---

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

              Wednesday, December 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 254

                            Headlines

ADVANCED DOMINO: Suit Seeks to Certify Two Settlement Classes
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Conroy Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
ALEXION PHARMA: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify BRS Class Action
ALNYLAM PHARMA: $7MM Settlement Hearing on April 12, 2022
AMAZING SCAPES: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid OT for Landscaping Workers

AMCO INSURANCE: Parducci Loses Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN FIRST: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 30, 2022
APPLE INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Alleged Defective Apple Watches
ARCON CREDIT: Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive," Kohn Suit Claims
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cocktails

ARRIVAL SA: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 22 Deadline
BAIDU INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 14 Deadline
BC WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over 'Imposter' Nurse
C PEPPER: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Flinn Suit
CANADA: Courts OKs $8-B Class Settlement Over Drinking Water Suit

CANADA: Courts OKs Settlement Agreement to Resolve Litigation
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Breach Class-Action Lawsuit for $190 Million
CASELLA WASTE: Rodney Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Terminates Employees Without Notice, Cox Suit Says
CHEGG INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 21 Deadline

CHEGG INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 21 Deadline
CLEAR HOME: Faces Balducci Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Utah
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Mahoney Wins Conditional FLSA Class Status
CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
DAVID RANDALL: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in NMIC Suit

DELI MANAGEMENT: Eltayeb Renewed Bid for Class Notice Nixed
DESIGNER BRANDS: Court Amends Initial Pretrial Order in Laguardia
DESKTOP METAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
DIXON ADVISORY: Faces Second Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
DOCUSIGN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 21 Deadline

DOCUSIGN INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 22 Deadline
DOCUSIGN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of February 22 Deadline
DOCUSIGN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 22 Deadline
ENTERGY CORP: Court Fixes Class Cert. Deadline in Stewart Case
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Final Judgment Entered in Bear Creek Class Suit

EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Briefing Sched OK'd in Dimercurto
FARADAY FUTURE: Glancy Prongay LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Crutchfield Seeks Class Certification
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to July 18, 2022
FIRST FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 23, 2022

FIRST FINANCIAL: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
FOGO DE CHAO: Seeks Until Jan. 5 to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
GC PIZZA: Rodriguez Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over AFM Lifter Failures
GENERAL MOTORS: Napoli-Bosse Seeks to Certify Class

IMPAX LABORATORIES: $33MM Settlement to be Heard on March 31
JAMES FRANCO: Breaks Silence, Admits to Sleeping With Students
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Springfield, Mo. Signs Onto Opioid Settlement
KROGER CO: Extension of Class Certification Bid Deadline Sought
MARATHON DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 15 Deadline

MARYLAND: Jobless Workers Sue Over Delayed Unemployment Benefits
MDL 2642: Cipro/Levaquin Product Row Transferred to D. Minn.
MDL 2804: Prescription Opioids Product Row transferred to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2924: Ranitidine Product Liability Row Transferred to S.D. Fla.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes Online Merchandise Market, Suit Says

NAVISTAR INT'L: Retirees Seek $742M Class Settlement Over Benefits
NESTLE USA: Faces Suit Over FDA-Unapproved Glucose Control Products
NEW YORK: OKs to Extend Protections to Privately Managed Buildings
PAN PACIFIC: Class Action Claims Hotel Misled Employees
PANASONIC CORP: Faces Resistors Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit

PHARMACIELO LTD: Securities Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
PINNACLE GROUP: Fernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Superintendents
PRATT & WHITNEY: No-Poach Agreement Harms Engineers, Granata Says
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Campbell Sues Over Sale of Adulterated Products
PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Burnett Sues Over Retirement Plan's Losses

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Timothy L. Miles Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
RHODE ISLAND: DeBritto Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
SECURE LENDING: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Hand Suit
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: BareMinerals Products Contain PFAS, Onaka Claims

SHOWS & CALI: Calogero Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
SMARTSCRIPTS LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 1, 2022
SNAP-ON TOOLS: Galindo Sues Over Distributors' Misclassification
STATE AUTOMOBILE: Faces Travis RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
TESLA MOTORS: Horowitz Sues Over Change of Vehicle Purchase Price

TRATTORIA PESCE: Aboueid Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Waiters
UNITED STATES: Files Motion to Dismiss in Alleged Conspiracy Suit
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Settlement in Sweda Suit Gets Final OK
V & V PAESANO: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Chagoya Suit Alleges
VIVINT SOLAR: Court Amends Class Certification Bid Deadlines

WALMART INC: Body Spray Contains Benzene, Ahmed Suit Claims

                            *********

ADVANCED DOMINO: Suit Seeks to Certify Two Settlement Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATYANA ABDULZALIEVA and
ALENA DAINEKA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated, v. ADVANCED DOMINO, INC., and DOMINO GROUP,
LLC, and PROGRESS VGA, LLC, and BORIS SALKINDER, individually, and
GENADI VINITSKI, individually, and YAKOV BEKKERMAN, individually,
and ALEKSANDR MALTSEV, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-00124-BMC
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;

   2. approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
      Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, and
      approving the claims procedure detailed in the Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the two
      overlapping settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C. seciton
      216(b);

   4. appointing the Plaintiffs Tatyana Abdulzalieva and Alena
      Daineka as the Class Representatives;

   5. appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;

   6. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims Ad
      ministrator for this settlement; and

   7. approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of
      a motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a
      Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed
      settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s8JBy6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229
          E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Conroy Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOM CONROY, DANIEL SARTORIS, SCOTT PRENTISS, and CHRISTOPHER NOVOA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP,
LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC., and RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT &
WHITNEY DIVISION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01659 (D. Conn.,
December 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a No-Poach
Agreement to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and
other skilled laborers working on aerospace projects among their
respective companies. The No-Poach Agreement did reduce competition
for engineers' services and, as a result, suppressed the job
mobility of and compensation to the Plaintiffs and Class members
below the levels that would have prevailed but for the illegal
No-Poach Agreement. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury
and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition
for their labor on the merits.

Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
is an aerospace engine manufacturer, with its principal place of
business in East Hartford, Connecticut.

QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc. is an aerospace engineering firm,
with its principal place of business in East Hartford,
Connecticut.

Belcan Engineering Group, LLC is an engineering services supplier,
with a principal place of business in East Hartford, Connecticut.

Cyient, Inc. is a technology company that provides outsource
engineering services, with a principal place of business in East
Hartford, Connecticut.

Parametric Solutions, Inc. is an engineering services company that
provides services in the aerospace industry, with its principal
place of business in Jupiter, Florida.

Agilis Engineering, Inc. is an engineering services company that
provides services in the aerospace industry, with a principal place
of business in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         David S. Golub, Esq.
         Jonathan M. Levine, Esq.
         Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
         Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
         SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
         One Landmark Square – 15th Floor
         Stamford, CT 06901
         Telephone: (203) 325-4491
         Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
         E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                 jlevine@sgtlaw.com
                 sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                 isloss@sgtlaw.com

                - and –

         Candice Enders, Esq.
         Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
         Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: cenders@bm.net
                 pmadden@bm.net
                 mwallin@bm.net

                - and –

         Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 559-9745
         Facsimile: (215) 875-5707
         E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

ALEXION PHARMA: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify BRS Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS
SINHA, DAVID BRENNAN, DAVID J. ANDERSON, LUDWIG N. HANTSON, and
CARSTEN THIEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-02127-AWT (D. Conn.), the Lead
Plaintiffs Erste Asset Management GmbH and the Public Employee
Retirement System of Idaho ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
      23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the
      Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and

   3. appointing Motley Rice LLC and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Co-
      Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mB7jzl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
          William S. Norton, Esq.
          Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq.
          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          Meredith B. Weatherby, Esq.
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com
                  bnorton@motleyrice.com
                  jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com
                  mweatherby@motleyrice.com
                  aarnold@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          James T. Christie, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10017-5563
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: mrogers@labaton.com
                  jjohnson@labaton.com
                  jchristie@labaton.com

ALNYLAM PHARMA: $7MM Settlement Hearing on April 12, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK,
COMMERCIAL DIVISION

CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JOHN M. MARAGANORE, MICHAEL P.
MASON, DENNIS A. AUSIELLO,
MICHAEL W. BONNEY, JOHN K.
CLARKE, MARSHA H. FANUCCI, STEVEN
M. PAUL, DAVID E.I. PYOTT, PAUL R.
SCHIMMEL, AMY W. SCHULMAN,
PHILLIP A. SHARP, KEVIN P. STARR,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS
CAPITAL INC., CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY
& CO., JMP SECURITIES LLC, NEEDHAM
& COMPANY, LLC, CHARDAN CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC and B. RILEY FBR, INC.
n/k/a B. RILEY SECURITIES, INC.,

Defendants.

Index No. 655272/2019
CLASS ACTION
The Honorable Robert R. Reed
Part 43

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ALNYLAM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("ALNYLAM" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT ISSUED IN
CONNECTION WITH ALNYLAM'S NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SECONDARY PUBLIC
OFFERING (THE "OFFERING")1

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 12,
2022, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Robert R. Reed, J.S.C., at
Part 43, via Microsoft Teams Virtual Platform, to determine
whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")[2] for $7,000,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3)
to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of
the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed
below), and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Plaintiff for
representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.

This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those
persons who purchased or acquired Alnylam common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement for the Offering, against
Alnylam and certain of its officers and directors and the
Offering's underwriters (collectively, "Defendants") for, among
other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from
the Registration Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Offering.  Plaintiff
alleges that these purportedly false and misleading statements
inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in damage to
Settlement Class Members when the truth was revealed.  Defendants
deny all of Plaintiff's allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ALNYLAM COMMON STOCK BETWEEN NOVEMBER
14, 2017 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 12, 2019, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than MARCH 17,
2022) or electronically (no later than MARCH 17, 2022).  Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by March 17, 2022, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request
exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.AlnylamSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by
writing to:

Alnylam Securities Litigation Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Analytics Consulting, LLC
P.O. Box 2004
Chanhassen, MN  55317-2004

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Theodore J. Pintar
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (800) 449-4900

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MARCH
22, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION
FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND/OR THE AWARD TO PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MARCH 22, 2022, IN
THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
COMMERCIAL DIVISION

1 For purposes of this Settlement only, the Settlement Class
includes persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Alnylam common
stock between November 14, 2017 and September 12, 2019, inclusive.

2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.AlnylamSecuritiesLitigation.com.


AMAZING SCAPES: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid OT for Landscaping Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZING SCAPES, LLC and CHRISTOPHER M.
SHUPE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05098-TWT (N.D. Ga., December
14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated landscaping workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a landscaping worker for the Defendant over
the past three years.

Amazing Scapes, LLC is a provider of landscaping services based in
Buford, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James M. McCabe, Esq.
         S. Graham White, Esq.
         THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
         3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
         Atlanta, GA 30326
         Telephone: (404) 250-3233
         Facsimile: (404) 400-1724
         E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com

AMCO INSURANCE: Parducci Loses Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD P. PARDUCCI, v.
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-07162-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order:

   1. denying Parducci's motion for class certification;

   2. granting AMCO's motion for summary judgment on the elder
      abuse claim, but is otherwise denied.

   3. setting a case management conference for January 25, 2022
      at 2 p.m.; and

   4. directing the parties to submit a joint case management
      conference statement on January 18, 2022 that contains,
      among other things, a proposed case and trial schedule.

Judge Orrick says that class certification is denied because the
individualized issues involved in insurance coverage are so
material and numerous that Parducci's claims are not common or
typical, the class claims do not predominate over the individual
issues, and class treatment is not superior to individual
treatment. Summary judgment is denied except on AMCO's elder abuse
claim. Genuine disputes of material fact exist, including whether
the Parducci home was overinsured and whether Parducci's request to
lower coverage was reasonable, the Judge adds.

This dispute arises from a homeowners' insurance policy covering
the Ukiah, California, home of Margarett Parducci and the late John
Parducci. In 2018, the Parduccis' grandson, Richard Parducci, filed
this lawsuit in his capacity as conservator for and on behalf of
Margarett Parducci, and as Trustee of the John A. Parducci and
Margarett L. Parducci Survivor's Trust.

