations in which "opt-out" class action legal
proceedings can be brought in England and Wales under the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR).

Although the decision appears to stem a potential tide of "opt-out"
data breach class actions, importantly, the Supreme Court does
point to other formulations of claims which would have been
successful. Data controllers should therefore continue to be
mindful of their obligations under the DPA and the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) to avoid unnecessary litigation risk.

Background

The facts in brief, relate to Google's use of advertising cookies
to collect data on iPhone users' internet browsing habits between
2011 and 2012 without those individuals having any knowledge of the
cookies being used.

Google subsequently sold the data collected through use of the
cookies (some of which is alleged to have been sensitive in nature)
to third parties for advertising purposes.

The case against Google was brought by Richard Lloyd, a well-known
consumer rights activist, as a representative action under CPR 19.6
claiming damages on behalf of all four million iPhone users whose
data were obtained by Google during this time.

The claim was unique; it purported to be akin to an 'opt-out'
consumer class action (something which is not expressly provided
for under English law, except in relation to certain competition
claims).

Mr Lloyd sought permission from the court to serve Google outside
the jurisdiction. Google responded by seeking to strike out the
claim on the basis that it had no real prospect of success. The
case made its way all the way to the UK Supreme Court, with Google
successful at first instance and Mr Lloyd successful before the
Court of Appeal.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court's decision centred around two key issues:

Whether the claim could be brought as a representative action.
Whether damages could be awarded to the class under the DPA for
Google's breach of the DPA.

Appropriateness of the representative action

The Supreme Court ruled that it was not acceptable for Lloyd to
bring a representative action claiming damages on behalf of the
class.

The only requirement for a representative action to be brought is
that the representative has the same interest in bringing the claim
as the persons represented. Here, the Supreme Court considered it
conceivable that the class members could have the same interests as
Lloyd.

However, the issue stemmed from the fact that Lloyd was seeking
damages on behalf of the class members on a uniform, lowest common
denominator 'tariff' basis (£750 per person, for loss of control
of personal data).

The purpose of damages under common law is to put the individual in
the same position in which they would have been if the wrong had
not been committed. Similarly, section 13 of the DPA gives an
individual who suffers damage "by reason of any contravention by a
data controller of any of the requirements of this Act" a right to
compensation from the data controller for that damage.

The extent of the harm suffered by members of the class would
ultimately depend on a range of factors, such as the extent of the
tracking carried out by Google in relation to each user, and the
sensitivity of the information obtained by Google. This would
require each class member having their claim for damages assessed
on an individual basis. Lloyd had therefore failed to meet the
'same interest' requirement under CPR 19.6.

Damages under the DPA

Lloyd argued that the class members were entitled to compensation
under the DPA on the basis that Google's breach had resulted in
them incurring a "loss of control" of their personal data.

The Supreme Court rejected Lloyd's argument on the basis that
individuals must have suffered material damage (i.e. financial loss
or distress) to be entitled to compensation under section 13 of the
DPA. It was not possible to construe section 13 of the DPA as
providing individuals with a right to obtain compensation on the
basis of a controller's breach of the DPA alone.

Whilst certain members of the class may indeed have suffered
material damage as a result of Google's breach, entitling them to
obtain compensation, the way in which the claim was structured
(i.e. on a lowest common denominator basis) made it impossible for
damages to be awarded under it.

Ongoing litigation risk - what now for data breach class actions?

Although the Supreme Court decision might appear to protect data
controllers from litigation risk, we do not consider this to be the
case. While Lloyd's claim failed to meet the 'same interest' test,
the court highlighted other formulations which would have satisfied
the CPR 19.6 requirements.

It pointed to bifurcated or "split" proceedings, where common
issues (such as the data controller's liability) are considered
first, with individual issues (such as damages suffered) being
considered at a later stage/second trial.

In addition, it is important to note that the Supreme Court's
decision focussed on the DPA, which has been replaced by the GDPR
and Data Protection Act 2018. Article 82 of the GDPR introduced an
individual's right to seek compensation for material/non-material
damage (including financial loss and distress) from organisations
breaching the data protection rules.

Given that Lloyd's claim focused on the loss of control of class
members' data (which is 'non-material'), it may have succeeded had
it (i) related to breaches of the GDPR and (ii) proceeded on a
bifurcated basis.

Data controllers should therefore continue to be mindful of their
exposure to potential consumer litigation for breaches under the
amended DPA and under the GDPR.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not say that Google or other data
controllers could not be liable for damage caused to groups of
consumers; just that the particular way in which Lloyd sought to
bring this particular claim could not work, because of the
combination of the terms of the DPA and the CPR.

In other words, it is business as usual for data controllers, and
for claimant lawyers investigating and prosecuting group actions on
behalf of the victims of data privacy breaches.

The orthodox way to bring a consumer 'class' action for data breach
-- as an 'opt-in' group action subject to a Group Litigation Order
if necessary -- remains perfectly valid. While the orthodox
'opt-in' group action is inferior from an access to justice
perspective -- because of the upfront 'book-building' effort
required for an 'opt-in' group action – it can still be
effective, as shown by the group action case brought against
British Airways which settled in July 2021.

Take home points

Data controllers now have more clarity around how damages can be
obtained for data protection breaches under the DPA and this will
be welcomed.

This does not eliminate their risk from being subject to a class
action as the Supreme Court's decision was based solely on the
facts of this specific case.

Despite the Supreme Court's decision a class action still remains a
fully viable way of claiming damages in relation to data protection
breaches -- but the focus must be on how to bring a case. [GN]

HARTFORD FIRE: RV Agate Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs RV Agate Beach, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RV AGATE BEACH, LLC
and RIVERHOUSE PROPERTY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00460-MO, in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2021, the
lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to pay insurance for
losses due to COVID-19.

According to the complaint, beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiffs
were forced to suspend, in whole or in part, their business
operations due to certain orders and directives issued by Oregon
Governor Kate Brown and local civil authorities which, among other
things, restricted access to and operation of Plaintiffs' business,
limited groups of people, curtailed travel, and generally limited
commercial activity, each and all of which caused the Plaintiffs to
suffer loss or damage (the "Orders").

As a direct result of the Orders, the Plaintiffs were unable to
operate their business, in whole or in part, while the Orders
remained in effect. When Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
businesses were permitted to re-open, they could only do so with
significant alterations to their premises and business models at
great cost, including, loss of use of space, installation of
barriers, increased cleaning and sanitation protocols, changing
business hours and employee hours, decreased customer traffic, and
generally more expensive operations in order to comply with the
Orders. The Plaintiffs' business property cannot be used for its
intended purposes and their business activities have necessarily
been suspended or interrupted, says the suit.

Despite the promised coverage in the insurance policy, the
Defendant allegedly denied Plaintiff's claim for coverage under the
Policy. Despite the policy language and the coverages it promises,
the Defendant refuses to acknowledge that "direct physical loss"
and "direct physical damage" refer to distinct harms, resulting in
additional protection for Plaintiffs' loss and damage directly,
efficiently, and proximately caused by the Orders. The Plaintiffs
have experienced and will continue to experience loss or damage
covered by the policy, and continued harm naturally and foreseeably
occurring as a result of the Defendant's refusal to accept coverage
and pay for the Plaintiffs' covered loss and damage, added the
suit.

On October 16, 2021, Judge Michael W. Mosman entered an order
granting Defendant Hartford Fire Company's Motion to Dismiss, thus
dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order in their appellate case
captioned as RV Agate Beach, LLC, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Company, Case No. 21-35946, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 10, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants RV Agate Beach, LLC and Riverhouse Property LLC
Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 17, 2021;

   -- Appellants RV Agate Beach, LLC and Riverhouse Property LLC
opening brief is due on January 12, 2022;

   -- Appellee Hartford Fire Insurance Company answering brief is
due on February 14, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants RV AGATE BEACH, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company; and RIVERHOUSE PROPERTY LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut
corporation, is represented by:

          Sarah Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005
          Email: sgordon@steptoe.com

HAY HOUSE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hay House, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Hay House, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09802-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Hay House -- https://www.hayhouse.com/ -- is a publisher who
publishes self-help, inspirational and transformational books and
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Extension of Discovery Deadline Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH SHIFLET, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE
VENTURES OF OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03428-EAS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order establishikng
the following new deadlines:

   -- Deadline for discovery:              May 18, 2022

   -- Deadline to file Plaintiff's         June 17, 2022
      Motion for Rule 23 Class
      Certification:

   -- Deadline to file dispositive         June 17, 2022
      motions:

   -- Expert Reports due:                  45 days after ruling
                                           on dispositive
                                           motions

   -- Rebuttal Expert Reports due:         45 days after
                                           submission of expert
                                           reports

Healthcare Ventures of Ohio, LLC is in the intermediate care
facilities business.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DTJGIK at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, Ohio 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul L. Bittner, Esq.
          Abigail J. Barr, Esq.
          ICE MILLER LLP
          250 West Street, Suite 700
          Telephone: (614) 462-2700
          Facsimile: (614) 462-5135
          E-mail: Paul.bittner@icemiller.com
                  Abigail.barr@icemiller.com

HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due June 17, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shiflet v. Healthcare
Ventures of Ohio, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03428 (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order on motion for
extension of time as follows:

   -- Motion for Rule 23 Class              June 17, 2022
      Certification due by:

   -- Dispositive motions due by:           June 17, 2022

   -- Expert Reports due by:                45 days after ruling
                                            on dispositive
                                            motions

   -- Rebuttal Expert Reports due:          45 days after
                                            submission of expert
                                            reports.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Healthcare Ventures is in the intermediate care facilities
business.[CC]

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Martin Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hearst
Communications, Inc. The case is styled as William Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hearst Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09624 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
19, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Hearst -- https://www.hearst.com/ -- is a leading global,
diversified media, information and services company with more than
360 businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, LLP (NYC)
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 223-6444
          Fax: (212) 223-6334
          Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com


HIBERNIA RESOURCES: Acevedo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERVEY ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIBERNIA RESOURCES III, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-03691 (S.D. Tex., November 10, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a lease
operator/pumper from on or about January 5, 2020 until on or about
January 5, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees as "exempt" from the
overtime protections of the FLSA. Despite routinely working more
than 40 hours in a work week, the Defendant allegedly did not pay
them overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a work week.

Hibernia Resources III, LLC is an acquisition and development
company focused on the exploration, growth and production of oil
and natural gas assets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
              MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Tel: (817) 416-5060
          Fax: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

HOBBS RENTAL: Fails to Timely Pay OT Wages, Casey Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNINGS CASEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOBBS RENTAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01087-KRS-GJF (D. New. Mex., November 10, 2021) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant
to recover damages as a result of its alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from on or about
December 2016 to January 2020 as a hard band supervisor.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated manual
laborers were treated by the Defendant as exempt employees at all
times. When they worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek, the
Defendant did not pay them overtime premium pay at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in each and every seven-day workweek. The Defendant also
failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which accurately
show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manual laborers on a daily and weekly basis, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for all damages
available for the Defendant's failure to timely pay all overtime
wages owed, including back wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and all
other relief to which manual laborers may be justly entitled.

Hobbs Rental, LLC is an oil and gas field services company that
provides oil and gas maintenance and monitoring services to protect
the assets and employees of its oil and gas industry clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

HOEGH LNG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Hoegh LNG Partners Lp.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

HMLP Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hoegh-lng-partners-lp-loss-submission-form?prid=21431&wire=1

Hoegh LNG Partners Lp (NYSE:HMLP)

HMLP Lawsuit on behalf of: investorswho purchased August 22, 2019 -
July 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 27, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hoegh-lng-partners-lp-loss-submission-form?prid=21431&wire=1

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

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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. [GN]

HOMEWETBAR LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HomeWetBar LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HomeWetBar LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09986
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

HomeWetBar -- https://www.homewetbar.com/ -- offers cool home bar
accessories and fun bar decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


HONEY PACIFICA: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honey Pacifica, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Honey Pacifica, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09818 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Honey Pacifica -- https://www.honeypacifica.com/ -- offers the
highest quality raw honey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOUSTON NORTHWEST: Riley Files Appeal in Texas Appeals Court
------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate case has been filed by Aisha Riley against Houston
Northwest Operating Company, L.L.C., et al. on November 8, 2021, in
the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Court of Appeals. The case
is captioned as Aisha Riley, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Houston Northwest Operating Company, L.L.C.,
a Texas Limited Liability Company d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare
Northwest" and "Houston Northwest Medical Center"; and Gulf Coast
Division, Inc., a Texas Corporation, d/b/a "HCA Houston
Healthcare," Case No. 14-21-00642-CV.

The docket states the type of case as miscellaneous/other civil.

HCA Houston Healthcare Northwest is a 423-bed acute care hospital
that has been serving the north Houston, Texas community for more
than 40 years.[BN]

Appellant Aisha Riley, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel E. Blumberg, Esq.
          Peter Bagley, Esq.
          BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC
          2304 West Interstate 20, Suite 190
          Arlington, TX 76017
          Telephone: (817) 277-1500
          Facsimile: (817) 277-1170

Appellees Houston Northwest Operating Company, L.L.C., a Texas
Limited Liability Company d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare Northwest"
and "Houston Northwest Medical Center"; and Gulf Coast Division,
Inc., a Texas Corporation, d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare," are
represented by:

          James Patrick Bredehoft, Esq.
          BRACEWELL LLP
          1445 Ross Avenue Suite 3800
          Dallas, TX 75202   
          Telephone: (214) 758-1066  
          E-mail: patrick.bredehoft@bracewell.com

HP INC: Greenberg Sues Over Defective Laptop Hinges
---------------------------------------------------
Danielle Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-82107, (S.D. Fla., November 19, 2021) seeks redress for HP's
breaches of warranties and violations of the Magnusson-Moss
Warranty Act, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the common law of the state.

HP Inc. is one of the world's largest manufacturers and sellers of
computers including the "Envy" and "Pavilion" laptops which was
advertised as "convertible" and designed to offer a range of angles
and movements to users.

Greenberg claims that the laptops are defective in that they break
off from the poorly secured mounting points at the base of the
device. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
      SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC
      6810 N. State Road 7
      Coconut Creek, FL 33073
      Tel: (561) 569-7062
      Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H Street NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Tel: (202) 470-3520
      Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
             jrathod@classlawdc.com

             - and -

      Dan E. Gustafson, Esq.
      David A. Goodwin, Esq.
      Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
             fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com


HUM NUTRITION: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hum Nutrition Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Hum Nutrition Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09828 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Hum Nutrition -- https://www.humnutrition.com/ -- offers vitamins &
supplements for skin, hair, body & mood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYDE PARK ANTIQUES: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyde Park Antiques,
Ltd. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Hyde Park Antiques, Ltd., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09852 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Hyde Park Antiques Ltd. -- http://www.hydeparkantiques.com/--
specializes in the finest 18th and early 19th century English
furniture.[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


IC SYSTEM: Bid for Class Certification Due Dec 17
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luis A. Rodriguez-Ocasio
v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-13447-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order granting the parties'
proposed schedule for the briefing of Plaintiff’s motion for
class certification as follows.

   -- Motion for class certification       December 17, 2021
      due by:

   -- Opposition papers due by:            January 24, 2022

   -- Reply papers due by:                 February 7, 2022

IC System is a debt collection agency that founded in 1938 with
headquarters in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30Y08sU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          Continental Plaza
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117


IDENTITY REHAB: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Identity Rehab
Corporation. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Identity Rehab
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-09925 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Identity Rehab Corporation -- https://www.identityrehab.com/ -- was
created to help consumers regain their lives after identity
theft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


IDENTITY THEFT: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Identity Theft Guard
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Identity
Theft Guard Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09849 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
23, 2021).

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

Identity Theft Guard Solutions, Inc. --
http://www.identitytheftguardsolutions.com/-- is located in
Portland, OR, United States and is part of the Management,
Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


ILLINOIS WINGSTOP: Insurer Settles BIPA Coverage Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------
Ganesh Setty, writing for Law360, reports that Society Insurance
settled its coverage dispute with the owners of Illinois Wingstop
restaurants who faced a now-settled proposed class action from a
former employee alleging they violated the state's Biometric
Information Privacy Act, according to an Illinois federal court's
dismissal order. [GN]

ILLINOIS: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN BOONE, BRANDON
HESTER, LINDSEY QUISENBERRY, TAMMY PARKHILL, SUSAN CHRISTNER,
individually, as well as on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, and JB PRITZKER, in his official capacity as
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 3:21-cv-03229-SEM-TSH
(C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying
briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

The Plaintiffs, who work at State-owned and operated congregate
facilities, ask this Court to enjoin the Governor's requirement
that these workers either get vaccinated for Covid-19 or obtain a
medical or religious exemption and submit to weekly testing.

The Plaintiffs work at facilities responsible for the care and
health of people in the State's care and/or custody, such veterans
residing at Department of Veterans' Affairs facilities and people
with disabilities residing at Department of Human Services
facilities. Many of these people in the State's care have
underlying health issues, and face the risk of serious illness or
death if they are infected with Covid-19.

On November 9, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their
complaint and filed the proposed amended complaint, which stated
two entirely new causes of action.

On November 17, 2021, the Court entered a text order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the amended complaint, deeming
it filed on November 9, 2021 and stating that Defendants'
responsive pleading is due November 23, 2021.

On November 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a barebones motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CKQqaB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas J. Verticchio, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. VanDam, Esq.
          Gretchen Helfrich, Esq.
          Isaac Jones, Esq.
          Darren Kincaid, Esq.
          Laura K. Bautista, Esq.
          Joshua D. Ratz, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 West Randolph Street
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: Laura.Bautista@ilag.gov

IN GOD WE MUST: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against In God We Must, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. In God We Must, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09834 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

In God We Must -- https://www.igwm.co/ -- offers a rowdy and
stylish blend of clothing, coin jewelry & accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDESTRUCTIBLE SHOES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indestructible Shoes
LLC. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Indestructible Shoes LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-09937 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Indestructible Shoes -- https://indestructibleshoes.com/ --
specializes in high tech men's work shoes, promising safety and
near invincibility in their footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


INGRID & ISABEL: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingrid & Isabel, LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ingrid & Isabel, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09999 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Ingrid & Isabel -- https://www.ingridandisabel.com/ -- is an online
store that sells a wide range of maternity products and pregnancy
essentials to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com



INNOVAGE HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of InnovAge Holding Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link 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=21431&wire=1

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=21431&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.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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. [GN]

INTEGRATED SECURITY: Suarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Security
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Leslie Suarez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Integrated Security Services, Inc., Does 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC21596612 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 23,
2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Integrated Security Services --
https://www.integratedsecurity.com.au/ -- is a full service private
investigation and executive security firm, serving the corporate
and private sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNET SHOPPING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Internet Shopping
Outlet, L.L.C. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Internet Shopping
Outlet, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-09655-PAE-SDA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22,
2021).

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

Internet Shopping Outlet, L.L.C. is located in Gilbert, Arizona and
is part of the Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
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


INTERSECTIONS INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intersections Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Intersections Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09921 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersectionsweb.com/-- was a
leading provider of identity risk management, privacy protection,
and other subscription-based services for consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Spell Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS SPELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INVENTURE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01426 (S.D. Ill., November 14, 2021) brings this class
action complaint alleging the Defendant of violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
State Consumer Fraud Acts, breaches of Express Warranty, Implied
Warranty of Merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff has bought the Defendant's TGIFriday Crunchy Fries
Snacks (Baked) – Cheddar Cheese Flavored at or exceeding the
above-referenced price, on one or more occasions at one or more
locations, including in 2020 and 2021, from stores including
Casey's, in Illinois and/or Missouri. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
relied on the front label statement that the Product was a "Crunchy
Fries Snacks," and understood "fries" similar to the way this term
is defined in dictionaries, and expected a food made chiefly from
potatoes instead of corn. The Plaintiff relied on the words and
images on the Product identified on its label. The Plaintiff would
not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations were
false and misleading or would have paid less for them.

Inventure Foods, Inc. manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
Crunchy Fries Snacks (Baked) – Cheddar Cheese Flavored under the
TGIFriday's brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JACK HANLEY GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Hanley Gallery,
LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Jack Hanley Gallery,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09707 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Jack Hanley Gallery Art -- https://www.jackhanley.com/ -- is a
gallery in New York City and a loftlike showcase for contemporary
painting, sculpture, multimedia installation & performance
art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JAMES ENTERPRISE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Enterprise,
Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. James Enterprise, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09656-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

James Enterprise Inc. -- https://www.james-enterprise.com/ --
provides the finest rock, sand and gravel hauling services in
Lincoln, Nebraska.[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


JCS PRODUCTS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCS Products LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JCS Products LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10021 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

JCS Products LLC -- https://productsbyjcs.com/ -- is located in
Aiken, South Carolina and is part of the Motion Picture and Video
Industries Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


JOMASHOP INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jomashop Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Jomashop Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10026
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Jomashop.com -- https://www.jomashop.com/ -- offers the best prices
on watches, handbags, sunglasses, apparel, beauty, shoes, pens, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


JP OUTFITTERS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Outfitters, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. JP Outfitters, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09813 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

JP Outfitters, LLC operates as an e-commerce company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUDY PREP: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Judy Prep Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Judy Prep Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09947 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Judy -- https://judy.co/ -- is a collection of ready-kits with
everything needed to prepare for natural disasters and home
emergencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


JUMA VENTURES: Bedford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juma Ventures, et al.
The case is styled as Nyla Bedford, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Juma Ventures, Does
1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00311151-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 12, 2021).

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

Juma -- https://www.juma.org/ -- strives to break the cycle of
poverty by paving the way to work, education, and financial
capability for youth across America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


JUSTANTOM LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justantom LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Justantom LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06529 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

JUSTANTOM LLC is in the All Other Specialty Food Stores
industry.[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


KANGMEI PHARMA: To Pay $385MM to Investors in Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seah, writing for Law.com, reports that Kangmei
Pharmaceuticals, one of China's largest Chinese medicine makers,
has been ordered to pay its 50,000 investors $385 million as
compensation for their losses on their company's stock. The matter
marked closure to the country's first-ever securities class
action.

The public hearing was held in July after 11 investors sued
Shanghai-listed Kangmei for falsifying its disclosures. Between
2016 and 2018, Kangmei inflated its revenue by $4.1 billion. It
also inflated cash positions and its operating profits.

The China Securities Investor Services Center, a not-for-profit
investment services arm of China's main securities regulator, the
China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), was appointed to
represent select retail investors.

A long list of Chinese law firms, including King & Wood Mallesons,
Llinks Law Offices, Commerce & Finance Law Offices, represented the
investors and the defendants.

The defendants include former Kangmei chairman Ma Xingtian and his
wife, financial chief Zhuang Yiqing, former deputy general manager
Qiu Xiwei and its Guangzhou-based accountants.

The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court found Kangmei guilty of
inflating its financials and committing financial fraud that caused
its investors to lose $385 million.

The CSRC issued a statement after the decision was announced
praising the swift handling of the country's first securities class
action suit. It added that China's revised securities law places
great importance on safeguarding investors' rights and interests
and pledged to improve its class action litigation function.

In the same week the decision was announced, Kangmei's shares
surged by over 17%, as the fine means the company is unlikely to be
forced to delist after having been ordered to compensate its
investors.

"Not all fraudulent activity will result in delisting," said a
Shanghai-based capital markets partner at a Beijing-based law firm.
"Kangmei is a pharma company so it would have done well over the
past couple of years because of COVID. That might be why investors
still see its value and are willing to invest more."

Another Chinese lawyer in a Shanghai-based law firm said the order
to pay $385 million is not being perceived as a punishment for
financial misconduct but does help investors recoup their losses.

"The matter still sets the tone for future class actions," he said.
"The point is to crack down and strike fear in relation to
fraudulent activity." [GN]

KATHY KUO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kathy Kuo Designs
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Kathy Kuo Designs Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10030 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Kathy Kuo Home -- https://www.kathykuohome.com/ -- is an online and
brick and mortar destination for designer furniture and home
decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


KDF FORESTRY: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KDF Forestry Inc. The
case is styled as Craig L. Johnson, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KDF Forestry Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2021-00311528-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
22, 2021).

