/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211217.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 17, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 246

                            Headlines

ALIERA COMPANIES: Involuntary Chapter 11 Petition Filed
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Loses Bid to Protect E-mails in Nestler Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Khalil Sues Over Misleading Statements
CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN: Morales Sues Over Data Breach
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Court Approves A&DS in U.S. Securities Suit

CEBRIDGE TELECOM: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Vasquez Suit
CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Appeals Final Judgment in FLSA Suit
CLEANSPARK INC: Lead Roles Appointed in Bishins Securities Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Charleston Consumer Suit
E.I. DU PONT: Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Banks Suit

FLEETCOR TECH: Marion Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FORWARD CORP: Architectural Barriers Violate ADA, Lucio Alleges
HIBU PLC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Levien Shareholder Suit
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMITTEE: Kemp Sues Over WARN Act Violations
JP MORGAN: Dutka Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

KAYNE GRIFFIN: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LINDSAY CLARK: Cohn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Chenault Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
MASALAWALA LLC: Kabir Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
MDL 2873: Lewis Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products

MUSICTODAY II LLC: Ortega Sues Over Non-Blind-Friendly Website
NORTH STATE: Napoles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Enciso Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
POWER SOLUTIONS: Bid to Continue Treadwell Suit Stay Partly Granted
PRATT INSTITUTE: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RIVER VALLEY: Underpays Professional Counselors, Frinkle Says
RTI PROPERTIES: Pendleton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SPOTON TRANSACT: Predmore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRADER JOE'S: Swanberg Sues Over Mislabeled Honey Graham Crackers
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Snyder ERISA Suit

WELLSPAN HEALTH: Technicians Sue Over Time-Shaving Practices

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,026 PI Suits at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt's Claimants Call for Probe Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nash's Asbestos Liabilities Forces Chapter 7


                            *********

ALIERA COMPANIES: Involuntary Chapter 11 Petition Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case docketed as Hanna Albina and Austin Willard,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The Aliera Companies, Inc., Trinity Healthshare,
Inc. and Oneshare Health, LLC Unity Healthshare, LLC, Case No.
20-CV-00496, (E.D. Ky., December 11, 2020), Plaintiffs filed an
Involuntary Petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
against the Defendant with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware on December 3, 2021, which was assigned Case
No. 21-11548.

Prior to this, default judgment in favor of Austin Willard, Hanna
Albina against The Aliera Companies, Inc. was entered by Judge
Joseph M. Hood on November 17, 2021. The Court granted the amount
of $16,255.54 in favor of Austin Willard while it granted default
judgment in favor of the class of all persons who, while a Kentucky
resident, purchased or were covered by a plan from Aliera and
Trinity Healthshare, Inc., that purported to be a "health care
sharing ministry," the amount of $4,679,868.46 for aggregate
rescission damages or reformation damages of the class, presuming
each individual class member elects the higher measure of available
damages. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      William H. Anderson, Esq.
      HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON, PLLC
      200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Seventh Floor
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (303) 800-9109
      Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com

             - and -

      David Todd Varellas, Esq.
      James John Varellas, III, Esq.
      VARELLAS & VARELLAS
      249 W Short Street Suite 201
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Tel: (859) 252-4473
      Email: tvarellas@varellaslaw.com
             jayvarellas@varellaslaw.com

             - and -

      George F. Farah, Esq.
      HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
      200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Seventh Floor
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (212) 477-8090
      Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com

             - and -

      Jerome Park Prather, Esq.
      GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC
      141 N Broadway
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Tel: (859) 254-9351, 254-9352
      Email: jprather@garmerprather.com

             - and -

      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
      3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
      Seattle, WA 98121
      Tel: (206) 223-0303
      Email: ehamburger@sylaw.com
             rspoonemore@sylaw.com

             - and -

      Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
      HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC - NEW YORK
      200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Seventh Floor
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (347) 480-1030
      Email: rchang@hfajustice.com

Oneshare Health, LLC is represented by:

      Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
      SHIVER HAMILTON, LLC
      355-F Commercial Drive,
      Savannah, GA 31406
      Tel: (404) 220-8165
      Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com

             - and -

      Chadwick Aaron McTighe, Esq.
      STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
      400 West Market Street, Suite 1800
      Louisville, KY 40202-3352
      Tel: (502) 681-0392
      Email: cmctighe@stites.com

             - and -

      Gregory P. Parsons, Esq.
      STITES & HARBISON PLLC
      250 West Main Street, Suite 2300
      Lexington, KY 40507-1758
      Tel: (859) 226-2314
      Email: gparsons@stites.com

             - and -

      Janet Craig, Esq.
      Robin E. McGuffin, Esq.
      STITES & HARBISON PLLC - LEXINGTON
      250 West Main Street, Suite 2300
      Lexington, KY 40507-1758
      Tel: (859) 226-2377, 226-2216
      Email: jcraig@stites.com
             rmcguffin@stites.com

The Aliera Companies, Inc. is represented by:

      Benjamin Brock Coulter, Esq.
      BURR & FORMAN LLP
      420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 458-5420
      Email: bcoulter@burr.com

Trinity Healthshare, Inc. is represented by:

      Jon A. Woodall, Esq.
      Scott A. Schuette, Esq.
      Daniel Luke Morgan, Esq.
      MCBRAYER PLLC
      201 East Main Street, Suite 900
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Tel: (859) 231-8780
      Email: jwoodall@mmlk.com
             sschuette@mcbrayerfirm.com
             lmorgan@mmlk.com

BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Loses Bid to Protect E-mails in Nestler Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Gary Nestler, Viewed Student Female 200,
Viewed Student Male 300, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Bishop of Charleston, a
Corporation Sole, Bishop England High School, Tortfeasors 1-10, The
Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston, in his official capacity, and
Robert Guglielmone, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-613-RMG
(D.S.C.), the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Charleston Division, denies the Defendants' motion for
protective order regarding redacted portions of Maria Aselage's
emails.

Facts

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action alleging that, for
roughly two decades, students at Bishop England High School
("BEHS") were made to disrobe in locker rooms which contained large
glass windows, whereby BEHS employees, agents, and/or others may
have viewed students.

On May 1, 2019, BEHS employee Jeffrey Scofield was arrested after
BEHS reported to law enforcement that he took videos and made
photographs of male students changing clothes in one of the
school's locker rooms.

The Plaintiffs filed this suit on Feb. 3, 2021. The next day, the
Defendants issued a press release regarding the lawsuit that
identified Aselage as Director of Media Relations for the Diocese
and provided her contact information.

The Plaintiffs deposed Aselage on Oct. 7, 2021. During Aselage's
deposition, Aselage's personal attorney instructed her not to
answer questions regarding conversations Aselage had with the
Diocese's General Counsel.

After the deposition, on Oct. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs served
Aselage and her company Hearsay Communications a subpoena
requesting various communications relevant to the cited press
release.

On Oct. 13, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for protective
order requesting that the Court find Aselage was not required to
testify or provide documents or other discovery regarding her
discussions with the Diocese's General Counsel. On Oct. 14, 2021,
Aselage filed a motion for order of protection and to quash
subpoena requesting similar relief. The Defendants argued that
Aselage's communications with the Defendants and their General
Counsel were privileged and confidential as attorney client
material and work product. Neither of the cited motions included
documents for the Court's in camera review nor a privilege log.

On Nov. 3, 2021, the Court denied both motions, Gary Nestler, et
al. v. The Bishop of Charleston, a Corp. Sole, et al., No. CV
2:21-613-RMG, 2021 WL 5122059, (D.S.C. Nov. 3, 2021). The Court
found that neither the Defendants nor Aselage had met their burden
of showing that Aselage was the functional equivalent of the
Defendants' employee nor that the subpoenaed documents were
privileged or otherwise contained attorney work product. To the
contrary, the Court held that Aselage was not the functional
equivalent of an employee and that the Defendants had waived any
privilege in their communications with Aselage.

The Court explicitly held that no attorney-client relationship
exists between the Diocese and Aselage and Aselage's communications
with the Diocese's General Counsel are not entitled to protection
from discovery. Accordingly, it ordered that Aselage respond to the
Plaintiff's subpoena by Nov. 12, 2021. The Court further ordered
that Aselage's deposition be reconvened and terminated in
accordance with said order.

On Nov. 12, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion, claiming
that, while Aselage is producing emails and documents responsive to
the subpoena, a small number of emails include legal advice,
strategic plans, and development of defense themes by in house and
outside counsel. They, thus, seek a protective order regarding
various emails now identified in a privilege log.

On Nov. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the
instant motion. The Plaintiffs attached correspondence with
Aselage's attorney. The correspondence suggests that, prior to
either the Defendants or Aselage filing their initial motions for
protection, neither Aselage nor the Defendants had reviewed the
emails in question.

On Nov. 9, 2021, roughly six days after the Court issued the order,
Aselage's counsel wrote to the Plaintiffs' counsel, "I was made
aware of the nature of the emails regarding the subpoena, however,
there are approximately 200 emails. Ms. Aselage began collecting
and sorting the emails after I made her aware of the subpoena"
(testifying that Aselage sent the subpoenaed documents to her
attorney on Nov. 5, 2021).