Parducci contends that for at least seven years, his grandparents'
home was overinsured because of inflated replacement cost values
allegedly determined by AMCO, which insured the residence. As a
result, Parducci argues, his grandparents paid excessive premiums
on coverage limits that they "would never be able to collect if
there had been a loss."

Amco operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JmSdY4 at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN FIRST: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 30, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ANDRADE v. AMERICAN
FIRST FINANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06743-SK (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order extending case schedule
and vacating case management conference as follows:

   -- Close of expert discovery:          March 18, 2022

   -- Last day to file motion for class   March 30, 2022
      certification:

   -- Opposition to motion for class      April 29, 2022
      certification due by:

   -- Reply in support of motion for      May 19, 2022
      class certification due by:

   -- Hearing on motion for class         June 13, 2022
      certification:

   -- Last day to file motion for         August 12, 2022
      summary judgment:

   -- Last day to file opposition         Sept. 9, 2022
      to and cross-motion for summary
      judgment (in one brief):

   -- Last day to file reply in           Oct. 7, 2022
      support of opening motion and
      opposition to cross-motion
      for summary judgment
      (in one brief):

   -- Last day to file reply in           Oct. 21, 2022
      support of cross-motion
      for summary judgment:

   -- Hearing on cross-motions            Nov. 14, 2022
      for summary judgment:

   -- Pretrial filings, including         Jan. 6, 2023
      motions in limine, due by:

   -- Pretrial Conference:                Jan. 20, 2023

   -- Trial:                              Feb. 21, 2023

American First is a leading consumer financial technology company.

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

APPLE INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Alleged Defective Apple Watches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Smith, Cheryl Smith, Karen Smithson, Jason Roush, and Corey
Pomroy, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-09527-DMR (N.D. Cal., December 9, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the California Unlawful
Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act.

This action is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased First
Generation ("Series 0"), Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE
Apple Watches of every size and model. Apple has consistently
marketed its Watch as a safe wearable device meant to help
consumers live safer and healthier lifestyles.

According to the complaint, the Apple Watch contains an undisclosed
and unreasonably dangerous safety hazard: a small wearable device
intended to rest on a user's wrist with no thermal or other
solution to prevent and/or mitigate the danger of a detached,
shattered, or cracked Watch screen resulting from the insufficient
space allocated within the device for the rectangular shaped,
electromagnetically charged lithium cobalt oxide battery inside a
polymer pouch. The alleged defect is not the normal degradation of
the lithium-ion battery, but instead the placement of that battery
in the configuration where the battery's expansion can cause screen
damage or detachment, operationally destroy the product, and harm
or potentially harm the user, says the suit.

As a result of the defect in the Watches and the monetary costs
associated with overpayment, repair, replacement, and lost use of
the Watches, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in
fact, incurred ascertainable loss and damages, and have otherwise
been harmed by Apple's conduct, added the suit.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, computer software and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: Ramen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
          Lucy E. Tufts, Esq.   
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 471-6191
          Facsimile: (251) 479-1031  
          E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com
                  let@cunninghambounds.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Kilborn, Jr., Esq.
          KILBORN LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 2164
          Fairhope, AL 36533
          Telephone: (251) 929-4623
          E-mail: benk@kilbornlaw.com

ARCON CREDIT: Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive," Kohn Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BREINDY KOHN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARCON CREDIT SOLUTIONS LLC, ABSOLUTE
RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-06893 (E.D.N.Y., December 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The case arises from Defendant Arcon's deceptive and misleading
debt collection letter to the Plaintiff concerning her alleged debt
with the U.S. Bank National Association. The Defendant's
correspondence is harassing in nature in order to threaten a legal
action against the Plaintiff should she not agree to the terms
provided. The Plaintiff was also confused and misled about the
letter's potential settlement terms. She was unable to ascertain
what potential terms of settlement were actually being extended to
her, added the suit.

Arcon Credit Solutions LLC is a debt collector based in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.

Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC is a debt collector based in
Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         1 University Plaza, Suite 620
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cocktails
---------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that Dawn Hancock filed a class action
complaint in the Southern District of Illinois against Arizona
Beverages USA LLC for "misleadingly" labeling their "Mucho Mango
Fruit Cocktail" products with the phrase "fortified with vitamin C"
despite not adhering to the FDA's fortification policy.

According to the complaint, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has to manually authorize nutrient content claims on products,
otherwise it is prohibited to make such a claim in order to
"prevent consumers being deceived by the endless terms that
marketers can devise in order to gain advantage in the
marketplace."

The plaintiff claimed that since the labeling says "fortified with
vitamin C", it must mean that there is at least 10% more vitamin C
compared to similar products. However, there is no reference food
listed so this claim "is not consistent" with the FDA's policy.
Furthermore, "there is no nutritional deficiency in vitamin C
recognized by the scientific community" so fortification is not
considered appropriate. This drink also contains 44% daily value of
sugar and should be "consumed sparingly" according to the FDA.

Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the labeling is misleading and
deceptive. She also claimed that the price is higher compared to
other Arizona products in part due to the supposed fortification of
vitamin C. The plaintiff and proposed class are suing for
violations of the consumer protection statute of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and for similar
laws in other states, breach of express and implied warranties,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff is seeking class certification; injunctive relief to
edit their labels and for restitution and disgorgement; monetary,
statutory and punitive damages; attorney's fees and costs; and
other relief.

The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates, P.C. [GN]

ARRIVAL SA: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Arrival SA (NASDAQ: ARVL) common shares between November 18, 2020
and November 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
February 22, 2022 to seek appointment in Schmutter v. Arrival SA,
No. 21-cv-11016 (S.D.N.Y.). Commenced on December 22, 2021, the
Arrival class action lawsuit charges Arrival and certain of its top
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Arrival class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Arrival class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than February 22, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Arrival (formerly Arrival Luxembourg S.a r.l.) is
a manufacturer and distributor of commercial electric vehicles
("EVs"), including vans, cars, and buses. On March 24, 2021,
Arrival consummated a business combination with CIIG Merger Corp.
("CIIG"). Prior to its business combination with Arrival, CIIG was
a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), also known as a
"blank check" company, incorporated for the purpose of entering
into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase,
recapitalization, reorganization, or similar business combination
with one or more businesses or entities. Upon the consummation of
the merger, CIIG changed its name to Arrival Vault US Inc. On March
25, 2021, Arrival's common stock and warrants began trading on
NASDAQ under the symbols "ARVL" and "ARVLW," respectively.