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

KDF Forestry, Inc. (KDF) -- https://kdfforestry.com/ -- is a full
service debris management and tree care company with a core team
who have been providing planning, management, equipment and
personnel to support vegetation management for more than 50 years
combined.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


KIIERR INTERNATIONAL: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kiierr International,
LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Kiierr International,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09911 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Kiierr International -- https://kiierr.com/ -- offer natural
products such as vitamins, shampoo, conditioner, laser caps to help
regrow hair if hair follicles are not dead.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Court Junks L.N.P. Complaint w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., on his own behalf
and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00820-MSN-TCB (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael
S. Nachmanoff entered an order:

   1. granting the defendant's motion to dismiss;

   2. dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's complaint;

   3. denying as moot plaintiff's Protective Motion for Class
      certification.

The Court grants the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and dismisses the claim without prejudice to plaintiff's
ability to re-file it after exhausting his agency-defined
administrative processes. Accordingly, the Court need not reach
defendants' arguments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In light of
the dismissal without prejudice, plaintiff's protective motion for
class certification is denied as moot.

The Plaintiff is an individual who collects monthly Retirement
Insurance Benefits ("RIB") of $2,154. His two dependent children
each receive monthly auxiliary benefits of $1,107. Plaintiff does
not challenge the RIB he receives but contends his dependent
children each should receive an additional $375 in monthly
auxiliary benefits under 42 U.S.C. section 403 and 20 C.F.R.
section 404.403.

The reason for this underpayment, the plaintiff alleges, is a
systemwide misapplication of the requirement first articulated in
Parisi by Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d 614 (1st Cir. 1995) that the
Social Security Administration ("SSA") not use "theoretical
entitlements" when calculating payable auxiliary benefits. The SSA
currently determines plaintiff's auxiliary benefits award by
reducing the maximum monthly amount that can be paid on a
worker’s earnings record ("Family Maximum") by his Primary
Insurance Amount ("PIA") and then dividing that difference by his
number of auxiliary beneficiaries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32yPpGm at no extra charge.[CC]

KIRRIN FINCH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirrin Finch, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Kirrin Finch, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09927 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Kirrin Finch -- https://kirrinfinch.com/ -- is a conscientious
clothing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ivy Creek Sues Over Recalled Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Ivy Creek of Tallapoosa LLC d/b/a Lake Martin Community Hospital;
and Elmore Community Hospital Rural Health Association d/b/a Elmore
Community Hospital, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01640-JFC (W.D. Pa., Nov. 11, 2021), is brought to recover
damages based on, inter alia, the Defendants' negligence, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties, and fraud, in
connection with the Defendants' manufacture, marketing, and sales
of Recalled devices on behalf of themselves and a nationwide
class.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
proposed nationwide class of institutional purchasers of Philips Bi
Level Positive Airway Pressure ("BiPAP"), Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure ("CPAP"), and mechanical ventilator devices, which
contain polyester based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") sound abatement
foam ("PE-PUR Foam").

On April 26, 2021, Philips disclosed that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain devices it manufactured may degrade. On June 14, 2021,
Philips issued a recall of devices containing PE-PUR Foam, noting
that it had determined that the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for
degradation, resulting in the off-gassing of certain chemicals, and
the release of particles which may enter the device's pathway and
be inhaled or ingested by users of such devices. Philips
recommended that patients using Philips BiPAP and CPAP devices
immediately discontinue their use of their devices. On July 22,
2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration classified the
recall of Philips devices containing PE-PUR Foam as a Class 1
recall, the most serious type of recall which is reserved for
recalls of devices that may cause serious injuries or death.

The Plaintiffs purchased Philips CPAP, BiPAP, or mechanical
ventilator devices subject to the Recall prior to June 14, 2021.
Plaintiffs subsequently learned that their CPAP, BiPAP, or
mechanical ventilator devices were recalled by Philips because of
the presence of PE-PUR Foam that could break down into small
airborne particles and/or off-gas chemicals, rendering the devices
defective and not fit for use by the Plaintiffs' patients. The
Plaintiffs have been advised by Philips to discontinue use of their
devices. Plaintiffs have had to incur significant out-of-pocket
costs to replace the devices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Lake Martin Community Hospital is an Alabama Limited
Liability Company with its principal place of business in
Tallapoosa County, Alabama. The Plaintiff Elmore Community Hospital
is an Alabama Non-Profit Corporation with its principal place of
business in Elmore County, Alabama.

Royal Philips is a Dutch multinational corporation with its
principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          Email: kelly@lcllp.com
                 ekilpela@lcllp.com
                 kathleen@lcllp.com
                 elizabeth@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin G. Comite, Esq.
          Alex M. Outwater, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 ecomite@scott-scott.com
                 aoutwater@scott-scott.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Phone: (205) 908-4906
          Email: kirk@woodlawifrmllc.com

               - and -

          Myron C. Penn, Esq.
          PENN & SEABORN, LLC
          53 Highway 110
          Post Office Box 5335
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Phone: (334) 738-4486
          Facsimile: (334) 738-4432
          Email: myronpenn28@hotmail.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lawrence Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Lawrence, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No.
0:21-cv-02439 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 22, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01704-JFC to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J Nemo, Sr., Esq.
          Ashleigh Raso, Esq.
          MESHBESHER AND SPENCE LTD
          1616 Park Ave S
          Mpls, MN 55404
          Phone: (612) 339-9121
          Fax: (612) 339-9188
          Email: tnemo@meshbesher.com
                 araso@meshbesher.com

               - and -

          Ava Marie M. Cavaco, Esq.
          MESHBESHER AND SPENCE LTD
          2519 Commerce Drive NW, Suite 120
          Rochester, MN 55901
          Phone: (507) 280-8090
          Fax: (507) 280-0807
          Email: acavaco@meshbesher.com


KRISP TECHNOLOGIES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krisp Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09807 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Krisp Technologies -- https://krisp.ai/ -- is an AI-powered noise
cancelling app that removes background noise and echo during online
calls in real time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



KYO AUTISM THERAPY: Gotishan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyo Autism Therapy,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Liliya Gotishan, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kyo
Autism Therapy, LLC, a California limited liability company, Does 1
to 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC21596378 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Nov. 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Kyo -- https://kyocare.com/ -- cultivates learning, language,
behavior and social skills for individuals with Autism and other
special need by using child-centric autism therapy, .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com



LA CASA VENTURES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Casa Ventures,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. La Casa Ventures, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09973 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

La Casa Ventures, Inc. doing business as CasaOne --
http://www.casaone.com/-- operates as a furniture rental company
that rents home and office furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


LABRUNA SKINCARE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LaBruna Skincare,
LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. LaBruna
Skincare, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06534-WFK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2021).

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

LaBruna Skincare -- https://labrunaskincare.com/ -- is a handmade,
all-natural line, produced in small, carefully monitored batches in
NY.[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


LAGUNITAS BREWING: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lagunitas Brewing
Company. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Lagunitas Brewing
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-10020 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The Lagunitas Brewing Company -- https://lagunitas.com/ -- offers a
well-rounded, Highly drinkable India Pale Ale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAMPS PLUS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamps Plus, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lamps Plus, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10019 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Lamps Plus, Inc. -- https://www.lampsplus.com/ -- is a privately
held corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells portable
lighting, fixture lighting, furniture, home decor items and a
variety of other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY: Stawis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Office of Jeffrey
G. Lerman, P.C. The case is styled as Atara Stawis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Law Office of
Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-06501-DG-ST (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C. -- https://www.jeffreylerman.com/ -- is a
law firm in Mineola, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com



LEIF INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leif, Inc. The case
is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Leif, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09853 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Leif -- https://leif.org/ -- helps schools design custom programs,
manage payments, access financing, and more.[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


LIBERTY HEALTH: Final Judgment & Order Entered in Lin Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a Final Judgment and Order in the
case, NANCY LIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY HEALTH SCIENCES INC., GEORGE
SCORSIS, RENE GULLIVER, and VIC NEUFELD, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00161-MKV-SLC (S.D.N.Y.).

An action is pending before the Court entitled Lin v Liberty Health
Sciences Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-00161-MKV-SLC (S.D.N.Y.)
("Litigation"). Lead Plaintiff Nancy Lin and Plaintiff Gilbert Lee
Silverbird, on behalf of themselves and each of the Class Members,
and Defendant Liberty have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
dated Jan. 8, 2021, that provides for a complete dismissal with
prejudice of the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court.

By Order dated July 8, 2021, the Court: (a) preliminarily approved
the Settlement; (b) certified the Class solely for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement; (c) ordered that notice of the
proposed Settlement be provided to potential Class Members; (d)
provided Class Members with the opportunity either to exclude
themselves from the Class or to object to the proposed Settlement;
and (e) scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the
Settlement. Due and adequate notice has been given to the
Settlement Class.

Judge Vyskocil conducted the Settlement Hearing on Nov. 15, 2021.
Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed
and proceedings held therein in connection with the Settlement, all
oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and
the record in the Action, and good cause appearing therefor, she
affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary Approval
Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the
Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased, held, or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Liberty on the
over-the-counter market in the United States between July 20, 2017
and Dec. 6, 2018, both dates inclusive, and were allegedly damaged
thereby.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, Judge Vyskocil affirmed
the determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying the
Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives for the Class and
appointing the Lead Counsel as the Class Counsel for the Class.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Settlement set
forth in the Stipulation is approved. Accordingly, Judge Vyskocil
authorized and directed implementation and performance of all the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and
provisions hereof. The Action and all claims contained therein, as
well as all of the Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as
against the Defendants and the Released Parties. The Settling
Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided
in the Settlement Stipulation.

All Settlement Class Members are bound by the Final Judgment and
Order except those persons listed on Exhibit 1 to the Final
Judgment and Order.

Upon the Effective Date, the Class Representatives shall, and each
of the Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of
the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged all the Released Claims against the
Released Persons, whether or not such Class Member executes and
delivers the Proof of Claim and Release or shares in the Settlement
Fund. The Claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation are not
released.

Upon the Effective Date, all the Class Members, and anyone claiming
through or on behalf of any of them, will be forever barred and
enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or continuing
to prosecute any action or other proceeding in any court of law or
equity, arbitration tribunal, administrative forum, or any other
forum, asserting the Released Claims against any of the Released
Persons.

Upon the Effective Date, each of the Released Persons shall be
deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully,
finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the
Class Representatives, each and all of the Class Members, and the
Class Representatives' counsel, including Lead Counsel, from all
the Defendants' Claims. The Defendants' Claims do not include
claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation or any order of the
Court in the Litigation.

The Settling Parties may file the Settlement Stipulation and/or the
Order and Final Judgment in any proceedings that may be necessary
to consummate or enforce the Settlement Stipulation, the
Settlement, or the Order and Final Judgment.

The finality of the Final Judgment and Order shall not be affected,
in any manner, by rulings that the Court may make on the Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
or an award to the Class Representatives.

The Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$600,000m and expenses in the amount of $28,818.78, such amounts to
be paid out of the Settlement Fund immediately following entry of
the Order. The Class Counsel shall thereafter be solely responsible
for allocating the attorneys' fees and expenses among other
Plaintiff's counsel in the manner in which the Class Counsel in
good faith believe reflects the contributions of such counsel to
the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the Actions.

In the event that the Judgment does not become Final, and any
portion of the Fee and Expense Award has already been paid from the
Settlement Fund, the Class Counsel and all other plaintiffs'
counsel to whom the Class Counsel has distributed payments shall
within 10 business days of entry of the order rendering the
Settlement and Judgment non-Final or notice of the Settlement being
terminated or precludes the Effective Date from occurring, refund
the Settlement Fund the Fee and Expense Award paid to Class Counsel
and, if applicable, distributed to other counsel.

Lead Plaintiff Nancy Lin is awarded $5000, and Plaintiff Gilbert
Lee Silverbird is awarded $3000 ($8,000 total), as Compensatory
Awards for reasonable costs and expenses directly relating to the
representation of the Class as provided in 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(4), such amounts to be paid from the Settlement Fund upon
the Effective Date of the Settlement.

In the event that the Settlement is terminated as provided in the
Stipulation, or the Effective Date otherwise does not occur, then
this Judgment, and all orders entered and releases delivered in
connection herewith, shall be vacated, rendered null and void to
the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation, and
this Judgment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Class
Representatives, the other Class Members, and Defendants, and the
Settling Parties shall revert to their respective positions in the
Litigation as of Nov. 19, 2020, as provided in the Stipulation.

Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Stipulation.

Judge Vyskocil directed immediate entry of the Judgment by the
Clerk of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/cjbpafpc from
Leagle.com.


LIFEVAC INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifevac, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Lifevac, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09919 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

LifeVac -- https://lifevac.net/ -- is a non-powered, non-invasive,
airway clearance device developed for resuscitating a victim with
an airway obstruction when current choking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against lightning eMotors, Inc. ("Lightning eMotors" or
the "Company") (NYSE: ZEV) in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lightning eMotors securities
between May 7, 2021 and August 16, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until December 14, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Lightning eMotors' stock began trading on the New York Stock
Exchange on May 7, 2021 following a de-SPAC transaction with
GigCapital3. Then, on August 16, 2021, Lightning eMotors announced
the Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2021,
including a net loss per share of $0.79 compared to a loss of $0.10
in the second quarter of 2020. The Company also pulled its full
year financial guidance for the remainder of 2021, just days after
announcing a multi-year agreement with Forest River, a Berkshire
Hathaway company.

On this news, Lightning eMotors' stock price fell $1.63 per share,
or 16.93%, to close at $8.00 per share on August 17, 2021.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lightning eMotors shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

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. [GN]

LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 18, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Lightspeed Commerce Inc. ("Lightspeed" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LSPD) securities between September 11, 2020 and
September 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Lightspeed investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/lightspeed-commerce-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On September 29, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management published a
report alleging, among other things, that the Company was
"overstating its customer count by 85% and gross transaction volume
('GTV') by 10%." The report also stated there was "[e]vidence of
declining organic growth and business deterioration through
Lightspeed's IPO, despite management's claims that Average Revenue
Per User ('ARPU') is increasing."

On this news, Lightspeed's share price fell $13.73 per share, or
more than 12%, to close at $98.77 per share on September 29, 2021,
thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lightspeed had
misrepresented the strength of its business by, inter alia,
overstating its customer count, GTV, and increase in ARPU, while
concealing the Company's declining organic growth and business
deterioration; (ii) Lightspeed had overstated the benefits and
value of the Company's various acquisitions; (iii) accordingly, the
Company had overstated its financial position and prospects; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lightspeed securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 18,
2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

LINDBLAD EXPEDITIONS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lindblad Expeditions,
LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lindblad Expeditions, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09910 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Lindblad Expeditions -- https://world.expeditions.com/ -- offers
luxury adventure cruises that exceed consumers expectations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINGERIE BOX: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lingerie Box LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lingerie Box LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10053 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The Lingerie Box -- https://www.thelingeriebox.com/ -- is monthly
subscription box featuring small boutique designer lingerie.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIQUIDSPACE INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LiquidSpace, Inc. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LiquidSpace, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09712-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

LiquidSpace -- http://liquidspace.com/-- is an online marketplace
and workspace network for renting office space.[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


LISTENER BRANDS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Listener Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Listener Brands, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09867 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Listener Brands -- https://listenerbrands.com/ -- is home to
award-winning textured hair care brands CurlMix and 4C ONLY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LITTLE COTTAGE: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Cottage
Company. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Little Cottage
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-09880 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Little Cottage Company -- https://www.cottagekits.com/ --
specializes in high quality, handcrafted cottage kits, playhouses,
storage sheds, kennels, coops, greenhouses, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LITTLE COTTAGE: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Cottage
Company. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Little Cottage
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-09909 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Little Cottage Company -- https://www.cottagekits.com/ --
specializes in high quality, handcrafted cottage kits, playhouses,
storage sheds, kennels, coops, greenhouses, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LITTLE SPOON: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Spoon, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Little Spoon, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09832 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Little Spoon -- https://www.littlespoon.com/ -- is the modern
parent's go-to resource for keeping their kids healthy and
happy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIVELEANTODAY.COM: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LiveLeanToday.com.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. LiveLeanToday.com, Case No.
1:21-cv-09770 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Live Lean Today (LLT) -- https://www.liveleantoday.com/ -- is a
licensed online retailer of ephedrine hcl and ephedrine
sulfate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


LONDON SILVER: Bid for Class Status Filed in Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned IN LONDON SILVER FIXING, LTD.
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:14-md-02573-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing Christopher DePaoli, John Hayes, Laurence
      Hughes, KPFF Investment, Inc., Kevin Maher, J. Scott
      Nicholson, and Don Tran as Representatives for the Class;
      and

   3. appointing Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Lowey Dannenberg,
      P.C. as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Class Pursuant to
      Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l7hfzK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Eisler, Esq.
          Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
          Chad Holtzman, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 646-722-8500
          Facsimile: 646-722-8501
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
                  delman@gelaw.com
                  choltzman@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Thomas Skelton, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  tskelton@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  jseredynski@lowey.com

LONGBOW LOGISTICS: Knight Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryson Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Longbow Logistics LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01113-J (W.D.
Okla., Nov. 23, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven-day workweek while working for the Defendant and paid on a
day rate basis. The Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek without receiving overtime premium compensation
for all such hours of work. However, the Defendant did not pay the
Plaintiff additional pay for the overtime hours that the Plaintiff
worked each week at the applicable half time hourly rate, which on
average was 48 hours of overtime (on average Plaintiff works 84
hours per week). As the result of te Defendant's failure to pay
overtime premium compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for damages
including backpay, liquidated damages, and the Plaintiff's costs
and attorneys' fees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a pumper on the Defendant's work site.

The Defendant is a limited liability company formed under the laws
of the State of North Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713)621-2277
          Facsimile: (713)621-0993
          Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
                 marbuckle@eeoc.net


LOOT COMPANY: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Loot Company LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Loot Company LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09930 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Loot Crate -- https://lootcrate.com/ -- is the #1 pop culture
subscription-based service on the planet, bringing the love of pop
culture conventions to fans at home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOVEBOOK LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovebook LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lovebook LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09810
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Lovebook -- https://lovebookonline.com/ -- offers easy to build
personalized books & gifts online to celebrate birthdays,
anniversaries, holidays.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


MADE BY HAVEN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Made By Haven, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Made By Haven, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09915 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Haven -- https://www.fourkites.com/haven/ -- is a company that
automates logistics for ocean freight companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MAI JOHNSON: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mai Johnson & Company
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mai
Johnson & Company LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06532 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2021).

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

Mai Johnson Company -- https://maijohnson.com/ -- is a men's
grooming brand focused on skin care and body powder for the modern
man..[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


MARQUEZ BROTHERS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquez Brothers
Foods, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adriana Garcia, and on
behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. Marquez Brothers
Foods, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00311495-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Marquez Brothers Foods, Inc.  is a leader in the food industry
specializing in the manufacturing of Hispanic grocery and
perishable food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: 805-270-7100
          Fax: 805-270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com


MARYLAND: Gorres Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GORRES, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. TIFFANY
ROBINSON, in her Official Capacity as Maryland Secretary of Labor,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03029-GLR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following plaintiff classes:

      -- Delay Class

         "All individuals who at any time within the three years
         prior to the filing of this action, (a) made an
         application for UI benefits with MDL; (b) filed at
         least one weekly claim certification; and (c) neither
         received benefit payments, nor an appealable
         determination denying their claim as to each potential
         benefit type for more than 21 days after the end of the
         week in which they filed the application;"

      -- Continued Claims Class

         "All individuals who: (a) have received one or more UI
         benefit payments from MDL within the three years prior
         to the filing of this action; (b) have filed at least
         one additional weekly claim for benefits, for which
         there are payable benefits, for which there were
         benefits paid; and (c) subsequently stopped receiving
         benefits for a period greater than 14 days without
         receiving either: (i) an appealable determination or
         redetermination denying their claims, or (ii) all
         benefit payments to which they are entitled;" and

      -- Overpayment Class

         "All individuals who have received one or more UI
         benefit payments from MDL within the three years prior
         to the filing of this action, and were subsequently
         issued an overpayment notice without: (a) notice or
         opportunity to be heard prior to any determination that
         serves as the basis of the alleged overpayment; or (b)
         a written determination explaining the factual and
         legal basis of the overpayment and the right to
         appeal;"

   2. approving the representative Plaintiffs as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Public Justice Center and Gallagher Evelius &
      Jones, LLP as counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p3GhBf
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
          Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
          David Rodwin, Esq.
          Tyra M. Robinson, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
          E-mail: dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org
                  cherayilm@publicjustice.org
                  rodwind@publicjustice.org
                  robinsont@publicjustice.org

               - and -

          Paul S. Caiola, Esq.
          GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP
          218 North Charles Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 727-7702
          Facsimile: (410) 468-2786
          E-mail: pcaiola@gejlaw.com

MASS. BAY BREWING: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mass. Bay Brewing
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mass. Bay Brewing
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Mass. Bay Brewing Company, Inc., doing business as Harpoon Brewery
-- http://www.harpoonbrewery.com/-- is an employee owned American
brewery, with locations in Boston, Massachusetts, and Windsor,
Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASSACHUSETTS: High Court Won't Hear Secret Recording Ban Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dowling, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on Nov. 22 declined to hear a suit by conservative activist
group Project Veritas challenging Massachusetts' sweeping ban on
secret audio recordings. [GN]


MATTRESS WAREHOUSE: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattress Warehouse,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Mattress Warehouse, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-06566 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Mattress Warehouse -- https://sleephappens.com/ -- provides quality
mattresses at an affordable price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAURY COBB: Thomas Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maury Cobb Attorney
at Law, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alicia Thomas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Maury Cobb Attorney at Law, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-04792-MHC-LTW (N.D. Ga., Nov. 19, 2021).

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

Maury Cobb, Attorney at Law, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 500-7861
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kitsap County Files RICO Suit in W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kitsap County, on behalf of
itself and similarly situated counties and cities v. McKinsey &
Company Inc. United States, McKinsey & Company Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-05853-BHS (W.D. Wash., Nov. 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is a global
management consulting firm that serves leading businesses,
governments, non-governmental organizations, and
not-for-profits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine M. Palmer, Esq.
          KITSAP COUNTY
          Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
          Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office
          614 Division Street, MS-35A
          Port Orchard, WA 98366
          Phone: (360) 337-7004
          Fax: (360) 337-7083

               - and -

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


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kitsap County Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kitsap County, on behalf of itself and similarly situated counties
and cities v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., UNITED STATES and MCKINSEY
& COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01564 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 19,
2021), arises from the worst man-made epidemic in modern medical
history--the misuse, abuse, and over-prescription of opioids. This
crisis arose from the opioid manufacturers' deliberately deceptive
marketing strategy to expand opioid use; and to hold McKinsey
liable for its role in helping Purdue circumvent the CIA and
further fuel the opioid epidemic, in violation the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, constitutes a public nuisance under
Washington law, constitutes negligence and gross negligence under
Washington law, has unjustly enriched McKinsey, and violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

On May 10, 2007, John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney for the
Western District of Virginia, announced the guilty plea of the
Purdue Frederick Company, the parent of Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
relating to the misbranding of OxyContin.  Along with the guilty
plea, Purdue agreed to a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the
Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services ("HHS") For a period of five years,
ending in 2012, Purdue was obligated to retain an Independent
Monitor and submit annual compliance reports regarding its
marketing and sales practices and training of sales representatives
vis-a-vis their interactions with health care providers. In the
wake of Purdue's accession to the CIA, Purdue faced newly imposed
constraints on its sales and marketing practices. Despite the CIA's
constraints (i.e., do not lie about OxyContin), Purdue and its
controlling owners, the Sackler family, still intended to maximize
OxyContin sales.

Given the complexity of the problem and the constraints of the CIA,
the Sacklers and Purdue realized they would need outside
assistance. Purdue did not have the capabilities in house to design
and implement a sales strategy for OxyContin that would achieve the
Sacklers' objectives. They turned to the global management
consulting firm McKinsey, the Defendant in this case which had
already been advising the Sacklers and Purdue for at least three
years, for help with their new problem. McKinsey knew of the
dangers of opioids and of Purdue's prior misconduct, but
nonetheless accepted the assignment and by June 2009 McKinsey and
Purdue were working together to maximize OxyContin sales. McKinsey
devised a plan to work around the requirements of the CIA,
suggesting a specific sales and marketing strategy based on
McKinsey's own independent research and unique methodologies, and
Purdue adopted that strategy. McKinsey then worked intimately with
Purdue on an ongoing basis to implement its plan. Despite the
strictures imposed by the CIA, OxyContin sales began to multiply.