Legal Standard/Analysis

Rule 26(b)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that when a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by
claiming that the information is privileged, the party must: (i)
expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the
documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without revealing
information itself privileged or protected, will enable other
parties to assess the claim.

District Judge Richard Mark Gergel notes that generalized claims of
privilege are insufficient, citing Richardson v. Sexual
Assault/Spouse Abuse Research Center, Inc., No. MJG-09-3404, 2010
WL 4290327, *5 (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2010). To comply with the
requirements set forth in Rule 26(b)(5)(A), a party seeking
protection from producing documents must produce a privilege log
that identifies each document withheld, information regarding the
nature of the privilege/protection claimed, the name of the person
making/receiving the communication, the date and place of the
communication, and the document's general subject matter.

The Court denies the Defendants' motion. As made clear, the Court
already ruled on the very issues the Defendants attempt to raise in
the current motion. Specifically, it found that the Defendants had
not met their burden of showing their communications with Aselage
were privileged or that any portion of them was otherwise entitled
to protection.

The Court says it will not revisit this issue. Further, when the
Defendants filed their initial motion for protection, they provided
neither documents for the Court's in camera review nor a privilege
log for the Court or the Plaintiffs' consideration. The failure to
file a privilege log with their initial motion is arguably fatal,
Judge Gergel points out.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court denies the Defendants' motion for
protective order. Aselage must produce all subpoenaed documents
unredacted. Further, Aselage's deposition must be reconvened so
that the Plaintiffs may question her regarding the documents she
was ordered to but did not produce.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated Dec. 2,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2kpzpp8 from
Leagle.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Khalil Sues Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
EHAB KHALIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, GIOVANNI
CAFORIO, CHARLES BANCROFT, KAREN M. SANTIAGO, DAVID V. ELKINS,
SAMIT HIRAWAT, VICKI L. SATO, PETER J. ARDUINI, ROBERT BERTOLINI,
MATTHEW W. EMMENS, MICHAEL GROBSTEIN, ALAN J. LACY, DINESH C.
PALIWAL, THEODORE R. SAMUELS, GERALD L. STORCH and KAREN H.
VOUSDEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10351 (S.D.N.Y., December 3,
2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of (i) all
former Celgene shareholders, including Plaintiff, that received
Bristol-Myers Squibb Contingent Value Rights in exchange for their
Celgene shares pursuant to Bristol's $74 billion acquisition of
Celgene on November 20, 2019, and (ii) all persons who purchased
CVRs between November 20, 2019 and December 31, 2020 and who were
damaged thereby.

The lawsuit arises from Bristol's subversion of the FDA approval
process for a blockbuster cancer therapy - JCAR017 a/k/a
lisocabtagene maraleucel - for the purpose of avoiding a $6.4
billion payment to contingent value rights holders. A CVR is a
security payable upon the occurrence of a specified future event
often used by acquiring companies as partial merger consideration
to the target company's shareholders. By Bristol's own design, the
CVR payout required approval of three therapies, including
Liso-Cel, by specified dates (the "Milestones"). A single therapy
missing its Milestone by a single day was all Bristol needed to
avoid payment to CVR holders -- but only if Bristol deceived
investors into believing that it was, in fact, diligently aiming to
hit its Milestone.

The case alleges materially false and misleading statements and
omissions of material facts in the Registration Statement (filed on
or about February 20, 2019) made in violation of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933; false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact made in the Joint Proxy
(the relevant substance of which was also included in the
Registration Statement, and which was filed on February 22, 2019)
made in violation of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; and
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact made
throughout the Class Period in violation of Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Laura H. Posner, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                  lposner@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Joshua C. Handelsman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W East Tower, Ste. 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  jhandelsman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN: Morales Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-09345, (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2021), seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief for violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and various states' Data Breach
Statutes and resulting from the failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information and protected
information acquired from or created for its employees, including
without limitation, names, addresses, dates of birth, patient
identification numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's
license/state ID numbers, passport numbers, credit/debit card
information and financial account information.

California Pizza Kitchen is a chain of restaurants specializing in
California-style pizza. It owns and operates 270 full-service
restaurants in 32 States, numerous smaller locations in airports
and stadiums across the United States, and employs tens of
thousands of workers, the vast majority of whom are located in the
United States. In September 15, 2021, it experienced a data breach
through which unauthorized individuals accessed personal data of
its current and former employees.

Morales was employed by California Pizza Kitchen at its
Bakersfield, California location from 2011 to mid-2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     Adam Tamburelli, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (818) 839-2333
     Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
     Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
            atamburelli@baronbud.com

            - and -

     Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 782-4880
     Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
     Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
            nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

            - and -

     Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     205 N. Monroe St.
     Media, PA 19063
     Telephone: (215) 864-2800
     Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Court Approves A&DS in U.S. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York approves the allocation and distribution
scheme in connection with the U.S. Class Action entitled In Re:
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-06396-JPO (S.D.N.Y.).

The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Dec. 2, 2021, on
the motion of Lead Plaintiffs Granite Point Master Fund, LP and
Granite Point Capital Scorpion Focused Ideas Fund for final
approval of proposed class action settlements as they relate to the
litigation (the "U.S. Class Action") and approval of the proposed
Allocation and Distribution Scheme ("A&DS") for the proceeds of the
settlements.

Judge Oetken notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlements, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and
Setting Date for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlements, entered
Sept. 2, 2021 (the "Preliminary Approval Order").

Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice was directed to members of the U.S. Settlement
Class who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them
of the A&DS and of their right to object thereto, and a full and
fair opportunity was accorded to members of the U.S. Settlement
Class to be heard with respect to the A&DS.

There has been one objection to the A&DS. On Nov. 12, 2021, the
Court received the objection of Myron V. Guidry. Mr. Guidry objects
to the A&DS provision that "purchases made after 9/17/19 are not
eligible for recovery because investors were allegedly disclosed
the full truth about CannTrust. I believe the full truth was not
disclosed to investors and still has not been regarding the
allegations against CannTrust."

The Court has considered the objection, the allegations in the Lead
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the provisions of
the A&DS, that the A&DS was crafted by Lead Counsel and Ontario
Class Action Counsel in consultation with Lead Plaintiffs'
consulting damages expert, and that the A&DS was approved by the
Canadian Court in the CCAA Sanction Order on July 16, 2021.

The A&DS, as it relates to the Settlements in this U.S. Class
Action, provides a fair and reasonable method to allocate the Class
Compensation Fund, Judge Oetken holds. Accordingly, Mr. Guidry's
objection to the A&DS is overruled. Mr. Guidry's objection
concerning an African American subclass is addressed in the Court's
accompanying U.S. Final Judgment as to Settling Defendants.

The Court finds and concludes that the A&DS, in connection with the
Settlements in this U.S. Class Action, provides a fair and
reasonable basis upon which to allocate the Class Compensation
Fund. It finds and concludes that the A&DS is, in all respects,
fair, reasonable, and adequate and the Court approves the A&DS.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 2, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzee4us from Leagle.com.


CEBRIDGE TELECOM: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Vasquez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled NICK VASQUEZ, Plaintiff v.
CEBRIDGE TELECOM CA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-06400-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

Plaintiff Nick Vasquez, individually, as a private attorney
general, and on behalf of a putative class of other customers
similarly situated, alleges that Defendants Cebridge Telecom CA,
LCC and Altice, USA, Inc., doing business as Suddenlink
Communications (collectively, "Suddenlink" or "Defendants"),
engaged in false advertising by failing to disclose a "Network
Enhancement Fee" for Internet services, and misrepresenting that
the fee is a tax or government regulation. Vasquez asserts claims
under California law pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law seeking public
injunctive relief, declaratory relief and restitution.

The operative complaint alleges that Suddenlink has engaged, and
continues to engage, in a false advertising scheme in California by
publicly advertising specific flat monthly rates for its Internet
service plans for a specified time period, but then charging"
higher monthly rates during that period via a disguised and
fabricated extra charge on the bill (which Suddenlink calls the
'Network Enhancement Fee')." The Second Amended Complaint alleges
the "Network Enhancement Fee" was concocted by Suddenlink as a
means to covertly increase customers' rates, including during their
advertised and promised fixed-rate promotional period. Furthermore,
the SAC alleges that Suddenlink does not disclose that it can
increase customers' monthly service rates, even during a promised
fixed-rate promotional period, by increasing the amount of the
Network Enhancement Fee.

The Plaintiff brings claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), California Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., False
Advertising Law ("FLA"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et
seq., and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200 et seq. The SAC seeks public injunctive relief to
stop Suddenlink's allegedly ongoing false and deceptive price
advertising to the general public under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 23, 2021,
Judge Edward M. Chen denied Suddenlink's motion to compel the
entirety of the action to arbitration.