The Arrival class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Arrival would record a substantially greater
net loss and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") loss in the third quarter
of 2021 compared to the third quarter of 2020; (ii) Arrival would
experience far greater capital and operational expense to operate
and deploy its microfactories and manufacture EVs than it had
disclosed; (iii) Arrival would not capitalize on or achieve
profitability or provide meaningful revenue in the time periods
disclosed; (iv) Arrival would not achieve its disclosed production
and sales volumes; (v) Arrival would not meet the disclosed
production rollout deadlines and, accordingly, Arrival materially
overstated its financial and operational position and/or prospects,
and (vi) as a result, Arrival's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 8, 2021, Arrival announced its financial results for
the third quarter of 2021, including a loss of EUR26 million
(compared to a loss of EUR22 million during the same quarter a year
earlier), and adjusted EBITDA loss for the quarter of EUR40 million
(compared to a loss of EUR18 million in the third quarter of 2020).
Arrival also pulled its 2022 revenue goals and significantly scaled
back its long-term projections, pushing its production and sales
timeline into later time periods. On this news, shares of Arrival
fell by approximately 24%.

Then, on November 17, 2021, Arrival announced a $200 million
offering of green convertible senior notes due 2026, intended to
finance the development of EVs. On the same day, Arrival announced
the commencement of an underwritten public offering of 25 million
ordinary shares pursuant to a registration statement on Form F-1
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a bid to
raise around $330 million in cash. On this news, Arrival shares
dropped an additional 8%, further damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force
represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice
in this rapidly developing investment arena.

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

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

BAIDU INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired securities of Baidu Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:BIDU) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

Baidu Inc. is a Chinese multinational technology company
specializing in Internet-related services and products and
artificial intelligence.

According to the complaint, Defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley collectively sold off billions of dollars' worth of
Baidu shares while in possession of material non-public information
they obtained pursuant to their agreements with, and from serving
as prime brokers for, Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos").
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that they owed a
fiduciary duty, or obligation arising from a similar relationship
of trust and confidence, to Archegos to keep the information
confidential.

During March 2021, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley confidentially
learned that Archegos had failed, or was likely to fail, to meet a
margin call, requiring Archegos to liquidate its position in Baidu.
Trading on this non-public information, Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley avoided billions of dollars in losses on their Baidu
investments by selling Company securities in late March 2021 before
the market learned of Archegos' difficulties. When this information
reached the market, the price of Baidu securities fell sharply,
damaging Company investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Baidu securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/baiduinc-bidu-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-469/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

BC WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over 'Imposter' Nurse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at ca.topclassactions.com reports that a BC Women's
Hospital allowed an unregistered nurse to treat patients, according
to a class action lawsuit lodged against the Provincial Health
Services Authority (PHSA).

Plaintiff Miranda Massie filed the class action lawsuit against the
authority on Dec. 16 in BC Supreme Court, alleging the hospital
should have known nurse Brigitte Cleroux was not qualified to work
as a nurse when it employed her, Global News reports.

The lawsuit alleges that Cleroux was hired at BC Women's Hospital,
despite having an extensive history of using forged credentials to
work illegally as a nurse.

"Much of this information is a matter of public record," Massie
alleges. "This information was readily available to PHSA had it
exercised a reasonable level of diligence."

She alleges that anyone who was a patient at B.C. Women's Hospital
from June 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 suffered battery when Cleroux
treated them or administered treatments without a license to do so.


"As a result of learning that Cleroux was not a registered nurse,
many Class Members sustained mental distress and nervous shock all
of which was foreseeable to the PHSA," she says.

Cleroux is also facing numerous criminal charges and has been known
to law enforcement for some time.

BC Women's Hospital Hired Known Fraudster, Claims Class Action
Cleroux, 49, has previously been arrested and charged with fraud
over $5,000 and personation with the intent to gain an advantage.
Vancouver police said she used the name of a real nurse to gain
employment at the hospital, CBC reports.

One woman who was treated at the hospital told CBC she recalled
being in "so much pain" while getting a gynecological procedure
with Cleroux doing pain relief.

Cleroux has reportedly not completed nursing school or held a valid
nursing license anywhere in Canada.

In Ontario, she faces charges of criminal negligence causing bodily
harm, assault with a weapon, obtaining by false pretenses, uttering
forged documents, and personation to gain advantage after she
allegedly presented herself as a nurse at a medical and dental
clinic in Ottawa where she administered medications and injections
to patients.

Massie also alleges that PHSA ignored complaints about her relating
to her competency and ethics.

Meanwhile, just over a year after a class action lawsuit was filed
in Nova Scotia alleging two researchers conducted a secret study on
Indigenous people, holding them for MRI scans on false pretexts,
lawyers are back in court after settlement negotiations.

What do you think about the hospital's responsibility in this case?
Let us know in the comments!

Don't Miss Out! [GN]

C PEPPER: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Flinn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FLINN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS
LLC, LANTER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, and JAMES PEPPER, Case No.
2:20-cv-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth G. Gale
entered a Second Amended Scheduling Order as follows:

                 Event                     Deadline/Setting

  -- Supplementation of initial          March 23, 20/22 and
     disclosures:                        40 days before
                                         completion of discovery

  -- All pre-certification discovery     May 2, 2022
     completed:

  -- Experts (used in pre-               Feb. 7, 2022
     certification discovery)
     disclosed by plaintiff:

  -- Experts (used in pre-               March 25, 2022
     certification discovery)
     disclosed by defendant:

  -- Rebuttal experts (used in           April 22, 2022
     pre-certification discovery)
     disclosed:

  -- Motion for class certification      May 2, 2022

C Pepper was founded in 2009. The Company's line of business
includes provides trucking and transfer services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mv9WCP at no extra charge.[CC]

CANADA: Courts OKs $8-B Class Settlement Over Drinking Water Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
aptnnews.ca reports that the Federal Court and the Court of Queen's
Bench of Manitoba have jointly approved an $8-billion settlement in
a national class-action lawsuit between Canada and First Nations
and their members who've had to drink unclean water.