In 2012, Purdue's CIA ended, and with its expiration McKinsey's
ongoing relationship5 with Purdue flourished. In 2013, McKinsey
proposed, and Purdue implemented with McKinsey's ongoing
assistance, Project Turbocharge, a marketing strategy to increase
opioids sales by hundreds of millions of dollars annually. McKinsey
has recently been the subject of scrutiny for its various business
practices, including its work facilitating the growth of opioid
sales to benefit Purdue On March 7, 2019, Kevin Sneader, McKinsey's
global managing partner, addressed all McKinsey employees regarding
this scrutiny. Weeks later, McKinsey announced that it is no longer
working for any opioid manufacturer.

The law does not let McKinsey off so easily. Like any other
entities that fuelled the opioid epidemic, McKinsey is liable for
its misconduct. McKinsey is liable for its successful efforts to
increase OxyContin sales after Purdue's 2007 guilty plea for
misbranding the drug. Indeed, McKinsey's mandate was to increase
the sales of the drug in light of the fact that Purdue had plead
guilty to misbranding. McKinsey's task was to thread the needle: to
increase OxyContin sales given the strictures imposed by the 5-year
CIA. This McKinsey did,
"turbocharging" (to use McKinsey's term) the sales of a drug it
knew fully well was addictive and deadly.

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

The Plaintiff is a Washington County.

McKinsey is a management consulting firm founded by James O.
McKinsey in 1926.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Christine M. Palmer, Esq.
          KITSAP COUNTY
          Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
          Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office
          614 Division Street, MS-35A
          Port Orchard, WA 98366
          Phone: (360) 337-7004
          Fax: (360) 337-7083


MDL 2670: DPPs' Bid for Set Aside Order in Antitrust Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS TRACK,
Case No. 3:15-MD-02670-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for a set aside
order.

Introduction

Presently before the Court is the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs'
(DPPs') Motion for a Set Aside Order in the putative class action
to establish a common fund from future "opt-out" settlements for
the benefit of the DPPs' Class Counsel, Hausfeld LLP. Defendants
StarKist Co., Dongwon Industries, Co., and Lion Capital (Americas),
Inc. filed an opposition to the Motion, as did Non-party Plaintiffs
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. ("A&P") and C&S
Wholesale Grocers Inc. ("C&S"). The DPPs replied.

On Aug. 31, 2021, Judge Janis Sammartino recused from the
multidistrict litigation case ("MDL") and notified the parties that
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation had
reassigned the litigation to the undersigned judge. Thereafter, a
status conference was held.

On Sept. 23, 2021, the Court issued an Order Following Status
Conference stating it would (1) decline to stay the case pending
resolution of an appeal before the Ninth Circuit, and (2) address a
number of pending motions that have been fully briefed, including
the present motion.

Background

Numerous civil actions have been filed against Tri-Union Seafoods
LLC, doing business as Chicken of the Sea International ("COSI"),
Bumble Bee Foods LLC, StarKist Co., and their parent companies for
conspiring to fix and maintain packaged tuna prices above
competitive levels in violation of state and federal antitrust
laws. The first of these actions was filed on Aug. 3, 2015 -- Olean
Wholesale Groc. Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 15cv1714
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015).

The civil actions were consolidated in this MDL for pretrial
proceedings before the Court. The Court divided the Plaintiffs into
four tracks: (1) the Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs"), who are
direct purchasers proceeding individually; (2) the DPPs, who are
direct purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class; (3) the
Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs ("CFPs"), who are indirect
purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class; and (4) the
End Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs"), who are consumers proceeding on
behalf of a putative class. The Court designated Hausfeld LLP as
the Interim Lead Counsel, and thereafter as the DPPs' Class
Counsel.

DPPs filed a motion for class certification in May 2018,as did the
EPPs and CFPs (DPPs, EPPs and CFPs collectively the "Class
Plaintiffs"). The Court held a three-day hearing on the motions
beginning on Jan. 14, 2019, during which the enlisted experts used
regression models to show the antitrust impact on Class Members.
The Court granted the Class Plaintiffs' motions for class
certification on July 30, 2019.

The Defendants appealed the class certification order to the Ninth
Circuit. While the appeal was pending, DPPs--through their Class
Counsel--filed the present motion. DPPs' motion limits its request
for a set aside order to "any Class member that has not previously
filed its own suit in the multi-district litigation." DPPs also
request an order "requiring the Defendants to advise the Class
members that they may contact Class Counsel free of any separate
charge to them in order to obtain information about their rights,
including the right to remain in the Class."

On April 6, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated
the Court's class certification order and remanded with
instructions to resolve the factual disputes concerning the number
of uninjured parties in the proposed classes in order to properly
address the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). Shortly
thereafter, a majority of non-recused active judges of the Ninth
Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc. The matter was argued
before the en banc panel on Sept. 22, 2021, and remains pending
before that court.

Discussion

DPPs argue that a set aside order to establish an escrow account or
common fund is in the Court's inherent equitable power and
warranted in the case because "the efficacy of the system and the
deterrent effect of private antitrust litigation are risked if the
class counsel is forced to take on substantial costs of work
without any opportunity for compensation," particularly in light of
the significant costs incurred by DPPs Class Counsel.

Non-party Plaintiffs counter a set aside order is unwarranted
because DPPs' reliance on mass tort cases in support of their
motion is misplaced. Mass tort cases typically involve large
numbers of claims asserted by individual plaintiffs who have
separately retained counsel that might "free-ride" off the work of
designated lead counsel. Unlike in mass tort litigation, DPPs Class
Counsel can recover attorneys' fees and costs under Rule 23(h) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 15(a), for the work they performed on behalf of the class.

In sum, Judge Sabraw holds that DPPs Class Counsel have failed to
show that their work on behalf of the DPPs class, including future
opt-outs, will not be fairly compensated in this action or that any
future opt-outs have been or will be unjustly enriched. Further,
Non-party Plaintiffs have shown that DPPs' requested set aside
order is administratively unworkable in the present procedural
posture of the MDL.

Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Sabraw denied DPPs' motion for
a set aside order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5hntzut from Leagle.com.


MEREDITH CORPORATION: Goldberger Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Norma Goldberger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
4-21-cv-335, 341, 344, 350, was transferred from the IASD, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on Nov. 22,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00367-RGE-SBJ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- is an American
media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa that owns magazines,
television stations, websites, and radio stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mollie Pawlosky, Esq.
          DICKINSON MACKAMAN TYLER & HAGEN PC
          699 WALNUT ST
          1600 HUB TOWER
          DES MOINES, IA 50309-3986
          Fax: 246 4550
          Phone:  (515) 244-2600
          Email: mpawlosky@dickinsonlaw.com


MEREDITH CORPORATION: Marto-Maedel Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Candyce Marto-Maedel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
4-21-cv-335, 341, 344, 350, was transferred from the IASD to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on Nov. 22,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00366-RGE-SBJ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- is an American
media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa that owns magazines,
television stations, websites, and radio stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mollie Pawlosky, Esq.
          DICKINSON MACKAMAN TYLER & HAGEN PC
          699 WALNUT ST
          1600 HUB TOWER
          DES MOINES, IA 50309-3986
          Fax: 246 4550
          Phone:  (515) 244-2600
          Email: mpawlosky@dickinsonlaw.com


META PLATFORMS: Faces Depot Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY G. DEPOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC. f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC.;
MARK ZUCKERBERG; DAVID M. WEHNER; SUSAN J.S. TAYLOR; and NICK
CLEGG, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08873 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16,
2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Facebook common
stock between April 29, 2021, and October 21, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, after the markets closed on October 21,
2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook "is struggling
to detect and deal with users' creating multiple accounts on its
flagship platform, according to internal documents that raise new
questions about how the social-media giant measures its audience."
According to these documents, "the phenomenon of single users with
multiple accounts is 'very prevalent' among new accounts" with "an
examination of roughly 5,000 recent sign-ups on the service
indicating that at least 32% and as many as 56% were opened by
existing users." On this news, the price of Company common stock
declined $17.27 per share, or approximately 5%, from a close of
$341.88 per share on October 21, 2021, to close at $324.61 per
share on October 22, 2021, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the resulting declines in the market value of the Company's
common stock, the Plaintiff and other members of the class have
suffered significant damages.

Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The
Company builds applications and technologies that help people
connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is
also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          Email: jjoost@ktmc.com

METALS CO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against TMC the metals company Inc. f/k/a Sustainable
Opportunities Acquisition Corp. ("TMC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TMC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-06325, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of TMC between
March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

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

On March 4, 2021, DeepGreen Inc. announced that it had entered into
a business combination agreement with Sustainable Opportunities
Acquisition Corporation, a special purpose acquisition company
("SPAC") with a dedicated Environmental, Social, and Governance
focus. Upon closing of the merger, the combined company was renamed
TMC the metals company Inc. The combined company, TMC, began
trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "TMC" on September
10, 2021.

TMC is a Canadian deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on
the collection, processing, and refining of polymetallic nodules
found on the seafloor of the Clarion Clipperton Zone of the Pacific
Ocean. The Company's purported mission is to supply metals for
electric vehicle batteries with the least possible negative
environmental and social impact.

TMC's primary assets are three exploration licenses granted by the
ISA. These licenses, which are held via three subsidiaries, are:
(i) Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. ("NORI"); (ii) Marawa Research and
Exploration Limited; and (iii) Tongo Offshore Mining Limited
("TOML").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statement
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had significantly
overpaid for the TOML acquisition to undisclosed insiders; (2) the
Company had artificially inflated its 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 ISA 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 private investment in public equity ("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.

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

On this news, TMC's shares fell $2.45, or 20%, over the next two
trading days to close at $10.00 on September 15, 2021, damaging
investors.

Then, on October 6, 2021, before market hours, market research firm
Bonitas Research released a report detailing multiple issues
plaguing TMC, including that: (i) the Company had overpaid on
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
NORI; and (iv) the Company's history of affiliating with bad
actors.

On this news, TMC shares fell $0.32 per share, or over 7%, to close
at $4.14 per share on October 6, 2021, further damaging investors.

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

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

METRO DECOR: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro Decor LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Metro Decor LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10031 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Metro Decor doing business as mDesign --
https://mdesignhomedecor.com/ -- offers collections from bathroom
accessories to pantry storage and everything in between.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICREOS NORTH AMERICA: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micreos North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Micreos North
America, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09977 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Micreos -- https://www.micreos.com/ -- develops targeted
antibacterial products set to replace antibiotics and is viewed as
product leader in this field.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com



MIDLAND CREDIT: Mayer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Esther Mayer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:21-cv-09659 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Pollak Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH POLLAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06300 (E.D.N.Y., November
12, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about September 29, 2021 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt incurred to Synchrony Bank. The letter
states a current balance of $3,077.68 and gives three payment
options. Allegedly, the third option provided by the Defendant is
not adequately explained and results in two different possible
interpretations, thereby making the letter false, deceptive and
misleading. The Plaintiff was therefore unable to evaluate his
options of how to handle this alleged debt because he was confused
and misled to his detriment by the statements in the dunning
letter, and relied on the contents of the letter to his detriment.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com

MILITARY UNIFORM: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Military Uniform
Supply, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Military Uniform
Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09708 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Military Uniform Supply -- https://militaryuniformsupply.com/ -- is
a source for Military Clothing, Gear, and Insignia as well as
Tactical Clothing, Novelty Items and many more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MINT MOBILE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mint Mobile, LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mint Mobile, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09958 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Mint Mobile -- http://www.mintmobile.com/-- is an American
telecommunications company which sells mobile phone services and
operates as an MVNO on T-Mobile's cellular network in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MISS JESSIES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miss Jessies LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Miss Jessies LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09990 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Miss Jessie's -- https://missjessies.com/ -- offers curly hair
products that are well-known throughout the hair care industry and
are considered the leader in kinks, curly hair and waves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOLSON COORS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Molson Coors Beverage
Company. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Molson Coors Beverage
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-09811 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

The Molson Coors Beverage Company, commonly known as Molson Coors
-- https://www.molsoncoors.com/ -- is an American-Canadian
multinational drink and brewing company headquartered in Golden,
Colorado, USA, and Montréal, Québec, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOO ORGANIC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moo Organic
Chocolates, LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Moo Organic
Chocolates, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09816 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Moo Organic Chocolates -- https://www.moochocolates.com/ -- offer a
variety of organic and natural chocolate bars including milk
chocolates, dark chocolates, and filled flavors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


MOOMOO INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moomoo Inc. The case
is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Moomoo Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10017
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The Moomoo App -- https://www.moomoo.com/ -- is a free-commission
online trading platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


MRS BPO: Bullard Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The
case is styled as Brianna Bullard, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No.
3:21-cv-02911-E (N.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2021).

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

MRS BPO -- https://www.mrsbpo.com/ -- is a financial services
company offering accounts receivable business and accounts billing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


MYLE VAPE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Myle Vape Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Myle Vape Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09883
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

MYLE -- https://www.mylevape.com/ -- has become the go-to vape
brand for consistency in design, esthetic, ease of use and
quality.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


MYPLASTICHEART LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Myplasticheart LLC.
The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Myplasticheart LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09854 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Myplasticheart -- https://www.myplasticheart.com/ -- is a toy store
and gallery dedicated to bringing the best in both the designer toy
and contemporary art world together in one place.[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


MYSTERY TACKLE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mystery Tackle Box,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mystery Tackle Box, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10069 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Mystery Tackle Box -- https://mysterytacklebox.com/ -- is a monthly
fishing gear subscription service founded in 2012 and based in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


MYX FITNESS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MYX Fitness, LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MYX Fitness, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10023 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

MYXfitness -- https://www.myxfitness.com/ -- is interactive fitness
platform that streams live and on-demand workouts to your in-home
MYX Studio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


NATIONAL VITAMIN: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Vitamin Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. National Vitamin Co., Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09981 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

National Vitamin Co., Inc. -- https://nationalvitamin.com/ --
manufactures and distributes vitamins, minerals, nutritional
supplements, and skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAUTILUS INC: $4.25M Class Settlement in Walker Suit Has Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT WALKER, Plaintiff v. NAUTILUS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-3414 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Judge Sargus has reviewed Settlement Agreement dated Nov. 5, 2021,
entered into by the Plaintiff with Nautilus. He preliminarily
approved the Settlement Agreement submitted with the Motion as
fair, reasonable, and adequate. He finds that the Agreement was
arrived at in good faith, following extensive arm's-length
negotiations. He also finds that the terms of the Agreement fall
"within the range of possible approval" sufficient to warrant
sending notice thereof to the Settlement Class. Judge Sargus'
finding of reasonableness is subject to a final determination to be
made after the Fairness Hearing.

Judge Sargus preliminarily and conditionally approved, for
settlement purposes, the following Settlement Class: "All Persons
within the United States and its territories who: (a) purchased a
Bowflex, Nautilus, or Schwinn treadmill from July 7, 2016 through
the date of this Order, primarily for personal, family, or
non-commercial purposes, and not for resale."

Judge Sargus preliminarily approved (i) Plaintiff Robert Walker as
the Class Representative of the Settlement Class, (ii) Bill
Markovits, Terence Coates and Justin Walker of Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco, LLC, Nathan Prosser of Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, and Bryan
Bleichner and Jeffrey Bores of Chestnut Cambronne, PA as the Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (iii) Angeion Group as the
Settlement Administrator.

The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on April 20,
2022, at 10:00 a.m. via GoToMeeting.

Judge Sargus approved, as to form and content, the Short Form
Settlement Notice, Long Form Settlement Notice, Publication Notice,
and electronic Claim Form. He finds that the mailing, distribution,
and publishing of the various notices in the form and manner set
forth in Settlement Agreement meets the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and due process, is the best notice practicable under
the circumstances, and will constitute due and sufficient notice to
all persons entitled to notice.

The Settlement affords the following settlement benefits to the
Class Members:

      a. A non-reversionary $4.25 million common fund from which
pro rata settlement payments will be made to the class members
submitting a valid claim under the Settlement after the deduction
of attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, settlement administration
costs, and a class representative incentive award;

      b. A one-year subscription to the Defendant's JRNY fitness
app for any Class Member submitting a valid claim for such benefit
under the Settlement; and,

      c. Injunctive relief in that the Defendant has agreed to stop
utilizing the continuous horsepower representations at issue in the
case and to include a disclaimer to accompany any horsepower
representation published in connection with the Defendant's future
sale and/or marketing of its treadmills.

The Settlement Administrator is appointed, under the supervision of
the Class Counsel, to administer the notice procedure as well as
the processing of claims as more fully set forth below:

      a. Within 14 days of the entry of the Order, Nautilus and its
third-party retailers will provide the Settlement Administrator
with the Notice Data described in the Settlement Agreement.

      b. Within 35 days of receipt of the Settlement
Administrator's receipt of the Notice Data, the Settlement
Administrator shall: i) provide notice with pre-populated
information to those Class Members identified through Notice Data,
substantially in the form of the Long Form Notice attached as
Exhibit A to the Agreement; ii) cause the Publication Notice,
substantially in the form as presented to the Court, to be
published as proposed, or as otherwise ordered by the Court; iii)
establish a Settlement Website, including an electronic claim form
that can be submitted by the Class Members as well as other
information relevant to the Class, including material Court
submissions within two days of filing. The date this notice process
is completed will constitute the Notice Deadline.

      c. No later than 14 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the
Class Counsel will file an affidavit or declaration with the Court
demonstrating that all notice has been administered in a fashion
consistent with CAFA, the Order, and the Settlement Agreement.

To be entitled to make a claim under the Settlement, in the event
the Settlement is effected in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth in the Agreement, each Class Member will take
the following actions and be subject to the following conditions:

      a. A properly executed electronic or hard copy Claim Form
must be submitted to the Settlement Administrator no later than 90
days after the Notice Deadline.

      b. The Claim Form submitted by each Class Member must be
properly completed, signed, and submitted in a timely manner in
accordance with the provisions of the preceding subparagraph.

      c. As part of the Claim Form, each Class Member will submit
to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the claim
submitted and will (subject to effectuation of the Settlement)
release all Settled Class Claims as provided in the Agreement.

Any Class Member may appear and show cause, if that Class Member
has any reason why the proposed Settlement should not be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why the Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and for reimbursement
of expenses should not be granted; provided, however, that no
person will be heard or entitled to contest such matters unless
that person has delivered by hand or sent by first class mail
sufficient written objections and copies of all papers and briefs
any such person wishes to submit in support of any such objection
delivered or post-marked no later than 60 days after the Notice
Deadline. Objections will be sent to each of the following
addresses: OFFICE OF THE CLERK Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse
Room 121 85 Marconi Boulevard Columbus, Ohio 43215 MARKOVITS, STOCK
& DEMARCO, LLC W. B. Markovits 3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 650
Cincinnati, Ohio 45209 Class Counsel FARUKI PLL D. Jeffrey Ireland
110 North Main Street Suite 1600 Dayton, OH 45402 Counsel for
Nautilus.

Any papers in response to any such objections or in further support
of the named motions will be filed no later than seven days prior
to the Fairness Hearing. Counsel appearing for an individual
objecting Class Member must file with the Clerk of Court and
deliver to Class Counsel and counsel for Nautilus a notice of such
appearance no later than 60 days after the Notice Deadline.

The Settlement Administrator will be responsible for providing the
Settlement Class Members (objecting or otherwise) who wish to
attend the Fairness Hearing with (i) a brief set of instructions on
how to download the free GoToMeeting software (ii) the GoToMeeting
address for the hearing and (iii) any other relevant information,
including a procedure that informs attendees how to mute and unmute
their devices before and during the video conference. The
Settlement Administrator will distribute the GoToMeeting
information to all the Class Members who wish to attend the
Fairness Hearing no later than 14 days prior to the Fairness
Hearing.

Class Members other than the Class Representative may opt out of
the Settlement Agreement and therefore avoid its binding effect by
submitting a valid Opt-Out Request to the Settlement Administrator
no later than 60 days after the Notice Deadline.

All papers in support of the Settlement, and the Class Counsel's
Fee Application and request for expenses and Service Award, will be
filed at least 14 days prior to the Objection Deadline.

Any third-party retailers and/or distributor of the Treadmills must
reasonably produce the Class Member information to the Class
Counsel for the purpose of assisting the Class Counsel in
identifying and/or contacting to provide notice of the Settlement.

The Settlement Agreement, as preliminarily approved in the Order,
will be administered according to its terms pending the Fairness
Hearing.

Deadlines arising under the Agreement and the Order include, but
are not limited to, the following:

     a. Notice Data: Notice Data will be sent by the Defendant and
all relevant third-party retailers to the Settlement Administrator
within 14 days of the entry of the Order.

     b. Notice Deadline: No later than 35 days after the Settlement
Administrator receives the Notice Data.

     c. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement: At least 14 days
prior to the Objection Deadline.

     d. Motion for Attorney's Fees, Reasonable Costs and Expenses,
and Service Award: At least 14 days prior to the Objection
Deadline.

     e. Opt-Out, Objection, and Appearance Deadlines: 60 days after
the Notice Deadline.

     f. Claims Deadline: 90 days after the Notice Deadline.

     g. GoToMeeting Information Provided to Class Counsel and
Settlement Administrator: At least 21 days prior to the Fairness
Hearing.

     h. GoToMeeting Information Provided by Settlement
Administrator to Class Members Who Wish to Attend or Appear at the
Fairness Hearing: At least 14 days prior to the Fairness Hearing.

     i. Proof of Notice Administration: At least 14 days prior to
the Fairness Hearing.

     j. Class Counsel's Response to Objections: At least seven days
prior to the Fairness Hearing.

     k. Fairness Hearing: April 20, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. via
GoToMeeting.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ebrtew2 from Leagle.com.


NDF1 LLC: Albert Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NDF1, LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Herby Albert, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. NDF1, LLC, McMichael Taylor Gray, LLC, Case
No. 9:21-cv-82050-AMC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2021).

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

NDF1 is a real-estate investment company who purchases mortgages
across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
                 jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
          2150 South Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Fax: (954) 581-2786
          Email: matis@fight13.com

               - and -

          Matthew David Bavaro
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin road, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: matthew@fight13.com


NEATO ROBOTICS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neato Robotics, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Neato Robotics, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09829 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Neato Robotics -- https://neatorobotics.com/ -- is a robotics
company located in San Jose, California. The company is known for
its line of robotic vacuum cleaners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


NETARTS HOLDINGS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netarts Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Netarts Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10032 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Netarts Holdings, Inc. is in the Salt business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


NETRITION INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netrition, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Netrition, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10028 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Netrition -- https://www.netrition.com/ -- is a family-owned
business started in 1996 and is an online retailer of diet-friendly
foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


NEW SGC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New SGC LLC. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. New SGC LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09809
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

SGC -- https://www.gosgc.com/ -- is the most trusted name in card
grading and autograph authentication.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


NEW YORK EXPRESS: Kotecki Sues Over Failure to Pay Applicable Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukas Kotecki, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. NEW YORK EXPRESS AND LOGISTICS LLC, NORTH EAST
FREIGHTWAYS, INC., LAND AIR EXPRESS OF NEW ENGLAND LTD., and DHL
EXPRESS (USA) INC. d.b.a. DHL EXPRESS, Case No. 6:21-cv-06721
(W.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021), is brought against the Defendants,
seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law, as a result of the Defendants'
failure to comply with applicable wage laws and to pay its
non-exempt Courier Drivers for all time worked--including
overtime--as required to meet DHL's delivery needs and deliver
hundreds of DHL packages each day.