The Defendant seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC, et al.
v. Nick Vasquez, Case No. 21-17009, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 3, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Altice USA, Inc. and Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC
Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 10, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 3, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on January 31, 2022;

   -- Appellants Altice USA, Inc. and Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC
opening brief is due on March 14, 2022;

   -- Appellee Nick Vasquez answering brief is due on April 13,
2022; and

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

Defendants-Appellants CEBRIDGE TELECOM CA, LLC, DBA Suddenlink
Communications; and ALTICE USA, INC. are represented by:

          Daniel Jones, Esq.
          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3860
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Kyle Seelbach, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500

Plaintiff-Appellee NICK VASQUEZ, For Himself, As a Private Attorney
General, and/or On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is
represented by:

          Che Corrington, Esq.
          Daniel Hattis, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 233-8633
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          936 Woodlawn Drive
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
          Telephone: (805) 233-8062  
          E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com

CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Appeals Final Judgment in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Pennington filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW PENNINGTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CGH
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-02056-PGB-EJK, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that
the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated non-exempt workers at the proper overtime rate
of time and a half as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Pennington was employed by the Defendant as a "Technician,"
performing basic computer and security services at airports
monitored by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) throughout
Florida. He alleges that he and other similarly situated co-workers
customarily worked more than 40 hours in a work week but the
Defendant paid them straight time for each hour worked regardless
of whether the work performed was in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Final Judgment
Order dated October 19, 2021, Judgment dated October 21, 2021, and
Order dated August 18, 2021, wherein Judge Paul G. Byron denied
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, motion to strike, and
adopted a Report and Recommendation filed on July 8, 2021 regarding
the said motions.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Pennington v. CGH
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 21-14101, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on November 23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
December 7, 2021 as to Appellant Matthew Pennington; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before December 21, 2021 as to Appellee CGH Technologies, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Victor Barszcz, Esq.
          Mary Evelyn Lytle, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ, PA
          533 Versailles Dr Fl 2
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622-6544

Defendant-Appellee CGH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Foreign For Profit
Corporation, is represented by:

          Jason Devon Byrd, Jr., Esq.
          Nancy A. Johnson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          111 N Orange Ave Ste 1750
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 393-2900
          E-mail: jabyrd@littler.com
                  najohnson@littler.com

               - and -

          Paul Kennedy, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          1150 17th St NW Ste 900
          Washington, DC 20036-4655
          Telephone: (202) 772-2518
          E-mail: pkennedy@littler.com

               - and -

          Christiane Mary McKnight, Esq.
          ULMER & BERNE, LLP
          500 W Madison Ste 3600
          Chicago, IL 60661-4587
          Telephone: (312) 658-6500
          
               - and -

          Christopher Kip Schwartz, Esq.
          ULMER & BERNE LLP
          1010 Wisconsin Ave NW Ste 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 342-0413
          E-mail: kschwartz@ulmer.com

CLEANSPARK INC: Lead Roles Appointed in Bishins Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SCOTT BISHINS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CLEANSPARK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21 CV 511 (LAP)
(S.D.N.Y.), Senior District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Opinion & Order:

   -- appointing Darshan Hasthantra as lead plaintiff pursuant to
      the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("the PSLRA");
      and

   -- selecting counsel for Darshan Hasthantra--Glancy Prongay &
      Murray LLP--as Lead Counsel for the class in this action.

Before the Court are the issues of: (1) appointing lead plaintiff
in the above-captioned securities class action pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("the PSLRA"), see 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4; and (2) approving the selection of counsel
for lead plaintiff, also pursuant to the PSLRA.

Four parties initially moved for the status of lead plaintiff in
this action: Kenneth Upton, JunMin Liu, Darshan Hasthantra, and
Amir Kasbidi. Subsequently, two parties withdrew their motions upon
determining that they did not appear to have the "largest financial
interest" in this litigation within the meaning of the PSLRA.

On April 16, 2021, the Court granted JunMin Liu's request to
withdraw his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval
of lead counsel. On the same day, Amir Kasbidi filed a notice of
non-opposition to competing motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. Thus, only Kenneth Upton
and Darshan Hasthantra remain pressing their respective claims
through briefs to the Court.

Factual Background

The instant dispute arises out of a securities class action brought
against Defendant CleanSpark--a provider of "advance software and
controls technology solutions, including end-to-end microgrid
energy modeling, energy market communications, and energy
management solutions." The Plaintiffs allege that between Dec. 31,
2020, and Jan. 14, 2021, CleanSpark and its executives (1)
overstated the Company's customer and contract figures; (2) failed
to disclose that several of the Company's recent acquisitions
involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a
result, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Plaintiffs allege that these misrepresentations and omissions
artificially increased the value of the Company's securities,
caused the Plaintiffs to purchase the securities at inflated
prices, and damaged the Plaintiffs when the price of the securities
dropped after the release of Culper Research's report on Jan. 14,
2021.

On Jan. 20, 2021, the same day as the commencement of the action
against the Defendants, Plaintiff Bishins published notice of the
securities action via Business Wire. The notice provided for 60
days, i.e., until March 22, 2021, the last day permitted under the
PSLRA, for parties to submit their applications to serve as lead
plaintiff.

Both Mr. Upton and Mr. Hasthantra filed motions seeking appointment
as lead plaintiff on March 22, 2021. Mr. Upton claims a loss of
approximately $12,110 on his class period transactions in
CleanSpark securities. Mr. Hasthantra claims a loss of
approximately $28,244.

A. Selection of Lead Plaintiff

At the outset, the Court notes that both parties have filed timely
motions. Mr. Hasthantra, who claims $34,425.27 in total losses, is
the largest stakeholder in this litigation. The Court further finds
that Mr. Hasthantra has made a prima facie demonstration that he
otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Mr. Hasthantra would become
lead plaintiff absent proof that he will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses
that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the
class.

Mr. Upton argues that Mr. Hasthantra is not an adequate class
representative because Mr. Hasthantra submitted inaccurate
information regarding his stock trades in his PSLRA certification.
Specifically, Mr. Upton claims that Mr. Hasthantra reported trades
that exceeded the Company's highest trading price on Jan. 5, 2021,
and Jan. 6, 2021. In support of this position, Mr. Upton cites to
Michelle, in which the court denied a motion for appointment of
lead plaintiff because the prices movant claimed to have paid did
not fall within the high and low range listed on the Company's
website.

Mr. Hasthantra, however, defended the veracity of his PSLRA
certification. According to Mr. Hasthantra, pricing data from
Bloomberg Finance L.P. shows that his trades fell within the
Company's after-market pricing data for Jan. 5, 2021, and Jan. 6,
2021. Because Mr. Hasthantra and his counsel, Gregory Linkh,
certified the veracity of Mr. Hasthantra's trading as compared
against the Company's after-market price ranges, the Court finds no
errors in Mr. Hasthantra's PSLRA certification.

Moreover, the Court does not find that Mr. Hasthantra's
after-market purchases render him inadequate or atypical. Like
other class members, Mr. Hasthantra purchased CleanSpark securities
during the class period at prices that he contends were inflated by
the Company's alleged false statements and was damaged thereby.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that Mr. Hasthantra has made a
preliminary showing of typicality.

The Court is convinced that Mr. Hasthantra can serve adequately as
lead plaintiff.

B. Selection of Lead Counsel

Although the Court maintains discretion in appointing lead counsel
to protect the interests of the class, the PSLRA evidences a strong
presumption in favor of appointing a properly-selected lead
plaintiff's decision as to counsel selection and counsel retention,
Judge Preska notes, citing Casper v. Song Jinan, No. 12-cv-4202
(NRB), 2012 WL 3865267, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2012).

The Court sees no reason to upset this process, as Mr. Hasthantra
has hired capable, experience lead counsel in Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP. Accordingly, the Court approves their selection as lead
counsel.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Darshan Hasthantra is appointed lead plaintiff,
and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is appointed lead counsel for the
class. The Clerk of the Court will close the open motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 2, 2021,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/46n47vj9 from Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Charleston Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Charleston Division, denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled Commissioners of Public Works of the City of
Charleston (d.b.a. Charleston Water System), Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, CVS Health Corporation, Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, The Proctor & Gamble Company, Target Corporation,
Walgreens Boots Alliance, and Wal-Mart, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-42-RMG (D.S.C.).

Defendants Costco Wholesale Corp., CVS Health Corporation, and
Target Corp., moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint
under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Background

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff, the Commissioners of
Public Works of the City of Charleston (d.b.a. "Charleston Water
System"), on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
alleges that Defendants CostcoCVS, Kimberly-Clark Corp., The
Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G"), Target, Walgreen Co.
("Walgreens"), and Wal-Mart, Inc., design, market, manufacture,
distribute, and/or sell wipes labeled as "flushable" which are not
actually flushable. These wipes allegedly damage sewer systems
across the country. The Plaintiff brings claims for nuisance,
trespass, strict products liability--defective design, strict
products liability--failure to warn, and negligence. The Plaintiff
seeks--in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs for
class counsel--prospective injunctive relief only.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint based on the
"primary jurisdiction" doctrine. As pertinent to this motion, the
Defendants note that the Federal Trade Commission previously
investigated Nice-Pak Products Inc. ("Nice-Pak") and its
advertising and labeling of flushable wipes. The Defendants argue
this is relevant because Nice-Pak manufactures the flushable wipes
the Defendants currently sell.

On Oct. 30, 2015, as result of said investigation, the FTC entered
into a consent decree with Nice-Pak. As defined therein, "covered
product" means all wipes and any moist toilet tissue or cloth. The
consent decree prohibits Nice-Pak from advertising covered products
as flushable unless the representation is non-misleading, and, at
the time the representation is made, Nice-Pak possesses and relies
upon competent and reliable evidence, which, when appropriate based
on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area must be
competent and reliable scientific evidence, that, when considered
in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable evidence, is
sufficient in quantity and quality based on standards generally
accepted in the relevant fields to substantiate that the
representation is true.