The deal, ratified on Dec. 22, will dish out at least $6 billion
over nine years for water infrastructure in communities. Canada
will pay $1.5 billion to individual members, and another $400
million will go into an economic and cultural restoration fund.

Emily Whetung, chief of Curve Lake First Nation in southern Ontario
and one of three lead plaintiffs, spoke to APTN's Nation to Nation
about the deal on Dec. 9 when it was before the court.

"This is great progress but it's just a small stepping stone to
ensuring that every status Indian living on an Indian reserve has
access to clean drinking water," she said.

She said the agreement creates a legal dispute resolution process
so First Nations finally have ways to compel Ottawa to act on its
promises.

"It becomes less and less important what the political promises are
and it becomes more and more important that we have the ability to
enforce real, meaningful access to clean drinking water," said
Whetung.

"It's no longer political promises with moving targets. But if
there's issues, if there's problems, there's a mechanism to go and
have those disputes resolved."

Curve Lake is surrounded by water, yet has had to truck it in at
times due to a bad supply. Whetung explained on N2N community
members struggle with a broad range of issues related to their
drinking water supply.


Ottawa agreed to repeal and replace the Harper-era Safe Drinking
Water for First Nations Act. Canada is also now legally bound to
implement its clean water action plan. A First Nations advisory
committee for safe drinking water will also be created.

An anticipated 142,000 people from 258 First Nations across the
country who've had to consume unsafe water are eligible. They will
still have to opt in once the deal comes into effect.

In 2019, Whetung filed a class action in Federal Court along with
Chris Moonias, who was then chief of Neskantaga in Ontario, over
lack of access to potable water in communities.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation Chief Doreen Spence filed a separate class
action in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench that same year.

The suits combined, and both were certified in 2020. An agreement
in principle was reached on July 30, 2021.

Lifting all long-term boil-water advisories on reserves by March
2021 was one of Justin Trudeau's benchmark pledges when campaigning
to be prime minister in 2015.

He took heavy criticism for missing the deadline. The government
now declines to offer a new one.

According to Indigenous Services Canada's website, 38 long-term
advisories remain in 29 communities.

The department said in a release an appeals period of approximately
60 days follows the courts' approval of the settlement agreement,
after which it can be implemented. [GN]

CANADA: Courts OKs Settlement Agreement to Resolve Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Canada is firmly committed to improving reliable
access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities.

The Federal Court and the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba issued
a joint decision approving an agreement to settle class-action
litigation related to safe drinking water in First Nations
communities. An appeals period of approximately 60 days will follow
the courts' approval of the settlement agreement.

The parties welcome the courts' approval of their settlement
agreement, and they look forward to implementing this historic
settlement once the appeal period concludes.

The class actions are led by representative plaintiffs Tataskweyak
Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation.

The terms of the settlement agreement were previously announced on
July 30, 2021, and include the following:

   -- $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of
clean drinking water

   -- the creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and
Cultural Restoration Fund

   -- a renewed commitment to Canada's Action Plan for the lifting
of all long-term drinking water advisories the creation of a First
Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water

   -- support for First Nations to develop their own safe drinking
water by-laws and initiatives

   -- a commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable
access to safe drinking water on reserves

   -- the planned modernization of Canada's First Nations drinking
water legislation

The Government of Canada will continue to work with all First
Nations, including Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation
and Neskantaga First Nation, to address water concerns.

Together, we will develop sustainable, long-term solutions so that
future generations do not have to worry about the safety of their
drinking water.

Quick facts

Since 2016, the Government of Canada has committed over $5.2
billion to First Nations to build and repair water and wastewater
infrastructure and support effective management and maintenance of
water systems on reserves.

In November 2019, legal action was initiated against Canada in a
proposed class action on behalf of all members of First Nations and
members resident on reserves that had a drinking water advisory for
at least one year since 1995.

In May 2020, Indigenous Services Canada consented to the
Tataskweyak Cree Nation certification order, as well as the draft
litigation plan.

On May 29, 2020, Neskantaga First Nation and Chief Christopher
Moonias were added as plaintiffs.

In September 2020, Canada expressed their consent to certification
of the Curve Lake First Nation–Neskantaga First
Nation–Tataskweyak Cree Nation proposed class-action litigation.

On October 8, 2020, certification of the class action was granted
by the court.

The Government of Canada reaches an Agreement in Principle to
resolve class-action litigation related to safe drinking water in
First Nations communities - Canada.ca
SOURCE Indigenous Services Canada

For further information: For more information, media may contact:
Andrew MacKendrick, Office of the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister
of Indigenous Services, andrew.mackendrick2@sac-isc.gc.ca; Media
Relations, Indigenous Services Canada, 819-953-1160,
SAC.media.ISC@canada.ca; For more information from counsel for
Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation and Neskantaga
First Nation, media may contact: Michael Rosenberg, Partner,
McCarthy Tetrault LLP, 416-601-7831, mrosenberg@mccarthy.ca [GN]

CAPITAL ONE: Settles Breach Class-Action Lawsuit for $190 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lananh Nguyen at New York Times reports that Capital One has agreed
to pay $190 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by
customers of the bank after a hacker stole the personal data of
more than a 100 million people in 2019.

The settlement would cover 98 million customers who were affected
by the breach, which was one of the largest data thefts from a
bank. Capital One and its cloud services provider, Amazon Web
Services, denied liability but said they would settle "in the
interest of avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of continued
litigation," according to a filing in federal court in the Eastern
District of Virginia.

Last year, the bank agreed to pay $80 million to settle regulators'
claims that it lacked proper cybersecurity procedures as it began
to use cloud storage technology.