The Plaintiff and other Courier Drivers regularly worked more than
40 hours per week. The Plaintiff regularly worked 50 to 60 hours
per week. The Plaintiff observed that other Courier Drivers
routinely worked a similar number of hours per week. The Plaintiff
and other Courier Drivers regularly worked 5 or more days per week.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other Courier Drivers
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and did
not pay proper overtime premiums. During the course of the
Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff routinely worked through his
meal break period without compensation due to the sheer volume of
deliveries assigned to him and in order to meet the work
expectations of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff was additionally unable to take short rest breaks
throughout his workday in order to keep up with the work demands
imposed on him. The Plaintiff observed that other Courier Drivers
were also unable to take breaks in order to meet the Defendants'
work expectations. Plaintiff and other Courier Drivers were not
provided meal breaks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff routinely worked
without breaks and without proper pay. The Defendants were not only
aware of and permitted this practice, but the work schedules and
conditions imposed by the Defendants effectively required this
practice. As a result of the heavy workload and grueling schedules
imposed by Defendants, the Plaintiff and other Courier Drivers were
not able to take meal breaks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Courier Driver in New
York from April 2014 to April 2020.

DHL is the world's leading logistics company, with a team of
shipping professionals that transport goods to customers across the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4620
          Email: scarson@bm.net
                 crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net
                 rstreater@bm.net


NEW YORK: Bid for Judgment Denial in Matzell Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Anthony J. Annucci, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the case captioned MICHAEL MATZELL, Plaintiff v. JEFFREY
MCKOY, BRUCE YELICH, STANLEY BARTON, KAY HEADINGSMITH, ELIZABETH
LARAMAY, JANE BOYEA, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, and ANTHONY ANNUCCI,
Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-01605-DNH-CFH, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York.

On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Matzell filed this 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 putative class action against Defendants
Jeffrey McKoy, Bruce Yelich, Stanley Barton, Trudylynn Boyea,
Katherine Heading-Smith, Elizabeth Laramay, Anthony Annucci, and
other unidentified New York State Department of Corrections (DOCCS)
and Community Supervision employees. The Plaintiff, a former inmate
in New York state prison, alleges Defendants' decision to
administratively disqualify him from DOCCS' Shock Incarceration
Program despite a sentencing judge's order that he enter the
program violated his rights. Matzell brings claims under Section
1983 for violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments.

The Defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

On October 7, 2021, the Court entered an order denying Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Defendants seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Matzell v. Annucci, Case No.
21-2792, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on November 9, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Anthony J. Annucci, Acting DOCCS
Commissioner; Jeffrey McKoy, Deputy DOCCS Commissioner; Bruce
Yelich, Superintendent; Stanley Barton, Deputy Superintendent of
Programs; Kay Heading Smith, Coordinator; Elizabeth Laramay; and
Jane Boyea, Coordinator, are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005

Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Matzell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Debra L. Greenberger, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
          600 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000
          E-mail: dgreenberger@ecbawm.com

NIFTY GATEWAY: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nifty Gateway, LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nifty Gateway, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Nifty Gateway -- https://niftygateway.com/ -- is a platform that
allows you to buy, sell, and display Nifties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


NIKOLA CORP: Investor Group to Lead Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a long-shot appellate bet has paid off for
three investors who lost millions of dollars on their holdings in
Nikola Corp and will now lead the securities fraud class action
against the electric truck maker.

Their appointment as lead plaintiffs, in a Nov. 18 ruling by U.S.
District Judge Steven Logan of Phoenix, marks one of the first
applications of new procedures established by the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in the investors' mandamus case. Logan's ruling,
said co-lead counsel Jeffrey Block of Block & Leviton, clarifies
that trial courts evaluating lead plaintiff motions by investor
groups should focus on whether the groups have shown an ability to
work together on the litigation - not on whether investors knew
each other before the case.

That's a boon for shareholder lawyers, who often bring together
pairs or small groups of investors for bids to lead securities
class actions. As you know, the candidate who claims to have lost
the most money as a result of the alleged fraud is presumed to be
the lead shareholder, although competing lead plaintiff candidates
can try to rebut that presumption. So investors who team up to
combine their claimed losses may have a better chance at the
presumptive lead spot.

Logan's new decision in the Nikola case shows that rival lead
plaintiffs can't knock investor groups out of contention simply by
arguing that the groups have been assembled by plaintiffs lawyers.
The case also, as I'll explain, offers a good instructions for
investor groups (and shareholder lawyers) worried about fending off
lead plaintiff challenges.

The Nikola class action alleges that investors were defrauded when
the company and former CEO Trevor Milton made false claims about
Nikola's technological advances and manufacturing capabilities. The
company, which did not respond to my query, announced earlier this
month that it would pay $125 million to settle a prospective U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission case mirroring the allegations
in the private litigation.

The judge overseeing the class action refused last December to
appoint the Nikola investor group as lead plaintiff. The group,
represented by Pomerantz, Labaton Sucharow and Keller Rohrback, in
addition to Block & Leviton, claimed the biggest losses in the case
- more than $6 million, compared to only $1.5 million from the
candidate with the next-largest claim. Moreover, two of the three
investors in the group individually lost more money than any of the
other lead plaintiff candidates.

The investors in the group submitted a joint declaration explaining
that they decided to team up because they all have a big stake in
directing the class action. The declaration outlined group members'
plans to work together to oversee plaintiffs lawyers, including
through conference calls at least every three months.

The trial judge nevertheless said he had "misgivings" about the
group. Logan conceded that the Nikola group was the presumptive
lead plaintiff, based on its collective losses. He also found that
the group would be an adequate representative for the shareholder
class. But he said that trial courts in the 9th Circuit have
generally frowned on investor groups with pre-existing
relationships. The Nikola group, he said, was composed of people
who didn't know each other and "appear to have joined [together]
solely for purposes of litigation." Logan instead appointed an
investor with claimed losses of just $700,000, a small fraction of
the group's claim.

Block & Leviton and Pomerantz filed a mandamus petition asking the
9th Circuit to use this case as a vehicle to refine its guidance on
when investor groups can be appointed to lead shareholder class
actions.

Mandamus petitions rarely succeed - but this one did. In July, the
9th Circuit vacated Logan's lead plaintiff order and laid out
instructions for how to proceed on remand. Logan went wrong, the
appeals court said, by failing to give enough weight to the
presumption that the investor group should be named lead. Once he
determined that the group would be an adequate representative for
the class, the 9th Circuit held, it was up to competing lead
plaintiff candidates to prove that the group was not actually
capable. Logan erred, the appeals court said, by focusing on the
group's perceived failure to explain its origins.

On remand, the investor group had a strong case for its adequacy,
especially, Block said, because individual members of the group had
sustained bigger losses than rival candidates. Competing lead
counsel from The Rosen Firm asked Logan to hold a hearing to find
out whether the investor group had been brought together by Block &
Leviton, Pomerantz and other plaintiffs firms but the judge
refused.

Even if the group was formed solely to submit a lead plaintiff
motion, he said, the joint declaration about members' plans to
oversee the case quelled those concerns. That all-important
declaration, he said, "evidences the cohesiveness of the members
and their adequacy to serve as lead plaintiff."

Logan seems to be only the second judge to apply the 9th Circuit's
instructions from the mandamus ruling. In August, U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco discussed the ruling in an order
appointing two pension funds to lead a securities class action
against Fibrogen Inc, but those funds had a pre-existing
relationship.

I should point out that, according to Block, there's a potentially
significant caveat to the 9th Circuit decision and Logan's
interpretation: They do not resolve whether investor groups can
meet adequacy requirements when their individual losses are smaller
than those claimed by a competing lead plaintiff candidate and they
can only allege larger losses in combination. The 9th Circuit
preserved trial judges' discretion in that circumstance, Block
said, to withhold the lead plaintiff presumption from the investor
group.

But if you represent the investor with the biggest alleged losses,
teaming up with other shareholders will no longer cast a cloud on
your lead plaintiff bid in the 9th Circuit. You don't have to
explain the group's past as long as your clients are prepared to
pledge their future oversight. [GN]

NINE ENERGY: Stinson et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUSTIN STINSON, KENNETH SLOAN, and THOMAS DUNDAS, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
NINE ENERGY SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-03727 (S.D.
Tex., November 12, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged
failure to properly pay overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as field operators
under the guise of "supervisors," despite performing manual and
technical labor like other hourly-paid crew members.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated field operators were misclassified by the Defendant as
"supervisors." Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant allegedly did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week.

Nine Energy Service, LLC is a nationwide oilfield service company
with significant completion and land drilling operations throughout
the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Crown, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKMAN PLLC
          1360 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 425-7100
          Fax: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  kcaminati@bchlaw.com

NISSAN NORTH: Martinez Suit Removed to D. Utah
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leroy Martinez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Case No.
210100149, was removed from the 1st District, Box Elder County to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Nov. 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00157-DBB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.

Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA --
https://www.nissanusa.com/ -- is the North American headquarters
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of
Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Steele, Esq.
          THE BRAUNBERGER & BOUD LAW FIRM PC
          765 E 9000 S STE A
          SANDY, UT 84094
          Phone: (801) 562-3200
          Email: jeff@sahlegal.com

               - and -

          Justin Martin Hosman, Esq.
          STEELE ADAMS HOSMAN
          765 E 9000 S STE A-1
          SANDY, UT 84094
          Phone: (801) 816-3999
          Fax: (435) 228-4390
          Email: justin@sahlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elisabeth M. McOmber, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER LLP
          15 W SOUTH TEMPLE STE 1200
          GATEWAY TOWER WEST
          SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 257-1900
          Email: emcomber@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephanie N. Nielson, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER LLP
          381 S. 360 S.
          MIDWAY, UT 84049
          Phone: (801) 257-1900
          Fax: (801) 257-1800
          Email: snnielson@swlaw.com


NO CHEWING ALLOWED: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against No Chewing Allowed,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. No Chewing Allowed, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09844 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

No Chewing Allowed! -- https://nochewingallowed.com/ -- offers fine
Truffles and Hot Chocolate present a uniquely defined taste,
smoothness and melting profile—delivering a truly exceptional
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


NORTH AMERICAN BREWERIES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North American
Breweries, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. North American
Breweries, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09699 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

North American Breweries, Inc. (NAB) -- www.fifcousa.com --
produces and sells alcoholic beverages. The Company offers beers,
ales, lagers, and other malt products.[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


NOUHAUS INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nouhaus, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Nouhaus, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09959 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Nouhaus -- https://nouhaus-inc.myshopify.com/ -- is a brand that
offers sophisticated functional design furnitures creating massage
chair, office chair, and sofas for modern design-savvy
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


NOVA MARKETING: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nova Marketing, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nova Marketing, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10000 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Nova Marketing, Inc. -- https://novamktg.com/ -- provides
advertising and marketing services. The Company offers brand
development, market analysis, advertising designing, and production
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


NURTURE INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Nurture, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09830
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Nurture, Inc. doing business as Happy Family --
https://www.happyfamilyorganics.com/ -- is an organic and baby food
company in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NUTRAE LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrae, LLC. The case
is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nutrae, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09700
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Nutrae, LLC is a Florida limited liability company based in
Sarasota.[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


NUTRIGOLD INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NutriGold Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. NutriGold Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09964 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

NutriGold -- https://nutrigold.com/ -- is a manufacturer of
nutritional supplements using certified organic, non-GMO,
whole-food ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


OASIS SNACKS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oasis Snacks LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Oasis Snacks LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09997 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Oasis Snacks -- https://oasissnacks.com/ -- is a Healthy and
Delicious Snacks and Beverages Delivered to Your Door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



OFRA COSMETICS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OFRA Cosmetics, LLC.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. OFRA Cosmetics, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10041 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

OFRA Cosmetics -- https://www.ofracosmetics.com/ -- offers a
selection of vegan & cruelty-free makeup and skin care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


OLD SCHOOL TEES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old School Tees, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Old School Tees, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09985 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

OldSchoolTees.com -- https://www.oldschooltees.com/ -- is online
retailer of licensed pop culture merchandise, including vintage
inspired t-shirts, sweatshirts, hats and sweater.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONCE UPON A FARM: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Once Upon A Farm,
PBC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Once Upon A Farm, PBC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-09974 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Once Upon a Farm -- https://onceuponafarmorganics.com/ -- is the
largest and fastest growing plant-based children's nutrition
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONLY HUMAN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Only Human, LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Only Human, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10022 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Only Human -- https://onlyhumanco.com/ -- releases a new line of
apparel each month benefiting a non-profit partner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


OPTIMUM NUTRITION: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optimum Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Optimum Nutrition, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09848 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Optimum Nutrition -- https://www.optimumnutrition.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of nutritional supplements for the sports sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


ORGANIC OLIVIA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Organic Olivia LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Organic Olivia LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09950 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Organic Olivia -- https://www.organicolivia.com/ -- is a modern
approach to traditional herbal medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


ORGANICIX LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Organicix, LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Organicix, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10063
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Organicix, LLC doing busines as The DaVinci Vaporizer --
https://www.davincivaporizer.com/ -- offers advanced portable
vaporizers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


PAR-A-DICE: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 17, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pruitt et al v. Par-A-Dice
Gaming Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01084 (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order on motion for extension
of time to file as follows:

   -- Defendants' response to Plaintiffs'      Jan. 17, 2022
      Motion to Certify Class and
      Plaintiffs' response to Defendants'
      Motion for Summary Judgment are
      now due by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of      Jan. 31, 2022
      their Motion to Certify Class and
      Defendants' reply in support of
      their Motion for Summary Judgment
      are now due:

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury.

Par-A-Dice Gaming Corporation was founded in 1996. The company's
line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[CC]

PARADE INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parade, Inc. The case
is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Parade, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10039
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Parade, Inc. -- https://yourparade.com/ -- designs women's apparel
products. The Company provides eco-friendly fabrics undergarments
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com



PATTERN BRANDS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pattern Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Pattern Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09870 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Pattern -- https://www.patternbrands.com/ -- is a family of brands
that inspire to learn, explore, and lay the foundation for a more
present life..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PAWN AMERICA: Thomas Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pawn America
Minnesota, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Melissa Thomas, on
behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, Payday America,
Inc., PAL Card Minnesota, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-02554-PJS-HB (D.
Minn., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Pawn America -- https://www.pawnamerica.com/ -- is secondhand
retailer on jewelry, collectables, art, electronics, computers,
video games & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


PEARL BANYAN: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl Banyan Capital
LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Pearl Banyan Capital
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09863 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Pearl Banyan Capital, LLC is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico and
is part of the Specialty Food Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Peloton
Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PTON) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
9, 2020 and November 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 18, 2022.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Peloton repeatedly claimed to investors
that its positive growth and strong business results would continue
after the COVID-19 pandemic subsided. The Company allegedly made
false statements about its inventory levels and its ability to
maintain appropriate inventory to meet demand. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Peloton, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

PHH MORTGAGE: Salter Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Mortgage Corp.
The case is styled as William Salter, Marie Joseph, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. PHH Mortgage Corp.,
Case No. 0:21-cv-62318-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2021).

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

The PHH Corporation -- https://www.phhmortgage.com/ -- provides
mortgage financing solutions. The Company offers real estate and
private label solutions, correspondent lending, loan subservicing,
and relocation services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 282-1858
          Fax: (844) 786-3694
          Email: service@advocacypa.com


PIGGY LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Piggy LLC. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Piggy LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09826
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Piggy -- https://www.joinpiggy.com/ -- is a coupon and cashback
rewards service that is driven by a passion for improving the
shopping experience for consumers and retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


POPCORNOPOLIS LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popcornopolis, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Popcornopolis, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09884 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Popcornopolis -- https://www.popcornopolis.com/ -- is a place for
the best gourmet popcorn around offering a large variety of
flavored popcorn and popcorn gift baskets for every occasion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


PRIME STAFFING: Court Enters Case Management Plan & Sched Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMAH NYANWLEH, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. PRIME STAFFING LLC,
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION,
LINCOLN HOSPITAL AUXILIARY, INC., JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY
INC., NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and DOES NOS.
1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-06357-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a
civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows:

   -- Deposition due by:                      March 23, 2022

   -- Fact Discovery due by:                  March 23, 2022

   -- Expert Discovery due by:                May 9, 2022

   -- Case Management Conference set for:     April 11, 2022

Prime Staffing is a New York-based Healthcare Professional
Recruitment Company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l9WJOV at no extra charge.[CC]

PRINTFLY CORPORATION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Printfly Corporation.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Printfly Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-09948 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Printfly -- https://www.printfly.com/ -- is a tech-driven leader in
the custom apparel industry, combining speed with craftsmanship to
create the best experience available.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Aviles Sues Over Defective Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Eileen Aviles, Shelby Cooper, Tanya Cooper, Jacob Cooper, and
Patricia Donadio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-02108-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought on
behalf of all consumers who purchased Secret Powder Fresh or Secret
Cool Light & Airy Smooth Feel antiperspirants, and Old Spice Pure
Sport antiperspirant, Old Spice Below Deck Powder Spray deodorant,
or Old Spice Sweat Defense, Stronger Swagger antiperspirant
("Products") from Defendant for normal, household use, which are
defective because they each contain the chemical benzene, a known
carcinogen that offers no therapeutic deodorant or antiperspirant
benefit.

The Defendant represents that the Products are safe for its
intended use. In reality, the Products contain significant
concentrations of benzene, a harmful carcinogen. Benzene is a
carcinogen known to cause cancer in humans. Long-term exposure
additionally causes harmful effects on the bone marrow, a decrease
in red blood cells leading to anemia, and excessive bleeding that
can affect the immune system, leading to an increased chance of
infection.

The Products' benzene contamination was not disclosed to the
consumer on the product label, the ingredients list, or otherwise.


The Defendant engaged in fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, misleading,
and/or unlawful conduct stemming from its omissions surrounding
benzene contamination affecting the Products. The Plaintiffs and
the Classes have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a
result of the Defendant's unlawful sale of the Products. Indeed, no
reasonable consumer, including the Plaintiffs, would have purchased
the Products had they known of the material omissions of material
facts regarding the presence of Benzene. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs and the Classes suffered injury in fact and lost money
as a result of the Defendant's misleading representations and
omissions and did not receive the benefit-of-the- bargain. The
Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies for themselves, and
for the proposed Classes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased and used the Defendant's Products.

The Defendant formulates, designs, manufactures, markets,
advertises, distributes, and sells the Products to consumers
throughout the United States, including in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Fax: (310) 496-3176
          Email: astraus@milberg.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Old Spice Benzene Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports that following a report which found Old
Spice antiperspirants and deodorants contain high levels of
benzene, a class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble alleges
the manufacturer knew or should have known about the problems, and
failed to properly screen its products for the cancer causing
chemical.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Otto Delcid in the U.S. District
Court Southern District of New York on November 15, seeking class
action status to pursue damages for himself and others who
purchased the popular deodorant sprays which are now known to
contain the cancer-causing chemical benzene.

The lawsuit joins a growing number of Old Spice benzene lawsuits
filed since the prominent testing pharmacy Valisure released a
report indicating that it found high levels of benzene in numerous
brands and batches of body spray and deodorant spray products,
including Old Spice, Secret, Suave, Tag and others. Valisure filed
a citizen's petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
calling for a deodorant recall of the affected products.

Benzene is an industrial chemical that has been associated with the
development of several fatal forms of cancer, leukemia and other
conditions, such as AML, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML), Acute
Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL),
Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL), Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Multiple
Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDL), Myelofibrosis and Myeloid
Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura.

The deodorant lawsuits follow the identification of benzene in many
sunscreen spray products earlier this year, which led to a number
of consumers filing sunscreen cancer lawsuits and class action
claims against Johnson & Johnson, as well as other manufacturers.

Delcid's complaint indicates he began purchasing Old Spice Pure
Sport from a Rite Aid in Manhattan, New York, and believed the
antiperspirants and deodorants to be safe and free from defects
based on the representations made on the product labeling. However,
the lawsuit states that if he had known about the Old Spice cancer
risks posed by the presence of benzene, he would have chosen any
one of a variety of alternative products.

The FDA categorizes benzene as a Class I Solvent, which should not
be used in the making of drug products because of its toxicity.
However, if a product must contain benzene, it should be limited to
2 parts per million (ppm).

Despite the limitation threshold set forth by regulatory officials,
Valisure's findings released this month indicate many deodorants
and body sprays test multiple times over the limit. Of the 108
unique batches from 30 different brands, 49 of the lots across 11
brand names detected the presence of cancer-causing chemicals in
deodorants. Some lots of Proctor & Gamble's Secret Powder Fresh
contained benzene levels exceeding 16 parts per million (ppm).

Sunscreen Benzene Concerns
Following similar findings by Valisure of benzene in aerosol
sunscreen spray products earlier this year, a number of popular
products have been recalled, including Neutrogena, Aveeno,
Coppertone and other widely used brands.

Johnson & Johnson issued the Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen spray
recall in July 2021, after confirming the known human carcinogens
was present in it's products, and at least eight class action
complaints have been filed against the company, each raising
similar allegations that Johnson & Johnson endangered consumers'
health by not warning them of the presence of benzene in brands of
Neutrogena and Aveeno spray sunscreen, which could increase their
risk of cancer.

Late last month, Johnson & Johnson and Costco announced they had
reached a settlement agreement to resolve the cases. However, the
details of the sunscreen settlement agreement have not yet been
revealed and the deal has not been finalized. [GN]

PROCTORU INC: Thakkar Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rutvik Thakkar, William Gonigam, Andrea
Kohlenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ProctorU Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02051, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on
Nov. 23, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01565-NAD to the
proceeding.

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

ProctorU -- https://www.proctoru.com/ -- provides secure live and
automated online proctoring services for academic institutions and
professional organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
          Alec M Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave., Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Christopher Reid Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue. Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Fax: (305) 676-9006

               - and -

          Carl Vincent Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 391-5059
          Fax: (312) 686-0114

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas Julian Butler, Esq.
          Caleb Collins Wolanek, Esq.
          Michal Erin Crowder, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 254-1063
          Fax: (205) 254-1999
          Email: cwolanek@maynardcooper.com
                 mcrowder@maynardcooper.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Carroll Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Siobahn Carroll, an
individual; on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Progressive Commercial
Casualty Company, Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Does 1
through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-09217-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 24, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Co -- https://www.progressive.com/
-- is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
          ASAF LAW APC
          2330 Westwood Blvd Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (424) 254-8870
          Fax: (888) 254-2651
          Email: asaf@lawasaf.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Senser Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Senser, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,
Case No. 21CV390195 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 9,
2021), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
reimburse its current and former employees for their home office
expenses in California during the pandemic for which they have not
been fully reimbursed; unfair business practices based on the
foregoing; and PAGA penalties.

The Plaintiff was expected by the Defendant to pay for, and have
personally paid for, among other things, cell phone and cell phone
service. These expenses ranged, but typically amounted from $50 to
$100 per month per aggrieved employee. The Defendant had no policy
to affirmatively reimburse all of its employees who were required
to work in the field and/or from home for their cell phone expenses
incurred. In sum, the Defendant's expense-related policies and/or
practices require and expect, and/or with the Defendant's knowledge
thereof permit, the Plaintiff to pay for cell phone expenses
incurred in direct consequences of discharging his and their
necessary, reasonable and business-related job duties on behalf of
the Defendant, without reimbursed in full by the Defendant for such
expenses, as required by California law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Santa Clara County.

Progressive is one of the largest providers of car insurance in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
          1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Phone: 310-277-0614
          Fax: 310-277-0635
          Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 North Proctor Street, #387
          Tacoma, WA 98406
          Phone: (253) 212-7913
          Facsimile: (253) 276-0081
          Email: india@indialinbodienlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Freeman Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lynn Freeman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company,
Case No. 2021-CP-02-02189, was removed from the Aiken County to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 19,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03798-JMC to the
proceeding.

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

Progressive Direct Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance company.
The Company underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane William Rogers, Esq.
          William Douglas Smith, Esq.
          JOHNSON SMITH HIBBARD AND WILDMAN
          PO Drawer 5587
          Spartanburg, SC 29304-5587
          Phone: (864) 582-8121
          Fax: (864) 585-5328
          Email: srogers@jshwlaw.com
                 dsmith@jshwlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Beattie B. Ashmore, Esq.
          BETTIE B. ASHMORE LAW OFFICE
          650 E Washington Street
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Phone: (864) 467-1001
          Email: Beattie@BeattieAshmore.com


PROSPINACH LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProSpinach, LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ProSpinach, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10055 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

ProSpinach, LLC doing business as Zatural -- https://zatural.com/
-- offers the best natural oils selection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PULTE HOME: Mount, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Families
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY MASSEY MOUNT, et
al, v. PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC, and S&ME, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-02314-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of families defined as:

   "All those who are or were next of kin of any decedent laid
   to rest at Oakland Tildenville Cemetery on or before
   September 28, 2020."