Nice-Pak was directed to retain, for a period of five years,
advertising, labels, packaging, and promotional materials to this
effect. The consent decree terminates on Oct. 30, 2035.

On Oct. 12, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion. The
Plaintiff opposes. The Defendants filed a reply. The Defendants'
motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

Analysis

District Judge Richard Mark Gergel notes that the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction is a doctrine specifically applicable to
claims properly cognizable in court that contain some issue within
the special competence of an administrative agency.

Courts consider four factors in determining whether to stay or
dismiss an action in favor of the jurisdiction of an administrative
agency: (1) whether the question at issue is within the
conventional experience of judges or it is within the agency's
particular field of expertise; (2) whether the question at issue is
particularly within the agency's discretion; (3) whether there
exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and (4)
whether a prior application to the agency has been made (Cent. Tel.
Co. of Va. v. Sprint Communications Co. of Va. Inc., 759 F.Supp.2d
772, 786 (E.D. Va. 2011) aff'd 715 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2013) cert.
denied 571 U.S. 969 (2013)).

The Defendants argue, based on the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, that the Court should exercise its discretion and
dismiss this case. The Defendants argue that the relief the
Plaintiff seeks in its Amended Complaint is "irreconcilable" with
the consent decree between the FTC and Nice-Pak. The Defendants
argue that the FTC has committed to closely monitoring Nice-Pak's
compliance with the consent decree and that, if the Court were to
permit the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to proceed, the Court
would be forced to "second-guess" the FTC's monitoring efforts.

After careful consideration of the parties' argument, the Court
declines to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine and denies the
Defendants' motion.

As to the first factor, the Court finds the subject matter of this
lawsuit--whether the Defendants' allegedly "flushable" wipes are in
fact flushable or otherwise properly labeled--falls within the
court's expertise. As the Plaintiff notes, courts routinely hear
flushable wipes cases, citing Pettit v. Proctor & Gamble Co., No.
15-cv-2150-RS (N.D. Cal.), et al. This factor, therefore, weighs in
the Plaintiff's favor.

As to the second factor, the Court finds it weighs, if at all, in
favor of the FTC as the FTC has, at least in the past, investigated
the labeling of Nice-Pak's flushable wipes.

As to the third factor, the factor weighs in favor of the Plaintiff
as the Court finds little danger that litigation of the Plaintiff's
claims would result in rulings inconsistent with any current FTC
actions. The FTC stated courts could look to its consent decree
with Nice-Pak as "guidance"--implying that courts could and would
hear flushable wipes cases.

Last, the Court finds that there is no pending application before
the FTC regarding the subject matter of this litigation. In their
briefing, the Defendants elide specific discussion of this factor.
Instead, the Defendants' principal argument for applying the
primary jurisdiction doctrine is that the FTC's commitment to
"closely monitoring" Nice-Pak's future labeling activities is
"dispositive."

Or put differently, the Defendants argue that, until the consent
decree between Nice-Pak and the FTC expires in 2035, no lawsuits
may be brought against flushable wipes distributors or
manufacturers because such actions could, despite all indications
to the contrary, impede on the FTC's passive monitoring efforts.
That contention, however, is simply unreasonable and, for the
reasons stated, contrary to settled law, Judge Gergel holds.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Defendants' motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated Dec. 2,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycet3yrv from
Leagle.com.


E.I. DU PONT: Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Banks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall concludes that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware has subject matter jurisdiction
over the lawsuit entitled DORIS BANKS, CANDY CAPORALE, BRUCE DAVIS,
GENE SULLENBERGER, and CHRISTINE WOOTTEN, for themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. E.I. DU PONT
DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Co. ATOTECH USA, LLC, MacDERMID, INC., PROCINO
PLATING, INC., a/k/a PROCINO ENTERPRISES, a/k/a PROCINO, and BLADES
DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-1672-MN-JLH (D. Del.).

The Plaintiffs filed this case as a proposed class action. They
allege that the Defendants caused the groundwater in Blades,
Delaware, to be contaminated with perfluorinated chemicals,
resulting in harm to the class members' health and property. The
Court had questions about the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction and requested briefing from the parties. This
Memorandum Opinion concludes that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction and should exercise it.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs originally filed this action in the Superior Court
of the State of Delaware (Case No. S19C-05-024 (Del. Super. Ct. May
17, 2019)). The original Complaint named as Defendants E.I. DuPont
de Nemours and Co., Chemours Co, 3M Co., Procino Plating, Inc., and
Blades Development LLC. On Sept. 6, 2019, Defendant 3M removed to
this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d) ("CAFA").

On Sept. 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand back to
state court. Among other things, the Plaintiffs argued that remand
was appropriate under CAFA's local controversy exception, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(4)(A), its home state exception, Section
1332(d)(4)(B), and its discretionary exception, Section 1332(d)(3).
The motion was fully briefed. However, on Feb. 7, 2020, prior to
any decision by the Court, the parties filed a joint stipulation
that resolved the motion to remand.

The stipulation indicated that the Plaintiffs had agreed to
withdraw their motion in exchange for the Defendants' agreement not
to oppose the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a first amended
complaint. The Court entered an order confirming the withdrawal of
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and granting the Plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on Feb. 7, 2020. The
FAC dropped Chemours as a Defendant and added new Defendants
Atotech USA, LLC and MacDermid, Inc. The FAC alleges, in pertinent
part, that two electroplating facilities in Blades, Delaware (which
are now owned by Defendants Procino and Blades Development), used
products containing perfluorinated chemicals ("PFCs")--including
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA")--manufactured and sold by Defendants Atotech and
MacDermid.

The FAC further alleges that Defendants DuPont and 3M, despite
being aware of the adverse health effects associated with PFCs,
manufactured and sold PFOS and PFOA-containing products used in the
Blades facilities and also manufactured PFOS and PFOA that were
used to produce PFC-containing products. The Plaintiffs contend
that the groundwater in Blades has been contaminated by PFCs,
causing damage to property and residents, and the FAC alleges
various causes of action. Procino answered the FAC, but the other
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

While the motions to dismiss were pending, the Court had questions
about the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. In accordance
with its independent duty to satisfy itself of its subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental
briefing. The parties submitted briefing and the Court heard
argument on Sept. 9, 2021. For the reasons discussed in this
Memorandum Opinion, the Court concludes that it has subject matter
jurisdiction and that it will not decline to exercise it pursuant
to the CAFA exceptions.

II. Discussion

The Defendants argue that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA. Judge Hall agrees. CAFA expanded diversity jurisdiction
for class actions for the purpose of getting cases involving
matters of national importance before federal courts, citing
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161, 165
(2014), et al.

Specifically, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) "provides district
courts with original jurisdiction over cases that have (1) an
amount in controversy over $5,000,000; (2) minimally diverse
parties, meaning at least one member of the plaintiff class is a
citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) a class
consisting of at least 100 members" (Walsh v. Defenders, Inc., 894
F.3d 583, 586 (3d Cir. 2018)).

The Plaintiffs do not currently dispute that each of those elements
is met (and the Court agrees). Rather, the Plaintiffs contend that
this case falls within CAFA's local controversy exception, its home
state exception, and its discretionary exception.

Before examining the applicability of those exceptions, however,
the Court will first address the parties' dispute over whether the
CAFA exceptions are jurisdictional. Why does that matter? Judge
Hall explains that it matters because the Defendants say that the
Plaintiffs have waived their right to assert those exceptions. If
the exceptions are jurisdictional, they cannot be waived, because a
party cannot waive a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. If
they are not jurisdictional, the Court may consider the Defendants'
waiver argument.

Judge Hall finds that the CAFA exceptions are not jurisdictional.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not squarely confronted the
issue, but other Circuit Courts have concluded that the CAFA
exceptions are not jurisdictional, Judge Hall states, citing for
example Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d 1183, 1190 (10th Cir. 2016),
et al.

Because the CAFA exceptions are not jurisdictional, a party can
waive their right to rely on them. The Defendants contend that the
Plaintiffs waived their right to assert the exceptions in support
of a remand. Judge Hall agrees.

Here, the Plaintiffs clearly and unequivocally waived their right
to rely on the CAFA exceptions when they (1) voluntarily agreed to
withdraw their pending motion to remand based on those exceptions
and then (2) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the
FAC, Judge Hall explains.

Even if the Plaintiffs had not waived the argument, Judge Hall
concludes that the CAFA exceptions do not apply here. The parties
agree that the burden to prove the applicability of a CAFA
exception is on the Plaintiffs.

Judge Hall also notes that the local controversy exception requires
district courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction only when a
number of requirements are satisfied, including the following:
"during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class
action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or
similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf
of the same or other persons." The Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that the requirement is met here, Judge Hall says,
holding that the "no other class action" requirement is not met.

For either the home state or discretionary exception to apply, all
the "primary defendants" must be "citizens of the State in which
the action was originally filed." The FAC alleges, and it is not
disputed, that Defendant MacDermid is not a Delaware citizen. Thus,
if MacDermid is a "primary defendant" within the meaning of the
statute, the home state and discretionary exceptions are
inapplicable, Judge Hall points out.