The hacker, Paige Thompson, left an online trail for investigators
to follow as she boasted about the breach, according to court
documents in Seattle at the time. She was arrested and charged with
one count of computer fraud and abuse.

Capital One has set aside funds for the settlement and is investing
in its cybersecurity program under new leadership, it said in a
statement.

Lananh Nguyen covers Wall Street for The New York Times. She
previously spent more than a decade at Bloomberg News in New York
and London, where she wrote about banking and financial markets.
[GN]

CASELLA WASTE: Rodney Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH WILSON RODNEY, JR.,
et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00196-cr
(D. Vt.), the Plaintiffs Joseph Wilson Rodney, Jr., Rosemarie
Sibley, and Kenneth Messom ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all current and former Waste Disposal Drivers who worked
      for Casella Waste Systems, Inc., anywhere in the United
      States, at any time from August 17, 2018 through the final
      disposition of this matter" pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. approving the form of Plaintiffs' proposed Notice;

   3. setting a sixty-day notice period;

   4. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to mail, e-mail, and text-
      message the Notice at the beginning of the 60 notice
      period;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a reminder
      Notice 30 days prior to the notice deadline;

   6. directing the Defendant, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
      ("Casella") to post the Court-approved Notice in a
      conspicuous location next to the time clocks at all
      Casella worksites for the duration of the 60-day opt-in
      period; and

   7. directing Casella to produce a list of all Putative Class
      Members, in a computer-readable format (such as Excel),
      who worked for Casella at any time in the last three years
      through the final disposition of this matter, including
      each Putative Class Members' contact information
      (including their full name, job title, last known address,
      last known personal email address, telephone number, dates
      of employment, and location of employment) within 10 days
      of the Order.

Casella Waste is a waste management company based in Rutland,
Vermont, United States. Founded in 1975 with a single truck,
Casella is a regional, vertically integrated solid waste services
company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tristan Christopher Larson, Esq.
          LARSON & GALLIVAN LAW, PLC
          128 Merchants Row, Suite 405
          Rutland, VT 05701
          Telephone: (802) 779-9771
          E-mail: larson@larsongallivan.com

               - and -

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

CENTRAL FREIGHT: Terminates Employees Without Notice, Cox Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:21-cv-01295 (W.D. Tex., December 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged termination of its
employees without providing the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination, as required by the WARN Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and worked at or
reported to its facility in Waco, Texas until his termination
without cause on or about December 13, 2021.

Central Freight Lines, Inc. is an American regional
less-than-truckload (LTL) company headquartered in Waco, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason C. Webster, Esq.
         THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM
         6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 150
         Houston, TX 77036
         Telephone: (713) 581-3900
         Facsimile: (713) 581-3907
         E-mail: filing@thewebsterlawfirm.com

CHEGG INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHGG)
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Chegg securities between May 5, 2020 and
November 1, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until February 21, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint charges Chegg, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, and others with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose known adverse facts about Chegg's business, operations,
and prospects, including that: (i) Chegg's increase in subscribers,
growth, and revenue had been a temporary effect of the COVID-19
pandemic that resulted in remote education for the vast majority of
United States students and once the pandemic-related restrictions
eased and students returned to campuses nationwide, Chegg's
extraordinary growth trends would end; (ii) Chegg's subscriber and
revenue growth were largely due to the facilitation of remote
education cheating an unstable business proposition rather than the
strength of its business model or the acumen of its senior
executives and directors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
current business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong
as it had led the market to believe during the Class Period.

Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $30.64
per share, or 48.82%, to close at $32.12 per share on November 2,
2021.

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

                       About Bragar Eagel

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

CHEGG INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CHGG) in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
common stock of Chegg between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the Complaint, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: while Chegg's stock price was artificially
inflated, several officers and directors sold $95 million worth of
stock - far exceeding the amount sold in the prior comparable
period - including $48 million by the Company's Co-Chairman, CEO
and President and $25 million by the Company's President of the
Learning Services division. Certain putative class members traded
contemporaneously with these defendants and were damaged thereby.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Company took advantage
of the artificially inflated trading price of Chegg stock by
selling more than $1 billion of common stock to investors in a
February 18, 2021 secondary offering at the artificially inflated
price of $102 per share. Certain putative Class members purchased
stock directly in this secondary offering and have standing to
assert additional claims against the Company and the underwriters
of that offering pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.

On November 1, 2021, Chegg revealed its financial results for the
first quarter in which students returned to campus across the
United States, and stunned investors with fewer than- expected
enrollments and did not provide 2022 guidance. In fact, CEO and
President Dan Rosensweig admitted that defendants were aware of the
slowdown in September 2021. Chegg's stock price plummeted nearly
50% (from over $62 to $32 per share) on more than 45 times the
average daily volume as investors realized defendants' rosy
statements about subscribers, growth, and revenues had been
misleading, which decline immediately erased billions of dollars in
market capitalization.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Chegg
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
February 21, 2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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

CLEAR HOME: Faces Balducci Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BALDUCCI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR HOME, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00729-TS-CMR (D. Utah, December 14, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio Wage Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to keep complete
and accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an installation
technician from approximately Fall 2018 to November 2021.

Clear Home, Inc. is an installer of cable lines and equipment, with
its principal place of business at 135 S. Mountain Way Drive, Orem,
Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
         Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
         Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
         SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Caxton Building
         812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
         Cleveland, OH 44115
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
         E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                 rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                 kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

                  - and –

         Andrew W. Stavros, Esq.
         STAVROS LAW P.C.
         8915 South 700 East, Suite 202
         Sandy, UT 84070
         Telephone: (801) 758-7604
         Facsimile: (801) 893-3573
         E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com

COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Mahoney Wins Conditional FLSA Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE MAHONEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Case No. 8:21-cv-00023-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective class
      certification is granted.

   2. This action is certified as an Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA) collective action, consisting of:

      "All salaried persons employed in the three years
      preceding the date of this order by CommonSpirit Health
      and/or its predecessors Catholic Health Initiatives and/or
      Dignity Health in a position titled Analyst 1 or Associate
      Software Engineer."