In this case, all of the class members have been the victims of a
common, uniform course of conduct. Each laid the remains of a
departed loved one to rest in peace at Oakland Tildenville Cemetery
and each now faces the terrible knowledge that, after Defendants
constructed a new culvert to divert water away from the new
subdivision's new driveway, the water rushed instead into and
flooded the cemetery, desecrating the graves and remains.

Pulte is a home construction company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at http://surl.li/auktb
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
          Tyler Kobylinski, Esq.
          S. Maxwell Karrick, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN -- NASHVILLE
          810 Broadway, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 490-0943
          E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com
                  tkobylinski@forthepeople.com
                  mkarrick@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Martin T. Buckley, Esq.
          Joseph Justice, Esq.
          RINGER, HENRY, BUCKLEY & SEACORD, PA
          200 South Orange Ave., Suite 2850
          Orlando, FL 32801

               - and -

          Eddie Baird, Esq.
          Mark Snelson, Esq.
          BAIRD LAW, PLLC
          1104 Solana Avenue
          Winter Park, FL 32789

               - and -

          Susan McNeill McKeever, Esq.
          BUSH SEYFERTH & PAIGE, PLLC
          100 W Big Beaver Rd, Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084

               - and -

          John H. Dannecker, Esq.
          James P. Terpening, Esq.
          Jennifer P. Sommerville, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          300 S. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801

PURE ENERGY: Metzler Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Energy USA LLC.
The case is styled as Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pure Energy USA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09798 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Pure Energy USA -- https://www.pureenergyus.com/ -- is located in
Staten Island, New York and is part of the Electric Power
Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com



PURE STEEPS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Steeps Beverage,
LLC. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pure Steeps Beverage, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-09957 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Pure Steeps Beverage -- https://www.puresteeps.com/ -- create
high-quality, pure and simple beverages with responsibly-sourced
ingredients from pristine regions around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


PURITAN'S PRIDE: Court Certifies Rule 23 Injunctive Relief Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENELOPE MUELLER, et al.,
v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D.
Cval.),  the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order:

   1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class of:

      "California residents who purchased defendants' products
      pursuant to a BOGO promotion after October 14, 2021;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Penelope Mueller, Meg Larson,
      Diane Cabrera, and Mary Ludolph-Aliaga as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, the Law
      Offices of W. Hansult, and 14 Vision Legal, Inc., as class
      counsel.

A status conference is set for January 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The
parties should file a joint statement by January 20, 2022, with
proposed dates for the final pretrial conference and trial. The
case is referred to Magistrate Judge Hixon for a settlement
conference to be held as his schedule permits, says Judge Donato.

The Court said, "This order resolves plaintiffs' renewed motion to
certify a class of California consumers who bought vitamins and
supplements from defendant Puritan's Pride under a
"buy-one-get-one-free" (BOGO) sales offer. In plaintiffs' view, the
offers were deceptive in that 16 they promised a discount on
regular prices that was illusory. Plaintiffs revised their original
certification request to account for the Court's conclusions on
summary judgment about restitution and statutory damages.

The Court previously dismissed claims alleged under the New York
General Business Law. The claims for certification are under the
California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA). Dkt. No. 218 at 4. The plaintiffs Penelope
Mueller, Meg Larson, Diane Cabrera, and Mary Ludolph-Aliaga are
California residents who ask for certification of a class of
California residents. The plaintiffs Werner, Opas, Parker, and
Krueger are New York residents, are not part of the proposed class,
and are effectively out of the case in light of the dismissal of
the New York claim.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xk4cA5 at no extra charge.[CC]

PUSH INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Push Inc. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Push Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10025 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Push Incorporated -- http://www.push.us/-- is a leading utility
contractor offering nationwide services including electric, fiber
optic, broadband, water, sewer, gas and oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


QUEBEC: Authorizes Class Suit Against Religious Order Over Assault
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas M. Davis, of the Superior Court of Quebec, authorized
this November 16 a class action lawsuit against the Missionary
Oblates of Mary Immaculate. The lawsuit, filed in March 2018, asks
this Catholic congregation to recognize the sexual assaults
perpetrated between 1940 and 2018 by several of its members against
indigenous children and pay reparation amounts.

So far, 203 people have joined the collective action for crimes
that took place in the North Coast region of this Canadian
province. The victims are from the Innu, Atikamekw and Anichinabe
peoples. 39 Oblate members have been identified as aggressors. The
religious congregation, which emerged in France in 1816, has been
present in Canada since 1841. "Sexual assaults on minors are a very
widespread phenomenon in the Catholic Church. It would be very
important for all congregations and dioceses to collaborate with
the representatives of the victims to quickly find a framework of
understanding, "says Alain Arsenault, attorney for the plaintiff.

Noella Mark, a resident of the Unamen Shipu community (about 1,350
kilometers northeast of Montreal), is leading this class action
lawsuit. In the document presented to the courtroom, she maintained
that she was sexually assaulted from the age of nine, "about once a
week and for seven years." He has had to deal with problems with
anxiety and alcohol consumption, as well as a lack of self-esteem.
Mark pointed out that his attacker was Alexis Joveneau, the
Oblates' highest authority on the North Coast for decades. Another
68 people say they were victims of Joveneau.

Born in Belgium, Alexis Joveneau lived in Canada between 1953 and
1992, the year of his death. Magalie Lapointe and David Prince
published in 2019 a book about this priest under the title "The
Devil of the North Coast." In the play, journalists present
testimonies of people who were sexually assaulted by Joveneau at an
early age. They also say that the religious was responsible for
forced displacement, daily manipulation and labor exploitation.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are asking for reparation payments that
could reach a maximum of 300,000 Canadian dollars (237,000 US
dollars) for each of these individuals. "We have already had
conversations with the Oblate representatives and we have others
scheduled," says Arsenault. "We are analyzing the best solution so
that everyone feels heard and justice is done. We are not opposed
if the agreement is the best, "says a spokesman for this Catholic
congregation. The document authorized by Judge Thomas M. Davis
indicates that other people could join the class action. However,
this would be impossible for those individuals who have already
received compensation for agreements related to boarding schools
for indigenous children.

Between 1883 and 1996, a network of 139 centers operated in Canada;
its funding came from the federal government, while its
administration was run by religious groups. Neglect, sexual
violence, racism, and physical punishment were common within its
walls. Some experts estimate that more than 6,000 children died in
these centers. This tragedy has generated worldwide consternation
following the discovery this year of more than 1,200 unmarked
graves on the grounds of four of these former institutions.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared in July: "The
biggest mistake this country has made is the forcible assimilation
of indigenous minors through boarding schools." [GN]


QUEBEC: Partial Settlement Reached in Detention Period Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kugler Kandestin LLP disclosed that a partial settlement of the
class action lawsuit against the Attorney General of Quebec, the
City of Montreal and the City of Quebec has been reached. The
partial settlement concerns only Quebec City, for the benefit of
persons who were arrested and held in detention in Quebec City for
a period of more than 24 consecutive hours without appearing in the
Municipal Court of Quebec City, while the courts were not in
session.

Under the partial settlement, Quebec City will pay a global amount
of $412,750 to be distributed to class members who are eligible
under the settlement agreement during the period from December 15,
2017 to February 9, 2020.

The class action continues against the Attorney General of Quebec
and the City of Montreal on behalf of all class members.

As is required by law, in order for a class action settlement to be
valid, it must be approved by the Court. On December 3rd, 2021, a
hearing will be held by videoconference before the Superior Court
of Quebec during which class counsel will present an application
for approval of the settlement.

You may wish to review the following documents to understand the
terms of the settlement and its benefits to class members:

Application for Approval of a Partial Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Class Counsel Fees

Partial Settlement Agreement

Notice to Members Claim

Amended Class Action Statement of Claim

If the Superior Court of Quebec approves the partial settlement, we
will communicate additional information regarding the next steps.

You can view the Notice informing class members of the hearing of
the application for approval and how to attend virtually. Please
note that class members do not have to attend the hearing in order
to benefit from the settlement.

If you or someone you know is a member of the class, you can
contact class counsel:

Mtre Sophie-Anne Decarie
sadecarie@decarieinc.ca
(819) 770-6666, extension 201

Mtre Jean-Francois Benoît
jfb@avocat-droit-criminel.com
(819) 770-4888, extension 112

Mtre Robert Kugler
rkugler@kklex.com
(514) 878-2861, extension 116

Mtre Alexandre Brosseau-Wery
awery@kklex.com
(514) 878-2861, extension 147

Mtre Eva Richard
erichard@kklex.com
(514) 878-2861, extension 141 [GN]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dowling, writing for Law360, reports that a Quest Diagnostics
fertility treatment unit's "woefully deficient" response to a
ransomware attack has customers fearing misuse of their Social
Security numbers, insurance details and other personal information,
according to a putative class action filed in Massachusetts. [GN]

RAE WELLNESS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rae Wellness PBC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rae Wellness PBC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09966 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Rae Wellness -- https://raewellness.co/ -- is a woman-owned company
that offers a variety of vegan, non-GMO, and gluten-free
supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RCMG LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Branch Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE BRANCH, individually and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employee, Plaintiff v. RCMG,
LLC d/b/a River City Management Group, CREATIVE RESTAURANTS, INC.
d/b/a Rum Boogie Cafe and Rum Boogie Blues Hall, MESQUITE CHOP
HOUSE, LLC, THE PIG ON BEALE, INC., KPC, INC. d/b/a King Palace
Cafe, Absinthe Room and King's Palace Tap Room), and PRESTON LAMM,
an Individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02718 (W.D. Tenn.,
November 12, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
tipped employee at one of the Defendants' restaurants within the
past three years preceding the filing of this collective action
lawsuit.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a centralized
common plan, policy and practice of compensating the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees under a tip-credit compensation
plan, which consist of compensating tipped employees at a
sub-minimum wage hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips
received by them during their shifts. However, the Defendants
failed to properly inform the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees of the Section 203(m) four-point notice at any
point during their employment. As a result of this alleged failure,
the Defendants have disqualified themselves to be eligible for such
a tip-credit plan during all times material.

Moreover, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
routinely have spent more than 20% of their regularly scheduled
shifts performing maintenance and preparation "side work"
tangentially related to their tipped occupation that consist of
non-tip producing tasks. However, they were only compensated at a
sub-minimum wage rate of pay, the suit added.

RCMG, LLC manages and operates all of the other Defendants'
restaurants, including the implementation and administration of the
common compensation plans, policies and practices. Preston Lamm,
who is the CEO of RCMG, LLC, owns the majority interest in all of
the Defendants' companies and restaurants, and oversees the
management and operations of all named restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
             OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

RE-THINK IT: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Re-Think It, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Re-Think It, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09968 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Re-Think It, Inc. -- http://www.re-play.com/-- is located in
Winter Park, Florida and is part of the Rubber Product
Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RECLAIM REAL: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reclaim Real LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Reclaim Real LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09840 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Reclaim Real doing business as PREVAIL Jerky --
https://prevailjerky.com/ -- offers jerky that is 100% grass-fed
beef made with unique ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


REDLINE GLOBAL: Howard Seeks Relief Workers' Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REDLINE GLOBAL, LLC and ASSOIATES IN
EMERGENCY RESPONSE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01538 (D.
Puerto Rico, November 12, 2021) brings class and collective action
complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a public assistance
project specialist from February 2018 through November 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants him and other similarly
situated Relief Workers as Independent Contractors. Although they
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, the Defendants did not
pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Relief
Workers, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages due to them,
as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.

The Corporate Defendants provide disaster relief services such as
consulting, planning, management, and other relevant services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
          P.O. Box 9023914
          San Juan, PR 00902-3914
          Tel: (787) 585-3824
          E-mail: jbw@beckervissepo.com
                  janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com

REMRISE INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remrise, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Remrise, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09941
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Remrise -- https://remrise.com/ -- is a health, wellness, and
fitness company that offers a personalizes plant-powered sleep
formulas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



REVIVE BRANDS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revive Brands. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Revive Brands, Case No.
1:21-cv-09710 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Revive -- https://revivedrinks.com/ -- offers a healthy alternative
to soda.[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


RICE'S HONEY: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rice's Honey, LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Rice's Honey, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09797 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Rice's Honey is a honey farm in Greeley, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


RING BOXES: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ring Boxes LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Ring Boxes LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10042 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The Ring Boxes -- https://www.theringboxes.com/ -- offers stylish
bridal apparel and useful products, delivered monthly + completely
tailored to the wedding date.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVIERA SEAFOOD: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riviera Seafood Club,
LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Riviera Seafood Club,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10016 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Riviera Seafood Club -- https://rivieraseafoodclub.com/ -- offers
fresh seafood delivered at the door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


ROB'S BRANDS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rob's Brands LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rob's Brands LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09953 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Rob's -- https://veganrobs.com/ -- offers vegan chips & snacks
focused on nutrition and compassion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com



ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, discussed an extremely
interesting new complaint.

Robinhood Financial -- which apparently operates some sort of
self-serve online brokerage the kids are using these days -- has
been hit with a new class action under Washington's version of the
TCPA arising out of texts being sent by users of their app using
their smartphones.

Apparently the Robinhood folks have devised a clever plan to market
their product via text message. But to get around the messy TCPA
thing, they have enlisted their myriad users as minions to spread
their message.

According to the complaint filed by
shoulda-been-ballplayer-given-his-name Cooper Moore -- Moore
complaint at https://bit.ly/3xFAm97 -- Robinhood has a referral
program where users of the brokerage can make some money if they
encourage other people to sign up for it. To make it easier for
users to provide such "encouragement" Robinhood has installed a
nifty spam text blasting functionality into its app that
prepopulates marketing fluff into an SMS and sends it to all
contacts selected by a user.

Since people love receiving marketing texts from their friends -
the theory goes - they'll promptly sign up for a new Robinhood
account, resulting in the sender of the texts netting a tasty
referral fee.

In reality, of course, the (now former) friends receiving these
messages don't like them one bit - they're essentially cold call
marketing solicitations via text message - and some of them want to
sue for it.

But who to sue? And for what?

Obviously it would be great for the Plaintiff to sue Robinhood
since it has the money to spare–there's a "stealing from the
rich" joke here somewhere but I can't seem to find it - but
Robinhood didn't send the text.

Or did it?

The FCC issued a ruling a while back addressing the circumstances
under which an app manufacturer is responsible for the messages
sent by users of the app encouraging the app to proliferate. The
general bright line rule is that where a user is choosing who to
send invites to the user is the sender of the message - not the app
manufacturer.

But there's a second line of case law that runs counter to this
bright line proposition - specifically where a platform entangles
itself with a user's business by encouraging the use of the
platform to send otherwise illegal messages, the platform can find
itself liable for the messages.

Presumably - if the allegations are true - Robinhood is relying on
the old YouMail ruling from the FCC to argue it was the end user
solely that sent the message. And presumably Plaintiff is relying
on the "other" line of cases I was referring to to sustain a
claim.

It will be interesting to see how the "initiator" of the call
battle plays out - both sides have pretty good arguments and I
wonder whether a court will allow a seller of a product to crowd
source mass texting using a referral fee scheme. (It doesn't hurt
Plaintiff's chances that Washington state law recognizes liability
for companies that   "assist the transmission" of illegal texts!)

But there's a second MASSIVE piece to this case. Notice that it was
brought under Washignton's STATE enactment barring text messages -
not under the TCPA. Presumably this is because the end user's cell
phones are not ATDS under Facebook.

But under Washington state law the use of an ATDS is not required.
Instead: "[n]o person conducting business in the state may initiate
or assist in the transmission of an electronic commercial text
message to a [cell phone in Washington." And an "electronic
commercial text message" is defined as "means an electronic text
message sent to promote real property, goods, or services for sale
or lease."

Hmmm. . ..

Washington state law may end up being just as dangerous as Florida
when it comes to text messages if this theory holds water. (Good
thing I'm licensed to practice law up there.)

We'll keep an eye on this one and see where it goes.

Update: So I did a little research because I was curious and
apparently this Cooper suit is a copycat suit. Robinhood was
previously sued by a guy named Isaac Gordon on a similar theory.
The suit survived a motion to dismiss and was later certified! [GN]

ROBLOX CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Facial Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony McGowan; A.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian Anthony
McGowan; and W.G., a minor, by and through his Guardian Walter
Galligani, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and
VERIFF, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2021L001202 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Nov. 12, 2021), is brought against Defendants for their
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and
to obtain redress the Defendants' unauthorized collection of the
Plaintiffs biometric information and to represent classes of
individuals who had their unique facial biometrics used without
their valid consent or authorization by Defendants when they
interacted with Defendants' identity verification technology.

In order to provide its clients with biometric authentication
services, Defendant Veriff developed a biometrically-enabled
Application Programming Interface (or "API"). The Defendant Veriff
works with its clients to incorporate its API platform into their
mobile or internet-based applications, where it collects and
analyzes individuals' facial biometrics in order to authenticate
their identities for its clients.

The Defendant Roblox utilizes Veriff's API platform to perform
identify verification as part of the age screening process for
users of its popular video game platform titled "Roblox." To allow
its users to communicate with one another, Roblox has traditionally
had a chat function that allows users to talk to one another
through written text communication. In an effort to enhance its
Roblox platform and allow players a more connected playing
experience, in September 2021 Roblox began to release a "Spatial
Voice Feature" which allows its players to communicate with each
other via their device's microphone so that it is as if they were
talking to each other in the real world. However, because the vast
majority of its players are under the age of 18, with nearly half
of its player base under the age of 13, in an effort to protect its
younger players from potentially age-inappropriate language that
might be heard through its Spatial Voice Feature, Roblox worked
with Veriff to implement a biometric authentication API to ensure
that only users over the age of 13 would have access to the Spatial
Voice Feature.

However, even though thousands of Roblox's players are Illinois
residents, the Defendants failed to implement necessary provisions
to ensure that they complied with BIPA's requirements before
obtaining their facial biometrics. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs,
like the other members of the Classes, had their facial biometrics
collected, captured, and transmitted by the Defendants' API
platform However, the Defendants failed to obtain valid written
consent as required by BIPA to collect such biometric identifiers.
In addition, at the time the Defendants collected and came into
possession of the Plaintiffs' facial biometrics, the Defendant
Roblox failed to make publicly available any written policy as to
its retention and deletion practices regarding the biometrics in
its possession.

Finally, the Defendant Veriff unlawfully profited from the facial
biometrics it obtained from the Plaintiffs and the other members of
the Classes. Roblox contracted with Veriff to provide biometric
identity verification services either at a set flat cost or on a
per user basis and thus Veriff profited directly from Plaintiffs'
and other Class members' biometric data, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the state of Illinois
who used Roblox.

Roblox is a video game developer most widely known for the
development of its game platform titled "Roblox."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          Colin P. Buscarini, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
                 tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
                 cbuscarini@mcgpc.com


ROCK PARADISE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock Paradise, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Rock Paradise, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09988 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Rock Paradise -- https://rockparadise.com/ -- offers one of the
largest crystal collections in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROMINA FURNITURE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Romina Furniture
Limited Liability Company. The case is styled as Victoriano
Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Romina Furniture Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-10006
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Romina Furniture -- https://rominafurniture.com/ -- offers
furniture that are crafted with organic finishes, organic glues and
100% solid wood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROVER'S ROMPHOUSE: Lugo Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JERRY LUGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. ROVER'S ROMPHOUSE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-03697 (S.D. Tex., November 10, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Plaintiff has began working for the Defendant on or about
September 2020 as a kennel technician and has stopped working for
the Defendant on or about September 2021.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
asserting that he and other similarly situated employees were not
compensated on an hourly basis. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to
properly pay them all overtime premium compensation at the rate of
one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Rover's Romphouse, LLC provides dog lodging, dog daycare, and
professional pet grooming services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

ROWDY MERMAID: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowdy Mermaid Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Rowdy Mermaid Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09782 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Rowdy Mermaid -- https://rowdymermaid.com/ -- is a modern
functional beverage company on a mission to make wellness a
delicious and beautiful adventure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RYDER SYSTEM: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ryder System, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ryder System, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10058 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Ryder -- https://ryder.com/ -- is an American transportation and
logistics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SAILO INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sailo, Inc. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sailo, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09846
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Sailo -- https://www.sailo.com/ -- is a web and mobile marketplace
that connects people who want to rent boats to charter companies
and boat owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com



SAILORS' TAILOR: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sailors' Tailor,
Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Sailors' Tailor,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09857 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

The Sailors' Tailor -- http://www.sailorstailor.com/-- is a
manufacturer of 170 one-design sailboat covers and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SALADINO'S INC: Taft Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saladino's Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Mark D. Taft, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saladino's Inc., a California corporation;
Does 1-50; Case No. 34-2021-00310936-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 9, 2021).

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

Saladino's Foodservice -- https://www.saladinos.com/ -- is a
privately owned foodservice distributor based in Fresno,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
          790 E. Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
          Phone: 626-698-0048
          Fax: 626-698-0049
          Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net


SANDHILLS GLOBAL: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandhills Global,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sandhills Global, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09978 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Sandhills Global -- https://www.sandhills.com/ -- is an information
processing company headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SASOL LTD: Execs Insured Against Lake Charles Class Action Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Steyn, writing for Fin24, reports that Sasol executives that
oversaw the disastrous Lake Charles chemicals project have been
insured against any possible claims resulting from a class action
case in the US, and will suffer no personal loss, the company told
shareholders at its Annual General Meeting.

Shareholders grilled the Sasol board and management on matters
ranging from the financial, the operational, and the environmental
at the company's AGM on Nov. 19.

In relation to the resignation of Sasol CFO Paul Victor -- who will
exit the company in June 2022 -- one shareholder queried what would
happen if Victor were found liable for damages in relation to his
involvement in the Lake Charles Chemicals Project. [GN]



SAVOR BEAUTY: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savor Beauty Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Savor Beauty Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09894 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Savor Beauty -- https://www.savorbeauty.com/ -- is natural
skincare, inspired by Korean self-care rituals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SCANPAN USA: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ScanPan USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ScanPan USA, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09961 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

SCANPAN -- https://www.scanpan.com/ -- supply uncompromising
cookware of the highest quality – developed and produced in
Denmark.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schwabe North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Schwabe
North America, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10011 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24,
2021).

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

Schwabe North America, Inc. -- https://www.naturesway.com/ --
manufactures prepared foods and miscellaneous food
specialities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SCOTTS CHEAP: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scotts Cheap Flights,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Scotts Cheap Flights, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09951 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Scotts Cheap Flights -- https://scottscheapflights.com/ -- is a
travel membership focused on saving members money.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHATTUCK LABS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 22
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Shattuck Labs, Inc. (NASDAQ: STTK) resulting
from allegations that Shattuck may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2212.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 9, 2021, before trading hours,
Shattuck issued a press release reporting its financial results for
the third quarter of 2021 and providing corporate updates. Among
other things, Shattuck reported that "[i]n November 2021, Shattuck
and Takeda [Pharmaceutical Company Limited] mutually agreed to
termination of the Collaboration Agreement for SL-279252 and
SL-115154, originally executed in 2017. Shattuck is no longer
required to satisfy any remaining performance obligations, the
Company will not make any payments to or receive any future
milestone or royalty payments from Takeda, and all options to
license and rights of first negotiation held by Takeda under the
Collaboration Agreement were terminated." Further, Shattuck
reported the appointment of a new chairman of the Company's Board
of Directors following the resignation of the former chairman in
October 2021.

On this news, Shattuck's stock price fell $5.45 per share, or 28%,
to close at $13.59 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

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

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

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]

SHIPBOB INC: Chichester et al. Seek BDRs' Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN CHICHESTER, ABBY JUSTINGER, DAVID MAHONEY, and AMANDA
SCHMITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SHIPBOB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06016 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2021) bring this complaint
as a collective action against the Defendant to recover overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendant as business
development representative (BDR), assert that although the
Defendant has reclassified its BDRs as non-exempt from overtime pay
after approximately January 1, 2021, the Defendant failed to
include nondiscretionary bonuses and commissions into the overtime
premiums that it paid to non-exempt classified BDRs. Despite
regularly more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not
properly pay them overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs added.