The Plaintiffs' briefs did not respond to Defendants' contention
that MacDermid is a primary defendant. And Judge Hall agrees with
the Defendants that it is. The FAC names MacDermid as a Defendant
in five of its eight counts, and it contends that MacDermid is
directly liable for its own actions in manufacturing and selling
PFC-containing products. Moreover, the FAC seeks similar relief
against MacDermid and the other Defendants.

Because MacDermid is a primary defendant, the home state and
discretionary exceptions are inapplicable.

III. Conclusion

The Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. The CAFA exceptions are not
jurisdictional, the Plaintiffs waived the right to rely on them,
and they don't apply anyway. The Court will exercise jurisdiction
over this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 2,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p928csp from
Leagle.com.

R. Joseph Hrubiec -- rhrubiec@napolilaw.com -- NAPOLI SHKOLNIK LLC,
in Wilmington, Delaware.

Paul Napoli -- pnapoli@nsprlaw.com -- NSPR LAW SERVICES LLC, in
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Michael P. Kelly -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- Andrew S. Dupre --
adupre@mccarter.com -- Janine L. Faben -- jfaben@mccarter.com --
Travis J. Ferguson -- tferguson@mccarter.com -- McCARTER & ENGLISH
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant E.I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company

Kelly E. Farnan -- farnan@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON, & FINGER,
P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware.

Richard Bulger -- rbulger@mayerbrown.com -- Michael A. Olsen --
molsen@mayerbrown.com -- Joshua D. Yount -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com
-- Tyler D. Alfermann -- talfermann@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN
LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant 3M Company.

Catherine A. Gaul -- CGaul@ashbygeddes.com -- Andrew Colin Mayo --
AMayo@ashbygeddes.com -- Randall J. Teti -- RTeti@ashbygeddes.com
-- ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware.

Neil K. Gilman -- ngilman@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP,
in Washington, District of Columbia.

Alexandra B. Cunningham -- acunningham@HuntonAK.com -- Thomas R.
Waskom -- twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, in
Richmond, Virginia, Attorneys for Defendant Atotech USA, LLC

Barry M. Klayman -- bklayman@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, in
Wilmington, Delaware.

James H. Heller -- jimheller@cozen.com -- Paul K. Leary, Jr. --
pleary@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Michael de Leeuw -- mdeleeuw@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, in New
York City, Attorneys for Defendant MacDermid, Inc.


FLEETCOR TECH: Marion Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Jaan Marion, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company,
LLC And Fleetcor Technologies Inc., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-04936, (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Fleetcor provides fuel cards and workforce payment products to
businesses, commercial fleets, oil companies, petroleum marketers
and government entities throughout the United States where Marion
worked as an Outbound Sales Representative on May 21, 2019 and has
continued his employment working in the Norcross office, and
remotely as an inside sales representative engaged in fuel card
sales. His current job title with Defendant is ISR-Outbound III.
Marion claims to have worked over 40 hours routinely every week
without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
      1201 Peachtree Street NE, 2nd Floor
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      EMail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com


FORWARD CORP: Architectural Barriers Violate ADA, Lucio Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOLA LUCIO, Individually, Plaintiff v. FORWARD CORPORATION A
Domestic Company Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-12839-GAD-JJCG (E.D.
Mich., December 5, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
all other persons with disabilities, seeking injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and damages pursuant to the
Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Genesee County, suffers from
mobility issues, must ambulate with a cane, and is an individual
with a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

According to the complaint, when Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
property, she encountered numerous architectural barriers that
prevent and/or restrict access by her.

As a result of being denied full access to the property, Plaintiff
has allegedly suffered, and will continue to suffer, emotional
distress, humiliation, anxiety, anger, a loss of enjoyment of life,
and other consequential and incidental damages.

Forward Corporation distributes energy and heating products for
homes and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pete M. Monismith, Esq.
          3945 Forbes Ave., #175
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          Telephone: (724) 610-1881
          Facsimile: (412) 258-1309
          E-mail: Pete@monismithlaw.com

HIBU PLC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Levien Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THOMAS LEVIEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JAMES WESTHEAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants v. HIBU PLC;
HIBU GROUP LIMITED; HIBU (UK) LIMITED, YH LIMITED; HIBU INC; HIBU
(USA) LLC; HIBU HOLDINGS (USA) INC.; HIBU OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.;
ESTATE OF JOHN MICHAEL POCOCK; ROBERT CHARLES MICHAEL WIGLEY;
ELIZABETH GRACE CHAMBERS; JOHN BERNARD COGHLAN; TOBY RUFUS COPPEL;
CARLOS ESPINOSA DE LOS MONTEROS; ESTATE OF KATHLEEN FLAHERTY;
RICHARD HOOPER; ANTONY JEFFREY BATES, Case No. 20-2731 (3d Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms
the dismissal of the Shareholder Plaintiffs' putative class
action.

The Shareholder Plaintiffs appeal the District Court's dismissal of
their putative class action arguing that the Court abused its
discretion in dismissing on grounds of forum non conveniens various
claims under British law.

I.

Circuit Judge Theodore Alexander McKee, writing for the Panel,
notes that when considering a motion to dismiss on forum non
conveniens grounds, a district court must first determine whether
an adequate alternative forum can entertain the case, citing Windt
v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183, 189-90 (3d Cir.
2008).

If an adequate alternative forum exists, the district court must
then determine the appropriate amount of deference to be given the
plaintiff's choice of forum. Next, the district court must balance
the relevant public and private interests. If, after balancing
these interests, the district court determines that trial in
plaintiff's chosen forum would result in oppression or vexation to
the defendant out of all proportion to the plaintiff's convenience,
the district court may, in its discretion, dismiss the case on
forum non conveniens grounds.

The Plaintiffs claim the District Court abused its discretion by
ignoring that their claims are time-barred in England and by
concluding that the strong showing of convenience favoring an
English forum outweighs the deference due their choice of forum.

The Court of Appeals' scope of review of a district court's forum
non conveniens determination is quite constrained, Judge McKee
notes. The district court may be reversed only when there has been
a clear abuse of discretion. Where the district court has
considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and
where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision
deserves substantial deference.

The threshold issue when considering a motion to dismiss on forum
non conveniens grounds is the existence of an adequate alternative
forum, Judge McKee holds. The test for determining whether an
alternative forum is adequate is whether the defendant is amenable
to process and the plaintiffs' claims are cognizable in the
alternative forum. There is no dispute that England has been found
to be a competent forum by numerous courts. Accordingly, the
District Court's conclusion that England is an adequate forum to
litigate these claims is clearly correct.

The Plaintiffs' sole argument that England is not an appropriate
forum rests on the fact that their claims are now time-barred
there. Judge McKee points out that the Court of Appeals has never
held that a forum is inadequate because the applicable statute of
limitations has expired there, and the Plaintiffs identify no such
binding precedent. Instead, they rely upon decisions from other
circuit courts of appeals, including DiFederico v. Marriott Int'l,
Inc., 714 F.3d 796, 801 (4th Cir. 2013).

However, as the District Court explains in its exceptionally
thorough and able Memorandum, the fact that claims are time-barred
in the alternative forum is an irrelevant consideration in a forum
non conveniens inquiry where plaintiffs made a deliberate and
tactical decision to run the statute of limitations for the purpose
of avoiding dismissal in her preferred forum.

Judge McKee finds that the District Court properly noted that the
Plaintiffs made a strategic decision to delay filing their claims
in the Eastern District until the very day their claims were
time-barred in England. The District Court correctly relied upon
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) in explaining
that there is no valid reason to ignore precedent and require the
Defendants to defend in this Court.

The District Court properly exercised its discretion in ruling
that, the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to assert the
unavailability of an alternative forum when they deliberately
allowed any deadline for filing claims in the alternative forum to
pass, Judge McKee holds.

II.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the District Court abused its
discretion in according their choice of forum only a "moderate
amount of deference." The deference analysis, however, largely
turns on the convenience of a plaintiff's chosen forum, Judge McKee
finds. Generally, the greater the plaintiff's or the lawsuit's bona
fide connection to the United States the more difficult it will be
for the defendant to gain dismissal for forum non conveniens, Judge
McKee points out, citing Kisano, 737 F.3d at 876 (quoting Iragorri
v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001)).

The Plaintiffs also argue that the District Court should have
afforded greater deference to their choice of forum because they
represent a putative class of worldwide shareholders that includes
Americans. However, Judge McKee holds, affording less deference to
representative plaintiffs does not mean they are deprived of all
deference in their choice of forum. Additionally, citizenship nor
residence, nor the degree of deference given to the choice of
forum, necessarily controls the outcome.

In essence, there is little sense to allowing a U.S. citizen to
hale a group of foreign defendants into a U.S. court on
transactions having little or nothing to do with this country where
there is an available foreign forum significantly better suited to
handling the litigation, Judge McKee states.

The District Court reasonably concluded that litigating in England
would be more convenient for the parties and explained that
conclusion in its fine Memorandum, Judge McKee says. Moreover, for
the reasons the District Court explained, the public and private
interests also far outweigh the moderate amount of deference that
the Plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to.

The Plaintiffs attempt to pirouette around the District Court's
carefully crafted Memorandum by delving into the evidentiary
details of their claims, Judge McKee notes. However, "we need not
[and will not] scrutinize all of these materials to perform our
function of appellate review, nor was it necessary for the District
Court to have done so," Judge McKee points out.