   3. The Defendant shall produce to plaintiff the names, last
      known addresses, and all email addresses for potential
      opt-in plaintiffs, in an electronically manipulatable
      format, such as Excel, within 30 days of the date of this
      order.

   4. The Plaintiff’s proposed collective action mail and
      electronic notices, proposed mail and electronic proposed
      consents to join, proposed postcard notice, modified as
      set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are approved.

   5. The use of the internet link to electronic versions of the
      notices and consents to join and the use of DocuSign to
      facilitate electronic signature and submission of consents
      to join is approved.

   6. The Plaintiff is grated leave to send the approved notices
      to potential opt-in plaintiffs via U.S. Mail and email,
      with one follow-up notice to potential collective members
      who do not respond within 30 days of the sending of the
      Notice.

The Plaintiff Charlotte Mahoney asserts that CommonSpirit, failed
to pay her, and other similarly situated employees, lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

In her amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges CommonSpirit has a
uniform policy and practice of improperly paying their Analysts in
violation of the FLSA, including not paying them for overtime
hours. She alleges she was employed by CommonSpirit as an Epic
Analyst 1 from 2013 until March of 2020. She brings her FLSA claims
on behalf of all analysts employed by CommonSpirit at any time
within the applicable statute of limitations period, who were
classified by CommonSpirit as exempt from the overtime requirements
of the FLSA and who are entitled to payment of damages.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/311Jr09 at no extra charge.[CC]

CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE PASCAL v.
CONCENTRA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-02559-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's summary judgment motion;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion; and

   3. dismissing case with prejudice.

Accordingly, the Court concludes, as a matter of law, that
Concentra did not send the Text using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) within the meaning of Duguid and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for
summary judgment on the dispositive issue of whether the text
message that Pascal received was sent using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) within the meaning of the TCPA under
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163, 1173 (2021). Based on
the undisputed facts, the Court finds that it was not and therefore
grants Concentra’s summary judgment motion and denies Pascal's
summary judgment motion. The Court does not reach the parties'
Daubert motions.

This case involves a text message that was sent by Concentra on May
13, 2019 and received by Pascal on his mobile telephone without his
consent.

Concentra is a national health care company founded in 1979 in
Amarillo, Texas. The company is headquartered in Addison, Texas and
operates more than 520 urgent care centers in 44 states.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qpq6i8 at no extra charge.[CC]

DAVID RANDALL: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in NMIC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DAVID RANDALL ASSOCIATES, INC. et al., Case
No. 2:20-cv-04972-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Court entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

  -- All discovery shall be completed by:       Jan. 31, 2022

  -- All motions for summary judgment           Feb. 21, 2022
     and class certification shall
     be filed no later than

  -- Responses to such motions shall            March 21, 2022
     be filed no later than:

  -- Replies to such motions, if                April 4, 2022
     necessary, shall be filed no
     later than:

Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products.

Randall Associates is an award winning commercial roofing
contractor.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32thIGu at no extra charge.[CC]

DELI MANAGEMENT: Eltayeb Renewed Bid for Class Notice Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED HISHAM ELTAYEB,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DELI MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a "JASON'S DELI", Case No.
4:20-cv-00385-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant
entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion for notice to
      potential Plaintiffs;

   2. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      discovery necessary for the Court to determining whether
      Jason's Deli drivers who earned $8.65 per hour or less are
      similarly situated in a manner that would allow the Court
      to collectively answer the ultimate question of liability;
      and

   3. directing the parties to submit a joint proposal outlining
      the agreed upon discovery plan no later than 10 business
      days from the date of this Order.

This case arises from the employment relationship between Defendant
Deli Management and its delivery drivers. Jason's Deli operates
multiple restaurants and employs drivers to deliver food items to
customers. Drivers make deliveries using their own vehicles.
Jason's Deli then reimburses delivery drivers pursuant to a method
outlined in its policies. Through this policy, Jason's Deli
instructs managers to maintain a spreadsheet to track drivers'
mileage, number of deliveries, payouts per delivery, and total
payouts.

The spreadsheet is designed to ensure all payouts meet the IRS
guidelines. Plaintiff Mohamed Hisham Eltayeb brought this suit
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid minimum
wages from when he worked as a delivery driver at Jason's Deli.

Deli Management owns and operates a chain of restaurants.

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

DESIGNER BRANDS: Court Amends Initial Pretrial Order in Laguardia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al., v.
DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 2311 (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order
amending the Court's preliminary pretrial order as follows:

   -- All discovery shall be completed by June 15, 2022.

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
      certification on or before July 15, 2022.

   -- In the absence of any motion demonstrating good cause, the
      default briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule 7.2(a)
      (2) shall apply.

   -- Either party may file a motion for summary judgment on the
      remaining Count II of the First Amended Complaint on or
      before July 15, 2022.

   -- Should either party use a retained expert or experts to
      provide a declaration or report in connection with their
      class certification briefing or summary judgment briefing,
      then the other party shall be given a reasonable
      opportunity to take discovery as to that/those retained
      expert(s) before their responsive brief is due, including
      deposition(s) of that/those expert(s), and to utilize a
      rebuttal expert or experts for purposes of their
      responsive brief.

   -- All further scheduling, such as a trial date, to be
      deferred until such time as the court rules on Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Class Certification and any motion for summary
      judgment.

   -- The parties shall contact Judge Deavers' chambers,
      regarding further scheduling, within 7 days of the Court's
      ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification or
      motion for summary judgment.

Designer Brands is an American company that sells designer and name
brand shoes and fashion accessories. It owns the Designer Shoe
Warehouse store chain, and operates over 500 stores in the United
States and an e-commerce website.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3prQo48 at no extra charge.[CC]

DESKTOP METAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Desktop Metal, Inc. ("Desktop Metal") (NYSE: DM). The
action charges Desktop Metal with violations of the federal
securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. As a result of Desktop Metal's materially misleading
statements to the public, Desktop Metal investors have suffered
significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 22, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: March 15, 2021 through November 15, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

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

DESKTOP METAL'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Desktop Metal manufactures and sells additive manufacturing
solutions for engineers, designers, and manufacturers. Its
platforms include, among others, Shop System, an affordable turnkey
binding jetting platform to bring metal 3D printing to machine and
job shops. On February 16, 2021, Desktop Metal acquired
EnvisionTEC, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (collectively,
"EnvisionTEC"), a provider of volume production photopolymer 3D
printing solutions for end use parts.