Shipbob, Inc. provides logistics services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dwerman@flsalaw.com

SIGNET JEWELERS: Distribution Plan in Securities Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-06728-CM-SDA (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Colleen
McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of
Distribution Plan.

The Lead Plaintiff moved the Court for an order approving a
distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund in the securities
class action. Having reviewed and considered all the materials and
arguments submitted in support of the motion, including the
Memorandum of Law in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Approval of Distribution Plan and the Declaration of Luiggy Segura
in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Distribution
Plan, Judge McMahon approved the Lead Plaintiff's plan for the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants.

Accordingly, Judge McMahon adopted (i) the administrative
determinations of the Court-approved Claims Administrator, JND
Legal Administration ("JND"), to accept the Timely Eligible Claims
stated in Exhibit D to the Segura Declaration and the Late But
Otherwise Eligible Claims stated in Exhibit E to the Segura
Declaration; and (ii) the Claims Administrator's administrative
determinations to reject the Rejected Claims, as stated in Exhibit
F to the Segura Declaration. JND is directed to conduct the Initial
Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund after deducting all
payments previously allowed, payments approved by this Order, and
any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax
returns, and any escrow fees, while maintaining a 10% reserve from
the Net Settlement Fund to address any tax liability or claims
administration-related contingencies that may arise.

Specifically, as stated in paragraph 45(a) of the Segura
Declaration: (1) JND will calculate award amounts for all
Authorized Claimants as if the entire Net Settlement Fund were to
be distributed now. JND will calculate each Authorized Claimant's
pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on the amount of
the Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim in comparison to the
total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants; (2) JND will
then eliminate from the Initial Distribution any Authorized
Claimant whose total pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund is
less than $10. These Claimants will not receive any payment from
the Net Settlement Fund and will be so notified by JND; (3) After
eliminating Claimants who would have received less than $10, JND
will recalculate the pro rata shares of the Net Settlement Fund for
Authorized Claimants who would have received $10 or more based on
the amount of the Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim in
comparison to the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized
Claimants who would have received $10 or more. This pro rata share
is the Authorized Claimant's Distribution Amount; (4) Authorized
Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to less than $200
will be paid their full Distribution Amount in the Initial
Distribution (Claims Paid in Full). These Authorized Claimants will
receive no additional funds in subsequent distributions; (5) 90% of
the remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be
distributed pro rata to Authorized Claimants whose Distribution
Amount calculates to $200 or more. The remaining 10% of the Net
Settlement Fund will be held in the Reserve to address any tax
liability or claims administration-related contingencies that may
arise following the Initial Distribution. To the extent the Reserve
is not depleted, the remainder will be distributed in the Second
Distribution described in subparagraph (f) below.

To encourage Authorized Claimants to cash their checks promptly,
all distribution checks will bear the following notation: "CASH
PROMPTLY. VOID AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED BY [DATE
90 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE]." The Lead Counsel and JND are authorized
to take appropriate action to locate and contact Authorized
Claimants who have not cashed their checks within said time as
detailed in paragraph 45(b) of the Segura Declaration.

Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Initial Distribution
checks within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in
paragraph 45(b) of the Segura Declaration will irrevocably forfeit
all recovery from the Settlement, and the funds allocated to these
stale-dated checks will be available to be distributed to other
Authorized Claimants in the Second Distribution. Similarly,
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their distribution checks in
the Second Distribution or subsequent distributions, should such
distributions occur, within the time allotted or on the conditions
stated in paragraph 45(b) of the Segura Declaration will
irrevocably forfeit any further recovery from the Net Settlement
Fund.

After JND has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have
Authorized Claimants cash their Initial Distribution checks, but
not earlier than five months after the Initial Distribution, JND
will, after consulting with Lead Counsel, conduct the Second
Distribution, in which any amount remaining in the Net Settlement
Fund, after deducting any unpaid fees and expenses incurred, will
be distributed to all Authorized Claimants who cashed their Initial
Distribution check and are entitled to receive at least $10 from
the Second Distribution based on their pro rata share of the
remaining funds. After the Second Distribution, if any funds remain
in the Net Settlement Fund, and if cost effective, subsequent
distributions will take place at six-month intervals.

When the Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines that
further distribution of the funds remaining in the Net Settlement
Fund is not cost-effective, if sufficient funds remain to warrant
the processing of Claims received after Sept. 27, 2021, those
Claims will be processed, and any otherwise valid Claims received
after Sept. 27, 2021, as well as any earlier-received Claims for
which an upward adjustment was received after Sept. 27, 2021, will
be paid. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after
payment of these Claims and unpaid fees or expenses, the remaining
funds will be contributed to the National Consumer Law Center
("NCLC").

No new Claims may be accepted after Sept. 27, 2021, and no further
adjustments to Claims received on or before Sept. 27, 2021, that
would result in an increased Recognized Claim amount may be made
for any reason after Sept. 27, 2021, subject to the following
exception. If Claims are received or modified after Sept. 27, 2021,
that would have been eligible for payment or additional payment
under the Court-approved Plan of Allocation if timely received,
then, at the time that Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND,
determines a distribution is not cost-effective as provided, and
after payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in connection
with administering the Net Settlement Fund and after deducting the
payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate
tax returns, and any escrow fees, these Claimants, at the
discretion of Lead Counsel and to the extent possible, may be paid
their distribution amounts or additional distribution amounts on a
pro rata basis that would bring them into parity with other
Authorized Claimants who have cashed all their prior distribution
checks.

All of JND's fees and expenses incurred in the administration of
the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the
Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as stated in the
invoices attached as Exhibit G to the Segura Declaration are
approved, and the Lead Counsel is directed to pay the outstanding
balance of $167,903.70 out of the Settlement Fund to JND.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, JND may destroy the paper
copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year
after the Initial Distribution, and one year after all funds have
been distributed may destroy the electronic copies of the same.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications
concerning the administration of the Settlement, and any other and
further relief that it deems appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m8783e3u from Leagle.com.


SNAP INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 10, 2022 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
January 10, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Snap Inc. ("Snap"
or the "Company") (NYSE: SNAP) securities between July 22, 2020 and
October 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On October 21, 2021, Snap reported weaker-than-expected third
quarter earnings due to Apple's privacy update, revealing that the
"changes have adversely affected our targeting, measurement, and
optimization capabilities, and in turn affected our ability to
measure the effectiveness of advertisements on our services." The
Company disclosed that demand for its advertising products had
reduced, and thus, so had its prices, resulting in potential
serious harm to its business.

On this news, Snap's stock price fell $19.97, or 26.5%, to close at
$55.14 per share on October 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Apple's privacy changes
would have, and were having, a material impact on the Company's
advertising business; (2) Snap overstated its ability to transition
its advertising with Apple's privacy changes; (3) Snap knew of, but
downplayed, the risks of the impact that Apple's privacy changes
had on the Company's advertising business; (4) Snap overstated its
commitment to privacy; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Snap securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 10, 2022
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

SOCLEAN INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit for CPAP Foam Degradation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
legalexaminer.com reports that Alabama Man Files Class-Action
Lawsuit Against SoClean for CPAP Foam Degradation

Though most plaintiffs who believe they were harmed by the recalled
Philips CPAP and Bi-PAP devices blame the maker of those devices,
some are also blaming ozone-cleaning device manufacturer SoClean.

That's what an Alabama plaintiff has done in his new SoClean CPAP
lawsuit, recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama.

Philips Blames Ozone Cleaning for Foam Degradation
When Philips recalled many of its breathing devices on June 14,
2021, it stated that the sound abatement foam in the devices could
degrade over time, potentially sending foam particles and toxic
chemicals through the device's air pathway. There, they could be
inhaled or ingested by the user.

Philips added in its recall notice that unapproved cleaning
methods, such as ozone, could contribute to foam degradation.

SoClean has since argued that Philips cannot blame its device
problems on SoClean, and it has filed a lawsuit against the
company. But Philips has not changed its position on the issue and
points to the FDA's warnings concerning ozone cleaning.

Indeed, the FDA reported in February 2020 that devices claiming to
disinfect or sanitize CPAP devices or accessories using ozone gas
or UV light "are not legally marketed for this use by the FDA in
the U.S., and as such, their safety and effectiveness for use with
CPAP devices and accessories is unknown."

William H. Maisel, M.D., director of the Office of Product
Evaluation and Quality in the FDA's Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, stated that exposure to high levels of ozone
gas "may worsen a patients' existing chronic respiratory diseases
or increase the chance of a respiratory infection."

The FDA advised consumers to follow the cleaning instructions
provided by the CPAP's manufacturer, which normally include regular
cleaning with soap and water.

Plaintiff Claims SoClean Misled Consumers About Use of Ozone Gas
The Alabama plaintiff has filed a class-action lawsuit against
SoClean, stating that the company misled consumers when advertising
its CPAP cleaning device.

SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and deodorize
CPAP and other similar respiratory machines. Ozone is an unstable
toxic gas that can kill bacteria and viruses.

Yet SoClean failed to disclose to consumers that its devices emit
ozone, falsely representing that its devices used "activated ozone"
instead. It also stated its devices were safe and healthy, and used
"no harsh chemicals," even though ozone gas is a harsh chemical
that can cause respiratory issues in humans.

"SoClean devices are so dangerous and destructive," the plaintiff
states, "that several of the largest manufacturers of CPAP machines
in the United States require purchasers to acknowledge that they
have been informed that if the purchaser uses a SoClean device to
clean their CPAP machine, the warranty of their CPAP machine will
be voided."

Philips CPAP Lawsuits Increasing
The plaintiff seeks to represent himself and all other citizens of
Alabama who purchased or used a SoClean device to clean and
sanitize their CPAP, Bi-PAP, or ventilation machine.

Meanwhile, Philips faces an increasing number of lawsuits filed by
plaintiffs who seek to recover damages after having to purchase new
CPAP machines themselves, or who used the machines for years and
then suffered injuries.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) recently
ordered all federally filed Philips CPAP lawsuits to be centralized
in the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN]

SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Settlement Class Initially OK'd in Harding
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN HARDING,
PATRICIA GIRAMMA, RONALD WELCH and LISA HARBOUR, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS
GROUP, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP,
INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-12216-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order granting preliminary approval
of class action settlement, preliminarily certifying a class for
settlement purposes, approving form and manner of settlement
notice, preliminarily approving plan of allocation and scheduling a
date for a fairness hearing.

   1. Preliminary Certification of the Settlement Class.

      In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant
      to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure, this Court hereby conditionally certifies the
      following class:

      "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time
      during the Class Period (December 14, 2014 through the
      date of this Order), including any Beneficiary of a
      deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time
      during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a
      person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who
      participated in the Plan at any time during the Class
      Period."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and
      their Beneficiaries.

   2. The Court preliminarily appoints the Named Plaintiffs
      Christian Harding, Patricia Giramma, Ronald Welch, and
      Lisa Harbour as Class Representatives for the Settlement
      Class and Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Class Counsel for the
      Settlement Class.

   3. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement.

      The Settlement Agreement is hereby preliminarily approved
      as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

   4. Establishment of Qualified Settlement Fund -- A common
      fund is agreed to by the Settling Parties in the
      Settlement Agreement and is hereby established and shall
      be known as the "Settlement Fund."

   5. Fairness Hearing -- A hearing is scheduled for April 25,
      2022 at 3:00PM [at least 120 days after preliminary
      approval] to make a final determination, concerning among
      other things:

       -- Any objections from Class Members to the Settlement or
          any aspects of it.

       -- Any Whether the Settlement merits final approval as
          fair, reasonable, and adequate;

       -- Any Whether the Action should be dismissed with
          prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Settlement; and

       -- Any Whether Class Counsel adequately represented the
          Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and
          implementing the Settlement.

   6. Settlement Notice -- The Court approves the form of
      Settlement Notice to the Settlement Agreement.

   7. Settlement Administrator -- The Court hereby approves the
      appointment of JND Legal Administration as the Settlement
      Administrator for the Settlement.

Southcoast Hospitals provides health care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r9xOyQ at no extra charge.[CC]

SPOKEO INC: Kellman Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights
---------------------------------------------------------
Aviva Kellman, Jason Fry and Nicholas Newell, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SPOKEO, INC., Case
No. 3:21-cv-08976-SK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant who violated the Plaintiffs intellectual property and
privacy rights, in violation of California's Right of Publicity
statute; California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a
name or likeness; Ohio's Right of Publicity statute; Ohio common
law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness; Indiana's
Right of Publicity statute; Indiana common law prohibiting
misappropriation of a name or likeness; and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs were seriously distressed to discover that Spokeo is
using their names, personal information, photographs, likenesses,
and personas to advertise paid subscriptions to its website.
Spokeo's advertisements falsely suggest that the Plaintiffs may
have criminal records. Plaintiffs and Class Members did not consent
to Spokeo using their names, personal information, photographs,
likenesses, and personas to advertise website subscriptions or any
other product. Spokeo advertises its website by publicly displaying
teaser profiles of the Plaintiffs and Class Members with their
names; ages; current and past cities of residence; partially
redacted addresses, emails, and phone numbers; and other personal
information. Some teaser profiles include photographs.

Plaintiffs do not know how Spokeo obtained their personal
information. Spokeo states that it collects "from a large variety
of public online and offline sources," including "Property
Records," "Consumer Records," "Historical Records," "Court
Records," "Business Records," and "Social Networks. Spokeo does not
disclose specific sources. Spokeo misappropriated Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' names, ages, photographs, addresses, emails, phone
numbers, additional personal information, personas, and likenesses
without permission or consent from Plaintiffs or Class Members.

Consent is not all or nothing. Plaintiffs and Class Members may
have shared their names, photographs, addresses, and other personal
information with certain companies or the government in a variety
of contexts. But Plaintiffs and Class Members did not consent to
the commercial use of their personal information and personas to
promote subscriptions to a website with which they have no
relationship. Spokeo makes money by peddling personal information
it has no right to use. Spokeo's payment page intentionally
misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing a single
profile for 95 cents, when in fact they are purchasing a Spokeo
membership at a cost of $24.95 per month. Plaintiffs and Class
Members did not consent to the use of their likenesses and personas
to promote Spokeo's unethical schemes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are private individuals who have no relationship
with the Defendant and who have never used or subscribed to the
website spokeo.com.

The Defendant owns and operates the website spokeo.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
          102 Bergen St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (347) 645-0464
          Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com

               - and -

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


STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Jaunich Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Co. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled John E. Jaunich,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
State Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-01567-PAM-JFD,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The lawsuit seeks to recover amounts State Farm charged and
collected in excess of amounts authorized by the express terms of
life insurance policies.

State Farm Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company based
in Bloomington, Illinois. Jaunich purchased a flexible premium
adjustable whole life insurance policy from State Farm with a basic
amount of $50,000. Although his policy authorizes State Farm to use
only certain, specified factors in determining Monthly Cost of
Insurance Rates, Jaunich alleges that State Farm also uses other
factors, not authorized by his policy, when determining those
rates, including, without limitation, profit and expenses causing
those rates to be higher than what is explicitly authorized by his
policy. As a result, the Cost of Insurance Charges deductions from
policy owner Account Values are in amounts greater than what is
permitted by the policy.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 8, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying the Defendant's
motion to exclude expert testimony; and granting the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class.

Plaintiff Jaunich sought to certify a class consisting of "[a]ll
persons who own or owned a universal life policy issued by State
Farm on its policy form 94030 in the State of Minnesota whose
policy was in-force on or after January 1, 2002 and who was subject
to at least one monthly deduction."

The Defendant seeks a review of Judge Magnuson's ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as John Jaunich v. State Farm Life
Insurance Co., Case No. 21-8009, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 15, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner State Farm Life Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Deborah L. Stein, Esq.
          GIBSON & DUNN
          333 S. Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-0000
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804

               - and -

          Kristin Andrea Linsley, Esq.
          GIBSON & DUNN
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8395

               - and -

          Todd Noteboom, Esq.
          STINSON, LLP
          50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1500

               - and -

          Jeremy Root, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          230 W. McCarty Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 636-6263

Plaintiff-Respondent John E. Jaunich, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900

               - and -

          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          MILLER & SCHIRGER
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500

               - and -

          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100

               - and -

          Karen Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505

STATE FARM: Wiggins Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kristopher Wiggins, Billy Paul Cobb, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, Case No. 2021-CP-37-00701, was removed from the Oconee
County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Nov. 19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-03803-DCC to the
proceeding.

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

State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shane William Rogers, Esq.
          JOHNSON SMITH HIBBARD AND WILDMAN
          PO Drawer 5587
          Spartanburg, SC 29304-5587
          Phone: (864) 582-8121
          Fax: (864) 585-5328
          Email: srogers@jshwlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Tate Thompson, Esq.
          Perry D. Boulier, Esq.
          BOULIER THOMPSON AND BARNES LLC
          101 W St John Street, Suite 300
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Phone: (864) 606-9710
          Email: jthompson@btblawfirm.com
                 pboulier@btblawfirm.com


STEELE, MN: Settlement in Coffey Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAH COFFEY and RON
JAEGER, on behalf of themselves individually and all others
similarly situated, v. LON THIELE, in his official capacity as
Steele County Sheriff, Case No. 0:20-cv-02237-NEB-TNL (D. Minn.),
the Hon. Judge Nancy E. Brasel entered an order as follows:

   1. Preliminary Class Certification.

      The Parties have agreed, for purposes of settlement and
      its implementation, that the action may proceed as a class
      action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(3). The Court agrees
      and preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only,
      the following class under Rule 23:

      "Former Steele County Detention Center inmates who owe
      outstanding confinement fees and/or from whom the County
      withheld jail account funds or otherwise collected payment
      from the individual or revenue recapture who were invoiced
      September 18, 2014–July 13, 2021."

   2. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement.

      The settlement proposed in the Settlement Agreement is
      preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
      free of collusion to the detriment of class members, and
      within the range of possible final judicial approval,
      subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

   3. Settlement Purposes Only.

      The preliminary certification of the settlement class and
      this litigation as a class action is for settlement
      purposes only and will be terminated and without further
      force or effect and without prejudice to either party in
      connection with any future proceedings in the litigation,
      including any future motion on class certification, if:
      (1) the Court fails to approve the Settlement Agreement as
      written or if on appeal the Court’s approval is reversed
      or modified; or (2) the final approval order and judgment
      is not entered by the Court or is reversed or modified on
      appeal or otherwise fails for any reason.

   4. Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel.

      For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Plaintiff
      Isaiah Coffey as Class Representative, and his counsel,
      the LAMP Clinic, as Class Counsel. The Court finds that
      the Class Representative and his counsel have thus far
      adequately represented the interests of the Settlement
      Class.

   5. Mailing and Publishing of Settlement Notice. The Court
      hereby approves the proposed form of settlement notice to
      the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l82qge at no extra charge.[CC]

STONECO LTD: Ray Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald F. Ray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STONECO LTD., THIAGO DOS SANTOS PIAU, LIA MACHADO DE
MATOS, RAFAEL MARTINS PEREIRA, and MARCELO BASTIANELLO BALDIN, Case
No. 1:21-cv-09620 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2021), is brought on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
StoneCo securities between March 11, 2021 and November 16, 2021,
inclusive; and pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, StoneCo announced its
second quarter 2021 financial results in a press release, reporting
an 8.1% year-over-year decrease in revenue "mainly due to
adjustments in credit fair value and significantly lower credit
disbursements." The Company stated that it had "implemented some
prudent actions, like temporarily stopping the disbursement of
credit and increasing coverage for potential future losses, which
impacted [StoneCo's] reported results for the quarter." On this
news, the Company's share price fell $2.96, to close at $46.54 per
share on August 31, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on October 26, 2021, PAX Global Technology Ltd's Florida
offices were raided by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Department of Homeland Security, and several other agencies as
part of a federal investigation. As a Viceroy Research report on
October 27, 2021 pointed out, Stone states that PAX "is no longer
its sole provider of POS services, but the Company is still
substantially dependent on it to manufacture and assemble a
substantial amount of its POS devices." Moreover, another company
replaced its PAX terminals "because it did not receive satisfactory
answers from PAX regarding its POS devices connecting to websites
not listed in their supplied documentation." On this news, the
Company's share price fell $2.64, or 7%, to close at $33.81 per
share on October 27, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.

Then, on November 16, 2021, StoneCo announced that it would "start
retesting our original credit product, which is short-term loans,
between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of '22."
The Company could not provide specific guidance about when credit
volumes would return to levels before StoneCo had halted
origination of credit. On this news, the Company's share price fell
$10.96, or 34%, to close at $20.70 per share on November 17, 2021,
thereby injuring investors further.

The 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 StoneCo was
experiencing difficulties in implementing its credit product; (2)
that StoneCo faced significant risks via its point-of-sale vendor,
PAX Global Technology Ltd.; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
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. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased StoneCo securities during the Class
Period.

StoneCo is a provider of financial technology solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: info@glancylaw.com


STONECO LTD: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
StoneCo Ltd. (NASDAQ: STNE) securities between March 11, 2021 and
November 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
January 18, 2022 to seek appointment in Ray v. StoneCo Ltd., No.
21-cv-09620 (S.D.N.Y.). Commenced on November 19, 2021, the StoneCo
class action lawsuit charges StoneCo along with certain of its top
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"start retesting our original [credit] product, which is short-term
loans, between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of
'22."

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the StoneCo 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 StoneCo class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than January 18, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: StoneCo is a provider of financial technology
solutions that allows merchants and other vendors to conduct
electronic commerce across in-store, online, and mobile channels,
primarily in Brazil.

The StoneCo class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) StoneCo was experiencing difficulties in
implementing its credit product; (ii) StoneCo faced significant
risks via its point-of-sale vendor, PAX Global Technology Ltd.;
(iii) as a result, StoneCo's financial results would be adversely
impacted; and (iv) consequently, defendants' positive statements
about StoneCo's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 30, 2021, StoneCo reported an 8.1% year-over-year
decrease in revenue "mainly due to adjustments in credit fair value
and significantly lower credit disbursements." StoneCo further
reported that it had "implemented some prudent actions, like
temporarily stopping the disbursement of credit and increasing
coverage for potential future losses, which impacted [StoneCo's]
reported results for the quarter." On this news, StoneCo's share
price fell.

Then, on October 26, 2021, PAX Global Technology Ltd.'s Florida
offices were raided by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Department of Homeland Security, and several other agencies as
part of a federal investigation. As a Viceroy Research report on
October 27, 2021 pointed out, StoneCo states that PAX "is no longer
[its] sole provider of POS services, [but StoneCo is] still
substantially dependent on it to manufacture and assemble a
substantial amount of [its] POS devices." Moreover, another company
replaced its PAX terminals "because it did not receive satisfactory
answers from PAX regarding its POS devices connecting to websites
not listed in their supplied documentation." On this news,
StoneCo's share price fell an additional 7%.

Finally, on November 16, 2021, StoneCo announced that it would
"start retesting our original [credit] product, which is short-term
loans, between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of
'22." StoneCo could not provide specific guidance about when credit
volumes would return to levels before StoneCo had halted
origination of credit. On this news, StoneCo's share price fell
another 34%, further damaging investors.

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

SYDNEY'S TRANSPORT: Edwards Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sydney's Transport
LLC. The case is styled as Melvin Edwards, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Sydney's Transport LLC, a
Wyoming Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00240-MPM-RP
(N.D. Miss., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Sydney's Transport -- https://sydneystransport.com/ -- is a leading
transportation company with a hard-earned reputation who have been
exceeding expectations for 30+ years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Phone: (662) 429-7088
          Fax: (662) 429-5474
          Email: gbready@georgebreadyattorneys.com


TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Telemundo Network
Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jose Diaz, on behalf of
himself an all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Telemundo Network Group LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00311437-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 19, 2021).

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

Telemundo Network Group LLC operates a Spanish-language television
network. It offers novelas, sports and news, children's
programming, movies, reality, entertainment and music programs, and
original sitcoms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
          28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
          Phone: (818) 293-5623
          Fax: (888) 850-1310
          Email: roman@OLFLA.com


TENET FINTECH: Boxtel Hits Share Drop Over Shady Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Bram van Boxtel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tenet Fintech Group Inc., Johnson Joseph
and Jean Landreville, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06461, (E.D. N.Y.,
November 19, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tenet Fintech (formerly known as Peak Fintech Group Inc.) is the
parent company of a group of financial technology subsidiaries
operating in China's commercial lending industry. Tenet Fintech is
incorporated in Canada and its shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange.
Johnson Joseph has served as its Chief Executive Officer while Jean
Landreville served as its Chief Financial Officer.