III.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the District
Court's dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 2, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckm4dxa from Leagle.com.


JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMITTEE: Kemp Sues Over WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA KEMP, and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01609-AMM (N.D. Ala., December 3, 2021) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and putative class members who were
subject to the lay-off which occurred without warning on November
24, 2021, in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

The Plaintiff and the class members were employed by the JCCEO in
various jobs delivering services to the low-income residents of
Jefferson County, Alabama. Kemp and hundreds of others formerly
employed by JCCEO in Jefferson County, Alabama, lost their
employment without 60 days advance warning when JCCEO shutdown
and/or laid them off without 60 day-notice, says the suit.

Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity is a nonprofit
organization incorporated to provide a wide range of services to
low-income residents of Jefferson County, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          351 24th Street North Box 122
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 502-0970
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
          E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
                  rcooks@winstoncooks.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Welch-Guster, Esq.
          THE GUSTER LAW FIRM, LLC
          9964 Parkway East
          Birmingham, AL 35215
          Telephone: (205) 240-1236
          Facsimile: (205) 581-9777

JP MORGAN: Dutka Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank
N.A., et al. The case is styled as Greg J. Dutka, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.,
Chase Home Finance LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00311828-CU-NP-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 29, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other."

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- doing
business as Chase Bank or often as Chase, is an American national
bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that constitutes
the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S.
multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Antognini, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD L. ANTOGNINI
          2036 Nevada City Hwy Pmb 636
          Grass Valley, CA 95945-7700
          Phone: 916-295-4896
          Email: rlalawyer@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Suite 1A, 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Email: craig@clalegal.com


KAYNE GRIFFIN: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kayne Griffin
Corcoran, LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Kayne Griffin
Corcoran, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10545 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2021).

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

Kayne Griffin Corcoran -- https://www.kaynegriffin.com/ -- is a
contemporary gallery based in Los Angeles, formed by partners
Maggie Kayne, Bill Griffin, and James Corcoran.[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


LINDSAY CLARK: Cohn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Lindsay M Clark,
MD, et al. The case is styled as Gabrielle Cohn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Lindsay M Clark,
MD, Entrada Medical Group, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC21597023 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 9, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Fraud."

Dr. Lindsay M Clark, MD -- https://drlindsayclark.com/ -- is the
Medical Director and CEO of Enhance Medical Group, a Skin Care
Center & Metabolic/Regenerative Medicine Practice located in San
Mateo, Ca.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Louis Feder, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL FEDER
          235 Montgomery St., Ste. 1019
          San Francisco, CA 94104-3003
          Phone: 415-391-9476
          Fax: 415-391-9476
          Email: daniel@dfederlaw.com


LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Chenault Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Chenault, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, L'AGENCE, INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43550 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 29, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants for their violations of the California Labor Code by
failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants violated the California Labor Code for their:
failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and
double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to
pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time
wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages
earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation; and failure to reimburse necessary, business-related
expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of R&D
Coordinator on February 1, 2020.

LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE, LLC is a California Limited Liability
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASALAWALA LLC: Kabir Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed H. Kabir, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Masalawala LLC and Debabrata Roni
Mazumdar, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10289, (S.D. N.Y., December 2,
2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid spread-of-hours
premium, redress for failure to provide wage statements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York labor laws.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant where Kabor worked as a
kitchen helper. Throughout his employment, his job consisted of
washing dishes, stocking merchandise, mopping, sweeping, cleaning
the floors and taking out trash. He claims to have worked in excess
of 40 hours per week without overtime pay and did not receive wage
statements and notices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis M. Leon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 583-7400
      Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com


MDL 2873: Lewis Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY LEWIS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AGC, INC., f/k/a
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT,
LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont
Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03930-RMG (D.S.C.,
December 3, 2021) is a class action seeking damages for Plaintiff's
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

The Lewis case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-0111
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jjr@ferrarolaw.com
                  dmo@ferrarolaw.com

MUSICTODAY II LLC: Ortega Sues Over Non-Blind-Friendly Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Musictoday II, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-10295, (S.D. N.Y., December 2, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law.

Musictoday is an online merchandise retail company that owns and
operates the website shop.asapferg.com offering American rapper
"A$ap Ferg" merchandise that it delivers throughout the United
States, including New York State. Ortega who is legally blind
claims that the website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan P. Rubin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
      3000 Marcus Ave. Suite 1E5
      Lake Success, NY 11042
      Telephone: (516) 918-9347
      Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com

NORTH STATE: Napoles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North State Grocery,
Inc. et al. The case is styled as Mary Napoles, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. North State Grocery, Inc., Does 1-10,
Case No. 34-2021-00311860-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Nov. 29, 2021).

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

North State Grocery, Inc., doing business as Holiday Market --
https://www.shopholidaymarket.com/ -- operates as a retail food
market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica T. Khaine, Esq.
          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Samantha A Smith, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: erica@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 samantha@jameshawkinsaplc.com


PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Enciso Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN ENCISO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. PARTNERS PERSONNEL -
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV44278
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 3, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, restitution, civil and statutory penalties, and
related relief pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal
and rest periods; pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods; pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at
the regular rate of pay; pay at least minimum wage for all hours
worked; pay overtime wages at the correct rate; pay double time
wages at the correct rate; pay premium wages, overtime and/or
double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration
in calculating the regular rate of pay; reimburse for all necessary
business expenses; provide with accurate written wage statements;
and pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee at all times during the applicable statutory period.

Partners Personnel-Management Services, LLC operates as a staffing
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

POWER SOLUTIONS: Bid to Continue Treadwell Suit Stay Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to continue the stay in the lawsuit titled
JEROME TREADWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-8212 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Jerome Treadwell, an employee of Defendant Power
Solutions, brings this proposed class action against Power
Solutions for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/15 (BIPA). Specifically,
Treadwell alleges violations of sections 14/15(a), (b), and (d) of
BIPA, on behalf of himself and the proposed class.

Before the Court is Power Solutions' motion to continue the
existing stay of discovery until the following decisions are
issued: (1) Illinois Court of Appeals decisions on the applicable
statute of limitations before two Illinois Appellate Courts in Tims
v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., No. 1-20-0563, and Marion Ring
Container Technologies, LLC, No. 3-20-0184; (2) appellate decisions
on the accrual of BIPA claims from the Seventh Circuit in Cothron
v. White Castle System, Inc., No. 20-8029 and the Illinois
Appellate Court in Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services,
Inc., No. 1-21-0279; and (3) the Illinois Supreme Court's decision
McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville, Ill. Sup. Ct. 126511 on whether
BIPA statutory damages claims are preempted by the Illinois
Workers' Compensation Act (IWCA).

Power Solutions contends that each pending appeal will inform the
Court's analysis regarding the statute of limitations and IWCA's
exclusive remedy provisions, and either end the case or control the
size of any putative class, the discovery to be done, the scope of
Treadwell's claims, and any damages to be awarded to Treadwell or
any putative class. Treadwell opposes Power Solution's motion to
continue the stay.

Background

On April 1, 2020, the previously assigned judge granted Power
Solution's opposed motion to stay the proceedings pending the
Illinois Appellate Court's decision in McDonald v. Symphony
Bronzeville Park, LLC, Case No. 1-19-2398. On Sept. 18, 2020, the
Illinois Appellate Court issued its ruling, unanimously holding
that the exclusivity provisions of the IWCA do not preclude BIPA
claims (McDonald, 174 N.E.3d 578 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)).

On Oct. 13, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion to continue stay
to discuss settlement, which was granted by the Court on Oct. 14,
2020. Judge Cole held a settlement conference on May 26, 2021, but
the case did not settle. Power Solutions subsequently filed its
motion to continue the stay pending decisions regarding: IWCA
preemption, accrual of BIPA claims, and the applicable statute of
limitations. Treadwell opposes the motion.

I. Statute of Limitations -- Tims and Marion

Power Solutions contends that the Court should continue the stay
pending decisions from the Illinois Appellate Court in Tims and
Marion. Both Tims and Marion, respectively, have addressed or will
address the currently unsettled question of which statute of
limitations period applies to BIPA claims. In this case,
Treadwell's claims arise under Illinois law.

Since the parties finished briefing the motion to continue the
stay, the Illinois First District Appellate Court issued its
decision in Tims. In Tims, the court established a 5-year
limitations period for BIPA claims under 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b),
and (e), and a 1-year limitations period for BIPA claims under 740
ILCS 14/15(c) and (d). Marion has been fully briefed but is stayed
pending the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in McDonald, No.
126511.

District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama notes that because Tims has
been decided since briefing on the instant motion, it is no longer
a basis to continue the stay. Because the Illinois Supreme Court
has not yet decided the applicable statute of limitations for BIPA
claims, a decision from the Illinois Appellate Court, like Tims,
controls, to the extent there are not persuasive indications that
the Illinois Supreme Court would rule differently.

Judge Valderrama notes that it is possible that the Illinois Third
District Appellate Court may decide the statute of limitations
question differently than the First District did in Tims, in which
case a District split would exist and this Court would still have
to predict how the Illinois Supreme Court would decide the issue.
Given the Court's need to balance competing interests, it finds
that granting an indefinite stay pending a second Illinois
Appellate Court decision of indeterminate persuasive value is not
warranted here.