In January 2018, Peak Fintech announced the creation of a new
Chinese holding subsidiary, Wuxi Aorong Ltd., for the purposes of
being the parent company of Asia Synergy Financial Capital (ASFC)
and the vehicle through which Peak would hold a 51% stake in ASFC.

On September 14, 2021, Peak acquired the assets of Huayan Kun Tai
Technology Company Ltd., a private company that provides various
software as a service solutions to insurers and insurance brokers
in China, primarily through its proprietary "Heartbeat" insurance
product management and brokerage platform. All of Huayan's assets,
including the Heartbeat platform, its employees and its operations
will be transferred to Peak's Xinxiang Technologies Ltd.
subsidiary.

Boxtel alleges that Tenet failed to disclose that it did not
actually own 51% of ASFC through Wuxi Aorong and did not disclose
its actual ownership structure of ASFC, that Huayan did not own the
Heartbeat platform because it did not exist prior to the
acquisition and that Tenet faced imminent delisting from NASDAQ due
to non-compliance with known regulations.

On this news, Tenet's share prices dropped by $0.57 per share, or
6%, to close at $7.98 on October 13, 2021, damaging investors.

Boxtel purchased Tenet securities at allegedly artificially
inflated prices and was economically damaged thereby, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10116
      Phone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


TENGRAM CAPITAL: Kallamni Sues Over Benzene in Body Spray Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mina Kallamni, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tengram Capital Partners, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09616, (S.D. N.Y., November 19, 2021),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
Defendant, directing Tengram to correct its practices and to comply
with New York's relevant consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit further seeks an order requiring Tengram to establish a
blood testing program for affected users of their products, as well
as to establish a medical monitoring protocol to monitor
individuals' health and diagnose at an early stage any ailments
associated with exposure to benzene.  The Plaintiff demands
monetary, treble and statutory damages of $50 per transaction, and
treble damages for knowing and willful violations, pursuant to New
York business laws, award of costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys,
experts, and reimbursement of expenses and such other and further
relief for breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Tengram Capital Partners markets and sells various body spray
products throughout the state of New York and throughout the
country, including, but not limited to "Sure - Lasts All Day,
Unscented, Aerosol" and "Brut - Classic, 24 Hr Protection."

Kallamni alleges that Tengram failed to disclose that these
products contain benzene which can cause severe health issues such
as anemia, immune system damage, and cancer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
      270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (845) 483-7100
      Fax: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
             liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
             markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

             - and -

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


TVN ENTERPRISES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TVN Enterprises Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TVN Enterprises Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09689 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

TVN Enterprises -- https://www.tvnenterprises.com/ -- is a
family-owned holding company for a suite of e-commerce brands.[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


ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultimate Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Ultimate Nutrition, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09823 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Ultimate Nutrition -- https://ultimatenutrition.com/ -- is a Leader
in Sports Nutrition & an Active Lifestyle brand for over 40
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


ULTRA PRO: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultra PRO
International LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ultra PRO
International LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09835 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2021).

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

Ultra PRO International LLC -- https://shop.ultrapro.com/ -- is the
leading manufacturer and supplier of sports and gaming collectibles
accessories, photo and scrapbooking albums and pages and Ultra
Sleeves™, our line of disposable, protective sleeves for computer
tablets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


UNIFIN INC: Sanchez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc, et al.
The case is styled as Alexeis Lopez Sanchez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson
Capital Systems LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-24113-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov.
22, 2021).

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

Unifin Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a veteran-owned,
full-service Business Process Outsource (BPO) and Accounts
Receivable Management (ARM) firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


UNION PACIFIC: Adkins' Reply to Opposition of Remand Bid Due Dec. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELINDA ADKINS, an Individual, et al., Plaintiffs v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A foreign corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01818-APG-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew
P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
granted the Parties' Stipulation and Order Modifying Briefing
Schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (First Request).

On Sept. 30, 2021, the Pharmacia Defendants removed the case to the
Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)). On Nov. 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to
Remand. The Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand was due Nov. 15, 2021, with the Plaintiffs' Reply due Nov.
22, 2021.

To accommodate the attorneys' schedules and the upcoming holidays
the Parties have agreed to extend these deadlines, the Parties,
through their respective counsel, stipulated and agreed that the
time for the Defendants to file their Opposition to the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand was moved to Nov. 22, 2021, and the Plaintiffs'
Reply will be due Dec. 6, 2021.

Judge Gordon so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m768cvxa from Leagle.com.

Kelly A. Evans, Esq. -- kevans@efstriallaw.com -- Chad R. Fears,
Esq. -- cfears@efstriallaw.com -- Jay J. Schuttert, Esq. --
jschuttert@efstriallaw.com -- Hayley E. Miller, Esq. --
hmiller@efstriallaw.com -- EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT LLP, in Las
Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia
Inc., and Pharmacia LLC.

Thomas M. Goutman, Esq. -- tgoutman@shb.com -- (Pro Hac Vice) Adam
E. Miller, Esq., (Pro Hac Vice) Richard L. Campbell, Esq. --
rcampbell@shb.com -- (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) Kim Kocher, Esq. --
kkocher@shb.com -- (Pro Hac Vice) David S. Haase, Esq. --
dhaase@shb.com -- (Pro Hac Vice) Rosemary R. Schnall, Esq. --
rschnall@shb.com -- (Pro Hac Vice) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P., in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Ellis Files Suit in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Healthcare
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Robert I. Ellis,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. United
Healthcare Insurance Company, Multiplan, Inc. doing business as:
Data iSight, Case No. 4:21-cv-00923-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Nov. 22,
2021).

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

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company -- https://www.uhc.com/ --
provides insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher David Lindstrom, Esq.
          Derek Heath Potts, Esq.
          POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP - Houston
          P 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 963-8881
          Fax: (713) 583-5388
          Email: clindstrom@potts-law.com
                 dpotts@potts-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy Micah Dortch, Esq.
          POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP - Dallas
          2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 396-9427
          Fax: (469) 217-8296
          Email: mdortch@potts-law.com


UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Barlow Suit Wins Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM E. BARLOW, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-396 L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Zachary N.
Somers of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims approves the parties'
proffered settlement agreement.

Introduction

Before the Court in the rails-to-trails case is the parties'
proffered settlement agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of
the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). The Plaintiffs
in the class action are Illinois landowners who allege that the
United States, as the result of a Notice of Interim Trail Use
issued by the Surface Transportation Board on Nov. 13, 2008,
effected a taking without just compensation of their reversionary
interest in certain real property underlying a railroad line owned
by the Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Following class certification and the Court's Sept. 1, 2015,
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part
the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the
Plaintiffs moved to form several subclasses and for entry of final
judgment with respect to certain plaintiffs. On Feb. 4, 2016, the
Court granted-in-part the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of
subclasses and for entry of judgment pursuant to RCFC 23(c)(5) and
RCFC 54 and created a subclass comprised of 12 Plaintiffs
associated with 14 parcels of property who engaged in settlement
discussions ("Subclass A") and a subclass comprised of the
remaining Plaintiffs in this class action ("Subclass B").

After notice to Subclass A members and a fairness hearing, on Oct.
10, 2019, the Court approved a settlement for Subclass A members
negotiated by the parties. As to Subclass B members, on Nov. 13,
2020, the Court issued an opinion on the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment. In that opinion, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability with
respect to parcel Nos. 28 and 61. Additionally, the Court
determined that neither party carried their burden with regard to
parcel Nos. 84 and 85. It granted summary judgment on liability in
favor of the government on the remaining parcels owned by members
of Subclass B.

The parties, on July 9, 2021, jointly filed a motion for approval
of notice to the settling Subclass B members regarding a proposed
settlement and requested that the Court sets a date for a public
fairness hearing under RCFC 23(e). On Aug. 3, 2021, the Court
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement and
scheduled a fairness hearing for Oct. 20, 2021. At the fairness
hearing, the parties discussed their negotiated settlement and the
Court assessed whether to grant final approval of the proposed
settlement agreement.

Discussion

Judge Somers concludes that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. As an initial matter, he finds that fair
notice of the terms of the settlement agreement was provided to all
settling members of Subclass B. RCFC 23(e)(1)(B) provides that the
Court must "direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class
members who would be bound by the proposal. He similarly finds that
the settlement agreement reached in the case is procedurally fair.
He is satisfied that the negotiations that produced the settlement
agreement "resulted from arms-length negotiations and that the
Plaintiffs' counsel possessed the experience and ability, and have
engaged in the discovery, necessary to effective representation of
the class's interest." Judge Somers also concludes that the terms
of the settlement agreement are substantively fair. The counsel for
both parties represent to the Court that they believe the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Somers approves the settlement
agreement. There being no just reason for delay, he directs the
Clerk to enter judgment on just compensation, pursuant to RCFC
54(b), in the total amount of $27,494.10. This amount consists of
$16,576 in principal and $10,918.10 in interest through Feb. 12,
2021, for settling Subclass B members. Settling Subclass B members'
claims for attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 ("URA"), are preserved. The judgment is payable to the class
counsel for distribution to the class according to the terms of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order and the parties' settlement
agreement.

Moreover, either the Plaintiffs or the parties jointly will move
for judgment on the claims of the remaining members of Subclass B
by Dec. 17, 2021. Such motion will include a proposed order for
entry of judgment that, inter alia, appropriately preserves the
claims related to parcel No. 61 and for attorneys' fees and costs
under the URA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2vr77vyb from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: USCIS Revises Guidance in Response to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan E. Dziura, Esq., and Melina V. Villalobos, Esq., of
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, in an article for Mondaq,
report that on November 12, 2021, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) issued policy guidance addressing the automatic
extension of employment authorization for H-4, L-2, and E dependent
spouses in response to a class action lawsuit.

The new guidance, published in chapter two of the USCIS policy
guidance manual, indicates that the employment authorization
documents (EADs) of H-4, L-2, and E dependent spouses will be among
those eligible for an automatic 180-day extension if:

   -- The H-4, L-2, or E dependent spouse properly filed for a
renewal of his or her EAD before it expired; and

   -- The spouse has an unexpired Form I-94 showing valid H-4, L-2,
or E derivative status.

This automatic extension will terminate at the earliest of the
below actions:

   -- The date of expiration of the nonimmigrant status, as
indicated on the Form I-94;

   -- The approval or denial of the EAD renewal application; or 180
days from the date of the expiration of the prior EAD.

To complete Form I-9 with an expired EAD at the time of hire or at
the time of required reverification, H-4, L-2, and E dependent
spouses may present the following combination of documents to their
employers to document this automatic extension of work
authorization:

   -- A copy of the expired EAD, listing category A17, A18, or C26,
as applicable;

   -- Form I-797 confirming receipt of the application for the
renewal EAD in the same category as the expired EAD and that the
renewal application was filed prior to the expiration of the EAD;
and

   -- An unexpired Form I-94 reflecting H-4, L-2, or E derivative
status, as applicable.

This new guidance also states that USCIS will consider L-2 and E
dependent spouses (not H-4 dependent spouses) work-authorized
incident to their status. However, USCIS indicated that a Form I-94
solely notated with "E-1," "E-2," "E-2C, "E-3," "E-3D," "E-3R," or
"L-2" is not sufficient evidence of employment authorization for
Form I-9 at this time.

USCIS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are working
towards assigning a new code for Form I-94 that distinguishes
dependent spouses from dependent children who are not authorized to
work. Until then, L-2 and E nonimmigrants may want to continue to
file EAD applications to obtain work authorization. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: BOT Appeals Ruling in Rojas Fee Refund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant University of Florida Board of Trustees filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Rojas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
University of Florida Board of Trustees, Case No. 01-2021-CA-1124,
in the Florida Eighth Judicial Circuit, Alachua County.

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. The lawsuit states that the
Board of Governors profited from its breach of contract with
students, who had paid for resources that they could no longer
access after the board forced colleges to empty their dorms and
transition to remote learning on March 11. It also includes claims
for unjust enrichment and conversion.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 17, 2021,
Judge Monica Brasington issued a nine-page ruling allowing the
plaintiff, Anthony Rojas, to bring a breach-of-contract claim
against the university. Judge Brasington said she 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.

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.

The appellate case is captioned as University of Florida Board of
Trustees vs. Antohny Rojas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Case No. 1D21-3430, in the Florida First
District Court of Appeal.[BN]

UNPLUGGED PERFORMANCE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unplugged Performance
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Unplugged Performance Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09890 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Unplugged Performance -- https://unpluggedperformance.com/ -- is
the leader for high-quality, premium upgrades and customization for
Tesla Vehicles, including exterior parts and custom interiors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


US PATRIOT: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Patriot, LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. US Patriot, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09704 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

US Patriot Tactical -- https://www.uspatriottactical.com/ -- a
veteran owned and managed military and law enforcement supplier, is
the nation's largest off-post retailer of military and tactical
goods, with over 55 retail locations worldwide.[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


VALLEY FORGE: JDL Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JDL, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled JDL INC. (d/b/a VEGAS IMAGE), LV CANDY LLC,
and WORLD POWER CORPORATION (d/b/a GLOBAL AIR SERVICE),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02681, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 20, 2020, the
lawsuit arises from VFIC's refusal to pay its insureds under its
Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor
coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 crisis.

The Plaintiffs contend that unlike many policies that provide
Business Income coverage, VFIC's Special Property Coverage Form
does not include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses
caused by the spread of viruses or communicable diseases. But VFIC
has denied the Plaintiffs' claim under its VFIC policy.

The Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce business at Vegas
Image and LV Candy due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders
issued by civil authorities in Nevada, says the complaint.
  
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated September 30, 2021, granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as JDL, et al. v. Valley Forge
Insurance Company, Case No. 21-3076, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 8, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due on November 22, 2021;

   -- Docketing Statement was due for Appellants JDL, LV Candy LLC
and World Power Corporation on November 3, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 20, 2021 for
JDL, LV Candy LLC and World Power Corporation.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JDL, doing business as Vegas Image; LV CANDY
LLC; and WORLD POWER CORPORATION, doing business as Global Air
Service, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten N. DearboArn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com            

Defendant-Appellee VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Brent Robert Austin, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 S. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60604-2516
          Telephone: (312) 660-7684
          E-mail: baustin@eimerstahl.com

VALVE CORP: Judge Tosses Antitrust Class Action Filed by Wolfire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Dealessandri, writing for gamesindustry.biz, reports that a
US District judge dismissed the antitrust lawsuit filed by Wolfire
Games against Valve.

As reported by Rock Paper Shotgun, the ruling was filed on November
19, with the document indicating that Wolfire's complaint did "not
articulate sufficient facts to plausibly allege an antitrust injury
based on that market."

The starting point of the lawsuit, which Wolfire filed in April,
was that Valve utilises "anticompetitive practices and its monopoly
power to force Wolfire and similarly situated personal computer
desktop game publishers to pay [its] supracompetitive fees for the
sale of their games."

Concerning Valve's 30% cut on game sales, US District judge John C.
Coughenour argued that it's "commensurate with the Steam platform's
value to game publishers."

He added that Wolfire's complaint lacked allegations supporting
what it had called Valve's "coercive practices [resulting] in
non-price antitrust injuries, namely a reduction in output and
quality."

"If anything, the facts provided by the [Class Action Complaint],
at least with respect to output, suggest the opposite -- a
consistent increase in the number of games available in the market
and on the Steam platform," the judge said. "The CAC does not
provide facts describing how Wolfire directly suffered from an
alleged reduction in output and/or quality. Instead, it only
addresses the impact on the industry."

The document concluded that Wolfire can file another complaint
addressing the issues highlighted in the dismissal, within 30
days.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, Wolfire CEO David Rosen said
that he felt he "had no choice" as "gamers and game developers are
being harmed by Valve's conduct."

Valve had filed a motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit in July.
[GN]

VANMOOF USA: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanmoof USA Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Vanmoof USA Inc. doing business
as: Vanmoof, Case No. 1:21-cv-06462-LDH-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19,
2021).

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

Vanmoof USA Inc. -- https://www.vanmoof.com/en-US -- offers
high-speed e-bikes for cities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com


VERIZON CONNECT: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elaina Hall, Jeremy Mancini Bates, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC and
VERIZON CONNECT INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04697-AT (N.D. Ga., Nov. 14,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for failing
to pay overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were unlawfully not
compensated a premium for all hours worked over 40 in each and
every workweek by a scheme and plan of the Defendant to evade the
overtime wage laws and save many millions of dollars in labor costs
to the detriment and harm of the Plaintiffs and all other Inside
Sales Representatives. The Defendants absolutely knew and knows
today that Inside Sales Representatives routinely worked overtime
hours off the clock and by working through meal breaks, as managers
and supervisors witnessed the extra hours, encouraged and even
pressured Inside Sales Representatives to work as many hours as
possible to hit quotas and meet goals. The Defendants also engaged
in a scheme to avoid paying overtime wages by misleading employees
with false information and false statements about the overtime laws
and their entitlement, and intentionally by actions and omissions
of facts and law in representations and communications, led closers
to believe they were not entitled to overtime premiums. The
Defendants have willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff, and all
similarly situated persons, in accordance with the Illinois and
North Carolina overtime wage laws. Specifically, the Plaintiffs,
and similarly situated employees, were not paid time and a half of
their regular rate pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, nor paid a premium for all overtime hours worked, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Business
Development Representatives.

VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC. is a Foreign Limited Liability
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          1201 Peachtree Street NE, Second Floor
          Atlanta, Georgia 30361
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com


VIRGINIA: Upgrades Unemployment System Amid Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Center Square reports that the Virginia Employment Commission
launched an upgraded unemployment system designed to make it more
modern.

Under the new system, customers can access documents online and
view a customer dashboard for claims filing status and other
inquiry investment. According to the VEC, its changes to claims
filing were also upgraded to improve user experience.

The changes are the third and final phase of a multi-year effort to
modernize VEC systems.

"We are extremely proud of the work our team has invested in this
effort," VEC Commissioner Ellen Marie Hess said in a statement. "We
look forward to the improvements this system will provide to our
customers."

The VEC faced harsh criticism and even a class-action lawsuit for
how it handled nonmonetary eligibility cases during the COVID-19
pandemic. Although the department was legally required to process
these cases within three weeks, it failed to meet that deadline in
95% of cases, according to a lawsuit filed in April. Most reviews
took 10 weeks or longer to process, but some dragged out for more
than a year.

Officials blamed the slow processing on an uptick in cases caused
by the pandemic, a lack of personnel and the need for upgrades. A
judge ordered the VEC to double the number of cases it adjudicates
every week and to clear the backlog. Although the VEC met the
judge's order, the lawsuit is still in effect and the court is
monitoring the additional case pile-up that occured during that
time period. [GN]

VONACHEN SERVICES: Faegre Drinker Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Abrams, Esq., of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that for the last several years, the
plaintiff's bar has been bombarding companies doing business in
Illinois with class action claims under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. Generally
speaking, BIPA imposes certain notice, consent and other
obligations on entities that collect biometrics in Illinois. Many
of these cases are premised on employees' use of so-called
biometric timeclocks that purportedly scan employees' fingerprints
for timekeeping purposes.

This spate of BIPA class action lawsuits, in turn, has spawned
derivative disputes over the scope of insurance coverage for such
claims. Recently, an Illinois federal court concluded that an
insurer has a duty to defend such claims under its employment
practices liability (EPL) policy.

In Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Vonachen Services, Inc. et al.,
the insured was alleged to have violated BIPA in connection with
its purported fingerprint-based employee timekeeping system. The
insurer filed a declaratory judgment action contending that it owed
no insurance obligations for these BIPA claims. On cross-motions
for summary judgment, the United Stated States District Court for
the Central District of Illinois found a duty to defend under the
applicable EPL policy.

In particular, the employer's EPL policy provided coverage for an
"Employment Practices Wrongful Act," which included an employee's
claim for "breach of any oral, written, or implied employment
contract, including, without limitation, any obligation arising
from a personnel manual, employee handbook, or policy statement."
The employer-insured's handbook required employees to use the
designated timekeeping system or face discipline up to and
including termination. The handbook also provided that the
employer-insured "will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations."

Thus, according to the court, the alleged BIPA violations --
stemming from the insured's mandating use of an alleged
fingerprint-based timekeeping system -- triggered the insurer's
duty to defend. Moreover, the EPL policy also covered an
"employment-related invasion of privacy," which the court found to
be an "integral part" of the alleged breach of an employee
handbook. Note, however, the court did not find the parties'
Directors, Officers and Entity Liability Coverage (D&O) policy
applied to the BIPA dispute, and it also tabled the issue of a duty
to indemnify (separate and apart from the duty to defend).

Whether other courts will find a duty to defend employment-related
BIPA claims under an EPL policy remains to be seen, but this recent
decision suggests that insurers and insureds alike should review
their existing policies to assess the potential for coverage as
BIPA lawsuits continue to be filed at a blistering pace. [GN]

VSC HOLDINGS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VSC Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. VSC Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09885 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

VSC Holdings' line of business includes providing miscellaneous
personal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


VXL ENTERPRISES: Duff Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnnye Duff and Janelle Hernandez Avitia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VXL ENTERPRISES LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-08891-FLA-GJS (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2021), is
brought against the Defendant, who has violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the California Labor Code, by: failing to
pay VXL staff overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 a week; and failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for all
hours worked.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated the
Defendant medical staff did not receive overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, and did not receive wages
owed upon termination. The Defendant has violated the FLSA by
failing to pay these individuals overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 a week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as registered nurses,
supporting COVID-19 patients in a prison setting.

VXL Enterprises LLC touts itself as a provider of "long term and
contingency operation support, training, tactical and combat
medical solutions, and critical logistical support."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Feder, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
          235 Montgomery Street Suite 1019
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 391-9476
          Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
          Email: daniel@dfederlaw.com

               - and -

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


WASHINGTON: Seyfarth Attorney Discusses Long-Term Care Act Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liz J. Deckman, Esq., of Seyfarth, disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Washington State's Long-Term
Services and Supports Trust Act (the "Act") that requires each
worker in Washington to contribute $0.58 per $100 (0.58%) of wages
to a trust set aside to pay long-term care benefits for its
residents. The lawsuit challenges the Act and requests a
declaratory judgment that the Act is unenforceable as it violates
ERISA and federal and state laws governing employee benefit plans.
See Pacific Bells LLC et al v. Inslee et al, No 2:21-cv-01515, (W.
Dist. WA). Nov. 9, 2021.

The Act was enacted in 2019 in an effort to plan for the projected
long term care needs of Washington State residents. Under the Act,
employers must remit on a quarterly basis a payroll tax of 0.58%
(adjusted based on Washington's CPI) of Washington employees' wages
(without a cap) to a trust establish by the State. The maximum
benefit payable is $100/day up to a maximum lifetime benefit of
$36,500. For more information on the Act, see our blog post here,
and our webinar on the Act here.

The Act is the first of its kind in the United States and has been
controversial since its enactment. This is due to several of the
Act's provisions, such as the scope of employees who must pay the
tax. Under the Act, generally all employees who work in Washington
State will pay the tax starting in 2022, regardless of their state
of residence, although only Washington State residents will be able
to use the benefit.

Another sticking point has been the benefit's vesting schedule.
Under the Act, the benefit is only available for residents who pay
into the trust for: (i) a total of ten years with no more than a
five-year interruption; or (ii) three of the six years before the
date the resident applies for benefits. Additionally, the resident
must have worked at least 500 hours per year during the ten or
three year measurement period, as applicable. Older workers who are
close to retirement will need to pay into the trust, even though
they may not work long enough to be able to vest in the benefit.
Other residents may lose their vesting if they do not pay into the
trust for at least ten years.

The plaintiffs' main argument for enjoining the Act is that it is
preempted by federal law. Long term care benefits are subject to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and as
a federal law, ERISA preempts any state laws that relate to an
employee benefit plan. The plaintiffs claim that employer
involvement in administering the Act (which includes determining
the wages that are subject to the Act, which employees are subject
to the Act, whether any employees are exempt from the Act, and
coordinating the payment of benefits under the Act with any
long-term care plan the employer maintains) is so significant that
it makes the Act an employer-sponsored employee benefit plan. If
so, the Act would be preempted by ERISA, which does not require an
employer to provide long-term care benefits.

The complaint also alleges that the Act violates:

   -- The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution because it charges out-of-state residents working
in Washington a premium, but denies them the benefit of the premium
because they must be a state resident in order to receive
benefits;

   -- The fundamental right to travel under Privileges and
Immunities Clause of the Constitution because individuals who
retire and move out of the State will no longer be eligible to
receive the benefits;

   -- The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act because older workers must pay
into the trust but may never vest in the benefit; and

   -- Washington State insurance and multiple employer welfare
arrangement (MEWA) laws because the Act does not satisfy state
underwriting requirements for long-term care plans and no MEWA
certificate of authority has been issued as required for plans that
provide benefits to the employees of more than one employer.

As a result of these issues, the class action lawsuit requests the
US District Court in the Western District of Washington to
prospectively enjoin the State from collecting the payroll tax and
enforcing the Act. Further, the lawsuit requests that the State
return to employees any premiums paid to the trust.

Currently, the Act is still "on the books," meaning that employers
need to be ready to collect the tax starting in January, despite
the filing of this lawsuit and a pending citizens' initiative
(I-1436) which would make it optional to participate in
Washington's long-term care insurance. [GN]

WBQ USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WBQ USA LLC. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WBQ USA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09837
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

WBQ USA LLC provides ecommerce services. The Company offers
ecommerce platform for the buying, selling, and trading of
pre-owned luxury timepieces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


WE COMPANY: California Appeals Court Affirms Stay of Goldstein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ADAM
NEUMAN, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A161727 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First District,
Division Four, affirmed the trial court's order granting a motion
to stay Goldstein's action for corporate waste against The We
Company on the basis of inconvenient forum.

Background

The company is a Delaware corporation that provides coworking space
to freelancers and small startup companies. In 2019, the company
filed registration papers with the Securities and Exchange
Commission announcing its intention to conduct a public offering of
the company's securities. In the fall of 2019, however, the company
instead entered an agreement with its largest investor to raise its
needed capital.

On Nov. 4, 2019, a company stockholder named Natalie Sojka filed
the present individual, putative class, and derivative action
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties and corporate waste
in connection with, among other things, the aborted initial public
offering.

On Nov. 14, 2019, the company adopted a bylaw requiring its
stockholders to bring all internal corporate claims in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. The company gave notice of the bylaw's adoption
to its stockholders on Dec. 2, 2019.

In January 2020, Sojka was granted leave to file an amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges identical claims but
substitutes Goldstein for Sojka as the named Plaintiff.

On Jan. 24, 2020, the company filed a motion to stay or dismiss the
action on the ground of inconvenient forum pursuant to the
company's newly adopted forum selection bylaw. In opposition, the
Plaintiff argued that the bylaw could not be applied retroactively
to an already pending action. He asserted that the case involves a
single "action" that was filed before the bylaw was adopted, or
alternatively, if the amended complaint is considered a new
"action" it should be treated as having the original filing date
under the "relation back" doctrine. The Plaintiff also argued that
defects in the process by which the bylaw was adopted precluded its
enforcement.

After considering supplemental briefing on the validity of the
bylaw's adoption, the court issued an order granting the company's
motion to stay. It held that the forum selection bylaw was valid,
that the bylaw was binding on the Plaintiff because he filed his
action after the company adopted the bylaw, and that enforcement of
the bylaw in the case was not unreasonable or unfair.

The Plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal.

Discussion

The Plaintiff challenges the validity of the bylaw under Delaware
law and argues that, even if valid, enforcement of the bylaw in the
case is both contrary to law and unreasonable because the
litigation was commenced before the bylaw was adopted.

The Court of Appeals reviews the trial court's factual
determination that the bylaw was enacted in accordance with
Delaware law for substantial evidence. The Plaintiff's legal
arguments regarding the retroactive application of the forum
selection bylaw are reviewed de novo. The court's determination
that enforcement in the case is not unreasonable is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion.

1. The forum selection bylaw was enacted in accordance with
applicable Delaware law.

The Plaintiff acknowledges that Delaware law permitted the company
to adopt the bylaw without a shareholder or board of directors
meeting and without prior notice, upon receipt of signed written
consents from the requisite number of shares of the company's
capital stock. He further acknowledges that the record contains
written consents signed by three entities "who collectively hold 'a
requisite number of shares of the requisite classes of the
company's capital stock.'" He argues, however, that these documents
fail to establish compliance with subdivision (c) of section 288,
which requires that all written consents be delivered to the
company "within 60 days of the first date on which a written
consent is so delivered to the corporation."

The Court of Appeals opines that the Plaintiff correctly points out
that two of the three documents are not dated, but declarations
submitted by two company officers establish that the written
consents were delivered within the requisite time period. The
Plaintiff's suggestion that the company may not have received the
written consents until after notice was given to the shareholders
in December is purely speculative. Substantial evidence supports
the trial court's finding that the bylaw was validly adopted.

2. Enforcement of the bylaw in this case is not unlawful or
unreasonable.

The Plaintiff contends that the retroactive enforcement of the
bylaw in the case is both unlawful and unreasonable. He argues that
permitting enforcement of a forum selection bylaw to pending
litigation, "if taken to an extreme, could lead to serious abuse."
The Plaintiff argues that "it would be unreasonable and unfair, not
to mention unduly burdensome, to require him to re-file a new
action in Delaware after years of litigation and to start from
scratch, after significant costs have already been incurred in
prosecuting the action in California."

The Court of Appeals disagrees. First, it finds that the Plaintiff
has not cited, and it has not located, any authority holding that a
newly enacted forum selection bylaw cannot be applied to pending
litigation as a matter of law. Next, it finds that the Plaintiffs
would be forced to dismiss their claims and file in the new forum
regardless of the time and costs expended on litigating in the
original forum. Undoubtedly, circumstances may demonstrate that
application of a newly enacted forum selection bylaw to pending
litigation would be unfair and unreasonable. Lastly, as the trial
court found, the "Plaintiff's decision to crawl into the shell left
behind by Sojka gives him no special protection. A contrary result
would unfairly exalt form over substance, allowing the Plaintiff to
nullify the company's legal rights by means of procedural
gamesmanship." Hence, the trial court did not err in finding
application of the bylaw here to be reasonable and granting the
Defendants' motion to stay.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting a stay. The
Defendants will recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2btbn6h from Leagle.com.


WELLACO INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellaco, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wellaco, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09891
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Wellaco, Inc. -- https://www.wellaco.com/ -- partners with brands
which want to generate positive change in their community or
culture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses Herrera Class Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed with prejudice all the claims
against the Defendants in the case, ARMANDO HERRERA, EDUARDO
SALCEDO, DENA LUCERO, FREDERICK BROWN, VANITY ARRINGTON, KASHIF Z.
AWAN, GRETTA CARTER, JAMES ATKINS, ILKA ROBINSON-EATON, JANET
CORPES, TERRI JONES, HEIDI HUMPHREYS, RIA MARTEINS, BRIAN T.
SWEENEY, NAKECIA M. DEAN, and VON GRIFFIN each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A. D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, INC., a national
association, and WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00332-JVS-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Selna so ordered for the reasons set forth in the Court's
Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Nationwide Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Incentive Award.

The Clerk is directed to enter the Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4cemfmhm from Leagle.com.

JASON M. FRANK -- jfrank@lawfss.com -- ANDREW D. STOLPER, SCOTT H.
SIMS -- ssims@lawfss.com -- FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP, in Irvine,
California, FRANKLIN D. AZAR (pro hac vice), FRANKLIN D. AZAR &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., in Aurora, Colorado. CHARLES E. SHAFFER (pro hoc
vice), LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Proposed Class and Subclasses.


WELLS FARGO: Lau Team May Object Naming of Lanning's Acting Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL LANNING, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 2055 (GBD) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York provided the counsel for the
Lau Plaintiff with an opportunity to oppose the Plaintiff's motion
for appointment of interim class counsel.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of
Interim Class Counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court
has been informed that there is another action being litigated in
the district, Lau v. Wells Fargo & Company, 20 Civ. 3870, which is
proceeding on a complaint that alleges a putative class action that
overlaps to some degree with the claims in the instant case.

Because of this overlap in the two actions, Judge Gorenstein
provided the counsel for the Lau Plaintiff with an opportunity to
oppose the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of interim class
counsel. Any opposition by the Lau Plaintiff was to be filed by
Nov. 23, 2021. The Plaintiff's counsel was directed to provide a
copy of the Order to the counsel for the Plaintiff in Lau and to
file proof of service with the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5bvb9w7u from Leagle.com.


WHEATON VILLAGE: Peoples Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kesha Peoples, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHEATON VILLAGE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC,
Case No. 2021L001234 (Ill. 18th Judicial, Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty.,
Nov. 19, 2021), is brought against the Defendant to redress and
curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, obtainment, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary
biometric identifiers and biometric information.

When the Defendant hires an employee, including the Plaintiff, he
or she is enrolled in the Defendant's employee database(s) using a
scan of his or her hand geometry. The Defendant uses the
database(s) to monitor the time worked by its employees. While many
employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such
as ID badges, numerical pass codes or punch clocks), the
Defendant's employees are required, as a condition of employment,
to have their hand geometry scanned by a biometric device. Unlike
ID badges or pass codes--which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised--hand geometry is a unique, permanent biometric
identifier associated with each employee. The Defendant's use of
this technology exposes Plaintiff and other employees to serious
and irreversible privacy risks.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect, obtain, store, use
and/or disseminate Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as scans of
hand geometry. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, the Defendant disregarded the Plaintiff's
and other similarly-situated employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights by unlawfully collecting, obtaining, storing,
disseminating, and using te Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA.

Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate BIPA
because it did not and continues not to: a. Properly inform
Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their hand geometry was being
collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA; b. Publish a
BIPA-compliant publicly-available retention schedule and guidelines
for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated
employees' hand geometry, as required by BIPA; Obtain a written
release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect,
store, disseminate, or otherwise use their hand geometry, as
required by BIPA; and Obtain consent from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise
disseminate their hand geometry to a third party, as required by
BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an Admissions Director for the Defendant.

Wheaton Village, is a nursing facility located in Wheaton,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Paige L. Smith, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.233.1550
          Fax: 312.233.1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 psmith@stephanzouras.com


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Warren Terzian Investigates Loan Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Terzian LLP is investigating a potential class action
against Loan Center (or its legal name Wilshire Commercial Capital
L.L.C).

Persons who took out certain loans from Loan Center (or from
lenders that Loan Center referred them to) may not owe any money on
their loans -- you may even get money back.

California law establishes interest rate caps on the loans issued
by lenders like Loan Center and it partners. We are investigating
whether any of these loans exceed California law's interest rate
caps.

If you are interested in trying to invalidate your loans and not
making any more payments (and getting money back), please complete
this form.

Legal Background
California law caps the maximum interest rate on loans issued by
certified finance lenders. Loan Center is such a lender.

That law (California Financial Code Section 22304.5) went into
effect on January 1, 2020.

Under that law, the maximum interest rate on loans from $2,500 to
$9,999 is about 36%. Another law caps the interest rate of loans
under $2,500 at no more than 25%.

Related laws invalidate loans that exceed those interest rates.

Not Just California
Other states have interest rate caps similar to California's. Those
states may include Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and
Washington. [GN]

WM. MICHAEL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. Michael Stemler,
Inc. The case is styled as Guadalupe Garcia, individual, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
WM. Michael Stemler, Inc., a California Corporation; Delta Health
Systems, an unknown business entity; Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010790 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov.
19, 2021).

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

WM. Michael Stemler, Incorporated, doing business as Delta Health
Systems -- https://www.deltahealthsystems.com/ -- provides
insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


WONOLO INC: Misclassifies Employees, Bogle Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BOGLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONOLO INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-08878 (C.D. Cal., November
10, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately May
2019 through July 2019 as an independent contractor seeking
temporary job placement.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were improperly classified by the Defendant as
independent contractors. Regardless of the number of hours they
worked, the Defendant only paid them flat rates. The Defendant
allegedly denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Defendant also failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the
hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees, added the suit.

Wonolo, Inc. is in the business of placing people who use its
web-based application as independent contractors in various
industries seeking temporary employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary Crosner, Esq
          Blake Jones, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Tel: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (818) 700-9973

                - and –

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2049 Century Park Blvd., Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: (310) 229-5410
          Fax: (310) 229-5800
          E-mail: GDanas@RobinsKaplan.com

                - and –

          J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 349-8500
          Fax: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: AHurt@RobinsKaplan.com


WORLDPANTRY.COM: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WorldPantry.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. WorldPantry.com, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09886 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

WorldPantry.com, Inc. -- https://www.worldpantry.com/ -- are
providers of leading, turn-key, digital commerce experiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 18 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 18, 2022 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Zhangmen
Education, Inc. ("Zhangmen" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZME) in
connection with Zhangmen's June 8, 2021 initial public offering.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and alleges violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you purchased or acquired Zhangmen ADSs in connection with the
IPO, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options
please visit Zhangmen Education, Inc. Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

On or about June 8, 2021, Zhangmen conducted its IPO, offering
3,623,000 ADSs (excluding the underwriters' option to purchase an
additional 543,450 ADSs) at a price of $11.50 per ADS. Thereafter,
Zhangmen sold 4,166,450 ADSs in the IPO (including the full
exercise of the underwriters' over-allotment option) raising
proceeds of approximately $47,900,000.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that (a) PRC authorities were in
the process of implementing sweeping new regulatory reforms on the
private education industry in China including, among others,
prohibitions on: (i) profit-making by private education companies,
(ii) engaging in core-curriculum tutoring on weekends and
vacations, and (iii) capital-raising by companies like Zhangmen;
and (b) the known risks, events, and uncertainties noted in the
Registration Statement were reasonably likely to have a material
adverse effect on Zhangmen's business.

On July 23, 2021 - less than two months after the IPO – China
unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its education sector, banning
companies that teach school curriculum from making profits, raising
capital or going public. These drastic measures effectively ended
any potential growth in the for-profit tutoring sector in China.
For example, a Reuters report titled "China bars for-profit
tutoring in core school subjects" stated that the "move threatens
to decimate China's $120 billion private tutoring industry and
triggered a heavy selloff in shares of tutoring firms traded in
Hong Kong and New York."

On July 26, 2021, Zhangmen issued a release providing an update on
the new PRC policies and provided a further update on August 25,
2021 on similar policies implemented by the Shanghai government and
the implications for the Company's business.

Finally, on November 19, 2021, Zhangmen announced that its auditor,
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants LLP, had
voluntarily resigned.

As of the filing of the Complaint, Zhangmen ADSs trade at less than
$2 per ADSs, more than 80% below the IPO price.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 18, 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 or acquired Zhangmen ADSs, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/zhangmeneducationinc-zme-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-460/
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]

ZILLA HOLDINGS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zilla Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Zilla Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09653 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

OfficeZilla -- https://officezilla.com/ -- is an empowered network
of dealer retailers providing 50,000 office and janitorial
essentials next-day to customers throughout the continental
US.[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


ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Barua Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIBAKAR BARUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.; RICHARD BARTON; ALLEN
PARKER; and JEREMY WACKSMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01551
(W.D. Wash., Nov. 16, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow securities
between February 10, 2021 and November 2, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeking to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

According to the complaint, on October 18, 2021, the Company
announced that Zillow Offers suspended signing of new contracts
through 2021 and would focus on its current inventory, citing "a
backlog in renovations and operational capacity restraints." Zillow
claimed that "pausing new contracts will enable us to focus on
sellers already under contract with us and our current home
inventory." On this news, Zillow's Class A share price fell $8.84,
or 9.4%, to close at $85.46 per share on October 18, 2021, and
Zillow's Class C share price fell $8.97, or 9.4%, to close at
$86.00 per share on October 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume, says the suit.

Then, on November 2, 2021, after the market closed, Zillow
announced that it would wind-down Zillow Offers because "the
unpredictability in forecasting home prices far exceeds what we
anticipated and continuing to scale Zillow Offers would result in
too much earnings and balance-sheet volatility." As a result, third
quarter 2021 financial results included "a write-down of inventory
of approximately $304 million within the Homes segment as a result
of purchasing homes in Q3 at higher prices than the Company's
current estimates of future selling prices." Moreover, the "Company
further expects an additional $240 million to $265 million of
losses to be recognized in Q4 primarily on homes it expects to
purchase in Q4." The "wind-down is expected to take several
quarters and will include a reduction of Zillow's workforce by
approximately 25%."

On this news, Zillow's Class A share price fell $19.62, or 23%, to
close at $65.86 per share on November 3, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. Zillow's Class C share price fell $21.73, or 25%,
to close at $65.47 per share on November 3, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume, the suit added.

Zillow Group, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company
provides information about homes, real estate listings, and
mortgages through their website and mobile applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin T. G. Nivison, Esq.
          ROSSI VUCINOVICH, P.C.
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 1420
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (425) 646-8003
          Facsimile: (425) 646-8004
          Email: bnivison@rvflegal.com

               -and-

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                 clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.com

ZILLOW GROUP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Zillow Group, Inc. ("Zillow" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: Z; ZG) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle Division, and docketed under 21-cv-01567, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow
securities between February 10, 2021 and November 2, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zillow securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 18, 2022 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Zillow is a real estate company that purports to offer customers
"an on-demand experience for selling, buying, renting or financing
with transparence." The Company's "Zillow Offers" business "buys
and sells homes directly in dozens of markets across the country,
allowing sellers control over their timeline."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) despite operational
improvements, the Company experienced significant unpredictability
in forecasting home prices for its Zillow Offers business; (ii)
such unpredictability, as well as labor and supply shortages, led
to a backlog of inventory; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company was reasonably likely to wind-down its Zillow Offers
business, which would have a material adverse impact on its
financial results; and (iv) 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.

On October 18, 2021, the Company announced that Zillow Offers
suspended signing of new contracts through 2021 and would focus on
its current inventory, citing "a backlog in renovations and
operational capacity restraints." Zillow claimed that "[p]ausing
new contracts will enable us to focus on sellers already under
contract with us and our current home inventory."

On this news, Zillow's Class A share price fell $8.84, or 9.4%, to
close at $85.46 per share on October 18, 2021, and Zillow's Class C
share price fell $8.97, or 9.4%, to close at $86.00 per share on
October 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 2, 2021, after the market closed, Zillow
announced that it would wind-down Zillow Offers because "the
unpredictability in forecasting home prices far exceeds what we
anticipated and continuing to scale Zillow Offers would result in
too much earnings and balance-sheet volatility." As a result, third
quarter 2021 financial results included "a write-down of inventory
of approximately $304 million within the Homes segment as a result
of purchasing homes in Q3 at higher prices than the [C]ompany's
current estimates of future selling prices." Moreover, the
"[C]ompany further expects an additional $240 million to $265
million of losses to be recognized in Q4 primarily on homes it
expects to purchase in Q4." The "wind-down is expected to take
several quarters and will include a reduction of Zillow's workforce
by approximately 25%."

On this news, Zillow's Class A share price fell $19.62, or 23%, to
close at $65.86 per share on November 3, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. Zillow's Class C share price fell $21.73, or 25%,
to close at $65.47 per share on November 3, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

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

[*] New South Wales LECC Investigates Strip Searches Following Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Hickey at thebigsmoke.com.au reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been launched on behalf of young people who were
unlawfully strip-searched at the Splendour in the Grass festival in
2018. In 2019, the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct
Commission (LECC) began an investigation into several strip
searches conducted by the state's police officers.

The investigation came in the wake of statistics showing that the
number of strip searches has risen 20-fold over the past decade or
so in our state, to the point where it has become "routine
policing", and the fact that in more than 80% of cases, strip
searches turn up nothing illegal.

Given its limited resources, the LECC focused on strip searches of
young adults at the 2018 Splendour in the Grass music festival, as
well as the strip-searching of a 15-year-old boy who was required
to lift his testicles, a 16-year-old Aboriginal boy who had his
shorts pulled off and forced to squat in a vehicle dock and
16-year-old girl who was asked to remove her panty liner as part of
a search.

As part of the investigation, the LECC looked at the practice of
strip searches more broadly and in December 2020, its final report
identified a number of ambiguities surrounding police protocols
regarding searches. Due to these purported uncertainties (although
lawyers suggest the fact many of the searches are illegal is
apparent) the Commission, whose members include former police
officers, suggested that the lawfulness of some of the searches is
"debatable".

No power to discipline or prosecute

It is important to note that the LECC has no power to discipline
let alone criminally prosecute police officers - it can only make
recommendations for change and potential prosecution.

Indeed it is completely up to prosecutorial bodies such as the NSW
Police Service and, potentially, the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions as to whether an officer will be criminally
prosecuted for crimes.

It is also telling that the LECC, due to the insufficiency of its
resources, is only able to investigate around 2% of complaints it
receives against police officers.

Recommendations for change

As a result of the investigation, the Commission made 25
recommendations for change.

One of these recommendations was for greater clarity regarding
strip search protocols and further guidance on when and how they
should be conducted including the parameters of strip search laws.

The recommendations are somewhat surprising given the current law
is clear regarding when a strip search can be undertaken, where and
how it can be undertaken, and what may amount to an illegal strip
search.

The Commission further recommended that there be more comprehensive
police protocols regarding the basis for a strip search, as well as
better record keeping when officers take it upon themselves to
subject a person to the humiliating procedure.

It also recommended strip searches changes to NSW Police training
guides and manuals, with a direction that, in accordance with the
law, police "conduct the least invasive kind of search practicable
in the circumstances" - such as a "general search" instead of a
strip search where possible, and strict specifications about what's
permissible and not during a strip search, such that police are not
allowed to touch a person's breasts, genitals or buttocks during a
strip search.

The NSW Police Force has not, as yet, responded to the
recommendations, but given its past track record and the attitude
of the current Police Commissioner regarding strip searches, some
feel there is unlikely to be any substantial change.

Given the brazenness of police officers when conducting strip
searches and the inaction of police commands when it comes to
ensuring officers follow the law, a class action is now being
commenced with a view to forcing change and bringing justice to
those illegally violated.

One of the lawyers with carriage of the class action told the
media.

"We think that people who have undergone an unlawful strip search
will be entitled to substantial compensation, so in serious cases,
the compensation could be tens of thousands of dollars".

"We haven't seen a class action in relation to unlawful strip
searches in Australia. . . .  so we think this is a really unique
and important way to clarify strip search law, and to highlight
this issue, and importantly, to get compensation for people who
have been impacted by these unlawful searches."


"State-sanctioned sexual assault"
For many young people, the experience of being strip-searched is
degrading and traumatic. It erodes trust in police.

The psychological impacts following a strip search can range from
fear, humiliation, distress and depression to aggression and
hostility.

One young woman told the NSW Coronial Inquest into drug-related
deaths at music festivals that a police officer threatened to make
a strip search "nice and slow", unless she confessed to where her
drugs were hidden.

Similarly, a young man who carries an insulin pen for diabetes was
strip-searched after a positive indication of drugs by a sniffer
dog.

Police searched his pockets and shoes and then took him to a
demountable building where he was strip-searched. He says he left
his shirt on, but officers asked him to remove his pants and
underwear and bend over.

He says the experience "quite confronting, quite intimidating" and
that at no time was he told his rights, or asked for his consent to
the search.

What does the law say?
The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities Act) 2002 (NSW)
(the LEPRA) sets out the strip search powers police have. Section
31 states that a strip search can only be conducted when "the
seriousness and urgency of the circumstances" necessitate it.

Section 33 of the LEPRA outlines that these searches must be
carried out in an enclosed area and not in view of anybody of the
opposite sex. Body cavities can't be checked. The search shouldn't
involve the removal of any clothing unnecessarily and an officer
should never touch an individual.

A refusal to comply with armed officers' orders to strip down is
taken as being motivated by having something to hide - rather than
having anything to do with fear, dignity or humiliation - so it's
best to politely comply with instructions.

However, an individual should never give consent to being searched:
the reason being, if it's found the search was carried out
illegally, then having given consent actually overrides that
finding and makes it legal. [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 ***