As Treadwell points out, the majority of trial courts that have
considered the statute of limitations argument have held that a
five-year limitations period applies to all BIPA claims. Even if
the Court follows the Tims holding that a one-year limitations
period applies to Treadwell's and the classes claims under section
14/15(d), the Court disagrees with Power Solutions' that such a
holding would significantly reduce Treadwell's and the class'
claims in scope and value, given that Tims held that a five-year
limitations period applies to section 14/15(a) and (b) claims, and
there likely will be significant overlap between each potential
class members' claims.

True, several other courts in this District have recently granted
stays pending a decision from the Illinois Appellate Court in
Marion or from the Illinois Supreme Court in Tims, Judge Valderrama
states. However, unlike those cases, which were filed in 2021, this
case was filed in 2018, so Treadwell's counsel could not have been
aware of the pending appeals on the statute of limitations issue
being litigated in Illinois courts.

The Court, therefore, does not find it appropriate to continue the
stay in this case pending the Marion Illinois Appellate Court
decision on the applicable statute of limitations.

II. Accrual of BIPA Claims -- Cothron and Watson

Power Solutions also seeks to stay this case pending the Seventh
Circuit's decision on an interlocutory appeal in Cothron and the
Illinois Appellate Court's decision in Watson. Both courts are
deciding whether a private entity violates BIPA only when it first
collects an individual's biometric information, or whether a
violation occurs each time a private entity collects or discloses
the biometric data in violation of 740 ILCS 15(b) or 15(d).

In opposing a stay pending the decisions in Cothron and Watson,
Treadwell argues that, regardless of the outcome, his claims are
timely. However, the accrual question will impact the size and
scope of Treadwell's proposed class, as well as discovery related
to that class. Unlike the statute of limitations question (which
has generally been held to be five-years, Judge Valderrama notes,
but for the Tims decision applying a one-year limitations period to
section 14/15(c) and (d) claims), which should not significantly
impact the scope of the class claims, the Court finds that the
accrual question almost certainly will significantly impact the
size and scope of Treadwell's proposed class.

Mr. Treadwell further argues that the certified question on appeal
in Cothron is unlikely to change the statute of limitations
analysis, because the plain language of the statute makes clear
that BIPA is violated each and every time an entity collects or
discloses an individual's biometric data.

Contrary to Treadwell's argument that BIPA is "unambiguous and
dispositive" as to when a violation occurs, as the district court
in Cothron noted upon certification of the interlocutory appeal,
reasonable minds can and have differed as to the clarity of BIPA's
statutory text and the extent to which suppositions about
legislative intent should shape courts' application of it, Judge
Valderrama holds. The district court in Cothron stayed proceedings
pending the Seventh Circuit's interlocutory review, and the Seventh
Circuit held that such a stay was "warranted." Moreover, the trial
court decision currently on appeal in Watson held that BIPA claims
accrue only upon the first collection of the biometric
information.

In the case, the Seventh Circuit's decision in Cothron may limit
Treadwell's and the classes' timely claims and a stay is
appropriate pending the interlocutory appeal, Judge Valderrama
states. And Seventh Circuit's decision in Cothron will be binding
on this Court. But because Cothron will be binding, that means
that, even if the Illinois Appellate Court reaches a different
conclusion in Watson, it will matter not to this Court, Judge
Valderrama points out. Therefore, there is no reason for the Court
to continue the stay pending a decision in Watson.

Finally, Mr. Treadwell argues that a continued stay would result in
Power Solutions' continued violations of BIPA. Although the Court
is mindful of the harms associated with the retention and potential
misuse of sensitive data, a stay will cause minimal, if any,
additional harm to Treadwell in this case, given the limited nature
of the stay, Judge Valderrama finds.

Therefore, the Court finds that a stay is also appropriate pending
the Seventh Circuit's Cothron decision on when an injury occurs
under BIPA.

III. Illinois Workers Compensation Act -- McDonald

Finally, Power Solutions also requests that the Court stay this
case pending the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in McDonald. As
noted above, the previously assigned judge stayed the case pending
the Illinois Appellate Court's decision in McDonald. Since that
time, the Illinois Appellate Court unanimously held that the
exclusivity provisions of the IWCA do not bar claims brought under
BIPA. The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently granted the
defendant's petition for leave to appeal, 163 N.E.3d 746 (Ill.
2021), and heard oral argument on Sept. 23, 2021.

Power Solutions maintains that, if the Supreme Court overrules the
Illinois Appellate Court's holding and holds that the IWCA preempts
BIPA statutory damages claims, such a holding would end the case
before the Court (although not necessarily altogether).
Additionally, many state courts and several federal courts,
including this Court, have refused to stay BIPA litigation pending
resolution of an appeal of the IWCA preemption issue.

Without ruling on the question directly, the Court reiterates its
prior finding that it is unlikely that the Illinois Supreme Court
would rule that IWCA preempts BIPA. Therefore, the Court denies
Power Solutions' motion to continue the stay pending the Illinois
Supreme Court's decision in McDonald.

Order

For these reasons, Power Solutions' motion to continue the stay is
granted in part and denied in part. The Court stays this case
pending the Seventh Circuit's decision in Cothron v. White Castle
System, Inc., No. 20-8029. The parties are to file a joint status
report as soon as Cothron has been decided, or by Feb. 15, 2022, to
update the Court on the status of these cases, whichever occurs
first.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 2, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/49zcs68f from
Leagle.com.


PRATT INSTITUTE: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pratt Institute. The
case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Pratt Institute, Case No.
1:21-cv-10550 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2021).

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

Pratt Institute -- https://www.pratt.edu/ -- is a global leader in
higher education situated in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVER VALLEY: Underpays Professional Counselors, Frinkle Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY FRINKLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RIVER VALLEY COUNSELING AND THERAPY, PA, and AMANDA
JONES-SHELTON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02196-PKH (W.D. Ark., December 3,
2021) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fee and
costs as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum
wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a licensed
professional counselor from August 2019 to June 2021.

Based in Clarksville, Arkansas, River Valley Counseling and
Therapy, PA provides mental health counseling of various types and
provides mental health assessments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RTI PROPERTIES: Pendleton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Garcia Pendleton, and the other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. RTI PROPERTIES, INC.; ROBERT ABBASI; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43414 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 29, 2021), is brought alleging that RTI has violated numerous
Labor Code Sections against the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees by failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

RTI did not provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were
entitled for work performed and as such did not compensate the
Plaintiff and others for all hours worked at the minimum wage rate
pursuant to California Labor Code. Due to the "off the clock" work
as alleged above, RTI violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment.
The Plaintiff's work hours were set in stone on paper and through
contract (3 hours a day; 30 hours per pay period), however, that
did not conform with reality as Plaintiff was constantly working
and subject to the control of RTI, up to 12-15 hours per day. As
such, the Plaintiff is entitled to overtime compensation for those
work hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for RTI on January 2020 as a Resident
Manager for the property located in Los Angeles, California.

RTI PROPERTIES, INC. do business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
          Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com


SPOTON TRANSACT: Predmore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SpotOn Transact, LLC.
The case is styled as Julia Predmore, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SpotOn Transact, LLC, Case No.
CGC21597029 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 9, 2021).

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

SpotOn Transact, LLC -- http://www.spoton.com/-- operates as a
payments and software company. The Company offers a platform that
provides payment processing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anne Rebecca Kramer, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
          729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116-2648


TRADER JOE'S: Swanberg Sues Over Mislabeled Honey Graham Crackers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Swanberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06496 (N.D. Ill., December 4, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's false and deceptive representations of its "Honey
Graham Crackers" under the Trader Joe's brand in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's relevant front label
representations include "Honey Graham Crackers," with a stylized
"Honey," a honeybee buzzing across the label, "No Artificial
Colors, Flavors, or Preservatives," and pictures of dark hued
crackers.

The suit alleges that the product's name and the dark-colored
crackers cause consumers, including the Plaintiff, to expect that
whole grain graham flour is the primary and predominant flour
ingredient used. The Defendant sold more of the product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers, added
the suit.

Trader Joe's Company operates as a convenience store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Snyder ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in
the lawsuit styled KIM SNYDER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., DAVID S. WINCHMANN,
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE,
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 21-1049 (JRT/BRT) (D.
Minn.).

Plaintiff Kim Snyder brought this class action on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of
UnitedHealth's 401(k) Savings Plans. Snyder brings this action for
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") against Defendants UnitedHealth, its Board
of Directors and its members, David S. Winchmann, the UnitedHealth
Group Employee Benefits Plans Investment Committee and its members,
and the UnitedHealth Group Employee Benefits Plans Administrative
Committee and its members.

Ms. Snyder alleges that the Defendants breached their duty of
prudence and duty to monitor the performance of individuals to whom
they delegated fiduciary responsibilities. The Defendants have
brought a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for
Summary Judgment.

Background

UnitedHealth sponsors the Plan for 200,000 employees, former
employees, and their beneficiaries. Plan participants may make
contributions to their retirement accounts and UnitedHealth matches
those contributions. The Plan has approximately $15 billion in
assets under management. Snyder was a participant in the Plan
during the Class Period and the Defendants are the fiduciaries of
the Plan.

Participants of the Plan can select from various investment options
for their 401(k), one of which is a target date retirement fund.
UnitedHealth's target date funds are all managed by Wells Fargo.
UnitedHealth has designated the Wells Fargo TDFs as the default
option for participants of the Plan, so when a participant fails to
select one of the other investment options for their 401(k), they
are automatically enrolled into their respective Wells Fargo TDF.

Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, State Street, and Vanguard offer target
date funds as well. Morningstar, a highly regarded financial
services and research firm, classified these four target date funds
(the "Morningstar Comparators") as being within the same peer
universe as the Wells Fargo TDFs. Morningstar determined that the
funds all had the same underlying portfolio holdings. In reaching
this conclusion, Morningstar considered: (1) the purpose of the
target date funds; (2) how the funds allocate assets among asset
classes; and (3) how the funds intend to gradually reduce potential
market risk exposure over time.

The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo TDF 2010 through 2060 each
chronically underperformed these six different benchmarks over the
course of eleven years. The Complaint compiles 33 tables detailing
this underperformance. As demonstrated by Table 5.a, the Wells
Fargo TDFs had a lower cumulative return and lower annualized
return than every other comparator for the five years prior to the
Class Period.

Ms. Snyder filed a class action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries. The
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, a
Motion for Summary Judgment. Though discovery has yet to commence,
along with their motion the Defendants produced 254 documents to
Snyder which the Defendants claim constitutes the entire fiduciary
record. Snyder identified several deficiencies in the production,
but the parties have been unable to resolve these issues.

Discussion

I. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Chief District Judge John R. Tunheim notes that as a general rule,
summary judgment is proper only after the nonmovant has had
adequate time for discovery, citing Iverson v. Johnson Gas
Appliance Co., 172 F.3d 524, 530 (8th Cir. 1999).

Discovery has not yet begun in this case. While the Defendants
claim they have produced the entire fiduciary record, Snyder has
properly submitted a declaration, which details how further
discovery will enable her to rebut the assertion that there is no
genuine issue of material fact. Thus, the Court will deny
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as premature.

II. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

ERISA imposes two primary duties on fiduciaries: loyalty and
prudence. The fiduciary must discharge its duties "with the care,
skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then
prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and
familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an
enterprise of a like character and with like aims.

The Defendants contend that Snyder has failed to sufficiently plead
that the Wells Fargo TDFs underperformed the benchmarks identified
in the Complaint. The Defendants point to the fact that the Wells
Fargo TDFs performed better than some of the benchmarks in both
2018 and 2021.

While true, Judge Tunheim points out that the Defendants gloss over
the key allegation in the Complaint--the Wells Fargo TDFs'
cumulative performance for every single fund was significantly
lower than all other benchmarks for eleven years. Judge Tunheim
states that outperformance by the Wells Fargo TDFs in one year
alone does not preclude Snyder from arguing that the Defendants
acted imprudently in retaining the funds based upon their
cumulative underperformance. The Court must consider the Complaint
as a whole, which plausibly alleges that the Wells Fargo TDFs
underperformed the benchmarks over the course of, not only the
Class Period, but eleven years in total.

The Defendants argue that the Morningstar Comparators cannot
constitute meaningful benchmarks because they employed different
risk strategies and asset allocations than the Wells Fargo TDFs.
They contend that any underperformance is a result of a more
conservative investment strategy intended to sustain investments in
down markets, therefore, it was not imprudent to maintain the Wells
Fargo TDFs.

Ms. Snyder claims that the Morningstar Comparators are meaningful
benchmarks since Morningstar classified these funds as falling
within the "same peer universe" as the Wells Fargo TDFs because
they share similar purposes, allocate funds among asset classes
similarly, and gradually reduce market risk exposure in comparable
ways.

To the extent that Defendants dispute the similarities between the
Wells Fargo TDFs and the Morningstar Comparators, these are factual
issues that the Court cannot resolve on a motion to dismiss, Judge
Tunheim notes. At this stage, because the Court must construe all
reasonable inferences in Snyder's favor and take all allegations in
the Complaint as true, it would be inappropriate to reach a
conclusion other than what the Complaint asserts--the Morningstar
Comparators fall within the same peer universe as the Wells Fargo
TDFs.

Though the Defendants rely on Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Co., 898
F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2018) to argue for dismissal, the case in
fact supports denial of their motion, Judge Tunheim finds, among
other things. In Meiners, the Eighth Circuit held that the
plaintiff failed to identify a meaningful benchmark. The plaintiff
had identified only one benchmark that had outperformed the fund at
issue and the Eight Circuit concluded that the fact that one fund
with a different investment strategy ultimately performed better
does not establish anything about whether the Wells Fargo TDFs were
an imprudent choice at the outset.

But here, Snyder has identified not one, but six different
meaningful benchmarks, all of which the Wells Fargo TDFs
underperformed against over the course of eleven years, Judge
Tunheim points out. Snyder's claims amount to more than a bare
allegation that cheaper investments exist in the marketplace. She
has demonstrated that there was long-term underperformance of the
Wells Fargo TDFs in comparison to meaningful benchmarks, which
plausibly raises an inference of imprudence and is sufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court will deny the
Defendants' motion.

Order
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and
proceedings, the Court ruled that:

   1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; and

   2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 2, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6an5dn2 from Leagle.com.

Alexandra Harwin -- aharwin@sanfordheisler.com -- SANFORD HEISLER
SHARP, in New York City; Charles Henry Field, Jr. --
cfield@sanfordheisler.com -- SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, in San Diego,
California; David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- and R.
Johan Conrad Jr., SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, in Washington, D.C.; Kevin
H. Sharp -- ksharp@sanfordheisler.com -- and Leigh Anne St. Charles
-- lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com -- SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, in
Nashville, Tennessee; Susan M. Coler -- coler@halunenlaw.com --
HALUNEN LAW, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Plaintiff.

Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- and Meghan McLane VerGow --
mvergow@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, in Washington, D.C.;
Debora A. Ellingboe -- debbie.ellingboe@faegredrinker.com -- and
Isaac B. Hall -- isaac.hall@faegredrinker.com -- FAEGRE DRINKER
BIDDLE REATH LLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Defendants.


WELLSPAN HEALTH: Technicians Sue Over Time-Shaving Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Keller and Kevin Schaeffer, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wellspan Health,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02025, (M.D. Pa., December 2, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

WellSpan owns and/or operates hospitals and other healthcare
facilities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including
the WellSpan Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania where
Keller worked as a technician from August 2020 through July 2021
while Schaeffer, also a technician, has been employed since
November 2020. They claim that their timecards were altered to
reflect lesser hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Mobilio, Esq.
      MOBILIO WOOD
      900 Rutter Ave., Box 24
      Forty Fort, PA 18704
      Phone: (570) 234-0442
      Fax: (570) 266-5402
      Email: peter@mobiliowood.com
             matt@mobiliowood.com

             - and -

      Alex Pisarevsky, Esq.
      Erika R. Piccirillo, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West-Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Phone: (201) 845-9600
      Fax: (201) 845-9423
      Email: ep@njlawfirm.com
             ap@njlawfirm.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,026 PI Suits at Oct. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc., since 2002 and as of October 31, 2021, is a defendant of
approximately 1,026 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits filed
against them, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of these, 981 have been dismissed without any
payment by us, 35 are pending and only 10 have been settled, which
settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or
operating results.

"The building materials industry has been subject to personal
injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to
raw materials contained in building products as well as claims for
incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a
distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of
exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of
the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future
distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal
injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or
safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have included
and may in the future include allegations of defects in
manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers
inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach
of warranties. In particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been
the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/30prAA7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt's Claimants Call for Probe Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer of Law360 reports that a Delaware bankruptcy judge ,
denied a call for a probe into votes cast for the Mallinckrodt
Chapter 11 plan by parties with asbestos
claims against the drugmaker, saying the company had met the legal
standard for checking the validity of the ballots.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey delivered a virtual bench ruling
rejecting arguments by a group with antitrust claims against
Mallinckrodt that an examiner is needed in part because an attorney
representing asbestos claimants in this case was found to have
submitted an invalid ballot in the Imerys Talc America bankruptcy
last October 2021, saying there are significant differences.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nash's Asbestos Liabilities Forces Chapter 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that pump manufacturer Nash Engineering Company
appears to have recently become the latest casualty of asbestos
litigation. On October 19, 2021, Nash Engineering filed for Chapter
7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Connecticut. If Nash Engineering's petition for relief is
approved, this will spell the end of the 100-year-old corporation.
Nash Engineering now joins a list of more than 60 other companies
that have been forced to declare bankruptcy due to the burden of
their asbestos-related liabilities.

While Nash Engineering has not made any public statement explaining
its pending dissolution, signs point to settlement and defense
costs associated with its ongoing asbestos litigation playing a
significant role. As NERA Economic Consulting has reported, the
average cost for a defendant to resolve an asbestos claim continues
to climb year over year. The list of creditors filed by Nash
Engineering is replete with asbestos plaintiffs' firms, indicating
that the lion's share of the company's debts come from asbestos
litigation.


                            *********

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 ***