On November 8, 2021, Desktop Metal revealed that "[o]n November 4,
2021, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Desktop
Metal, Inc. . . . engaged a third party to conduct an independent
internal investigation as a result of a whistleblower complaint
relating to, among other matters, manufacturing and product
compliance practices and procedures with respect to a subset of its
photopolymer equipment and materials at its EnvisionTec US LLC
facility in Dearborn, Michigan." Additionally, Desktop Metal
disclosed that the Chief Executive Officer of EnvisionTec US LLC
had resigned. Following this news, Desktop Metal's stock fell
$0.39, or 4%, to close at $8.81 per share on November 9, 2021.

Then, on November 15, 2021, Desktop Metal stated that it would
notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of "compliance issues
with certain shipments of EnvisionTEC's Flexcera dental resins and
its PCA4000 curing box." Following this news, Desktop Metal's stock
fell $1.19, or 15%, to close at $6.83 per share on November 16,
2021.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Desktop Metal investors may, no later than February 22, 2022, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Desktop Metal investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

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

DIXON ADVISORY: Faces Second Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Shapiro and Carrie LaFrenz at afr.com reports that
controversial wealth management firm Dixon Advisory is the subject
of a second class action alleging the firm provided conflicted and
misleading advice by steering clients into its US residential
property fund.

The Federal Court claim filed by class-action firm Shine Lawyers
was brought on behalf of lead plaintiff Watson & Co Superannuation
and lists Dixon Advisory Superannuation, its parent E&P Financial,
former chief executive Alan Dixon and former executive Christopher
Brown as respondents.

The filing against the once prominent self-managed superannuation
advisory firm comes after Piper Alderman filed a claim on behalf of
another client of the firm.

Shine Lawyers head of class actions Jan Saddler, who flagged the
potential for a class action in June 2019, said the claim alleged
Dixon Advisory did not comply with the Corporations Act and
regulatory guidelines when it put "its interests before the
interest of its customers".

"We are looking into how ethical their processes were and how
sufficiently they explored conflicts of interest before
administering advice to customers.

"Investors put substantial amounts of money into the group's
recommendations which resulted in significant financial losses on
risky investments," she said.

In a statement to the sharemarket on Friday, E&P Financial said the
allegations in the Shine class action were similar to those made by
Piper Alderman's action, that it was reviewing the claim and did
not propose to provide any commentary.

"In addition, E&P Financial does not make any comment in relation
to whether and if so, how Mr Alan Dixon and Mr Christopher Brown
will respond to the proceeding," the statement said.

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

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

In July, after months of mediation, Dixon Advisory agreed to a $7.2
million settlement with the corporate regulator over its investment
advice.

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

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

After the merger, Mr Dixon became the CEO of the wealth manager.

In June 2019 Mr Dixon stepped down as CEO to focus his attention on
the residential fund that went by the code of URF, but by August
left the fund. He has since pocketed $18.6 million through the sale
of his stake, just before ASIC started its civil action.

On Friday, shares in E&P Financial traded 5.79 per cent higher at
64 cents. [GN]

DOCUSIGN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against DocuSign, Inc. ("DocuSign" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
DOCU) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired DocuSign securities between March 27, 2020 and
December 2, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until February 21, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's
business was positive, not negative; (2) DocuSign misrepresented
the role that the Covid-19 pandemic had on its growth; (3) DocuSign
downplayed the impact that a "return to normal" would have on the
Company's growth and business; and (4) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or
over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021,
damaging investors.

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

                  About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

DOCUSIGN INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against DocuSign, Inc. ("DOCU" or the "Company") (NYSE:
DOCU) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
common stock of DocuSign between March 27, 2020 and December 2,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the Complaint, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: specifically, while warning that the Covid-19
pandemic presented a material adverse risk to DocuSign's prospects,
Defendants omitted to disclose that: (1) the impact of the Covid-19
pandemic on DocuSign's business was actually positive, not
negative; (2) DocuSign misrepresented the role that the Covid-19
pandemic had on its growth; (3) DocuSign downplayed the impact that
a 'return to normal' would have on the Company's growth and
business; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

The truth emerged on December 2, 2021, when DocuSign released
disappointing 3Q 2022 results, announcing that it sustained a
significant deceleration in billings growth that would continue
into Q4 2022. The company blamed the poor results and dismal
outlook on "a reduction of that really heightened COVID buying,
which drove our growth rates dramatically higher than they had ever
been even as we got bigger."

On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or
over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021,
damaging investors

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving DocuSign and its
management first saw signs of the company's billings growth
deceleration much earlier," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of DocuSign
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
February 22, 2022 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]

DOCUSIGN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of February 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges DocuSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:DOCU) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Mar. 27, 2020 - Dec. 2, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Feb. 22, 2022

Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/DOCU

Contact An Attorney Now:DOCU@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

DocuSign, Inc. (DOCU) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's
business.

Specifically, while warning that the Covid-19 pandemic presented a
material adverse risk to DocuSign's prospects, Defendants omitted
to disclose that: (1) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
DocuSign's business was positive, not negative; (2) DocuSign
misrepresented the role that the Covid-19 pandemic had on its
growth; (3) DocuSign downplayed the impact that a 'return to
normal' would have on the Company's growth and business; and (4) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times

The truth emerged on Dec. 2, 2021, when DocuSign released
disappointing 3Q 2022 results, announcing that it sustained a
significant deceleration in billings growth that would continue
into Q4 2022. The company blamed the poor results and dismal
outlook on "a reduction of that really heightened COVID buying,
which drove our growth rates dramatically higher than they had ever
been even as we got bigger."

On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or
over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021,
damaging investors

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving DocuSign and its
management first saw signs of the company's billings growth
deceleration much earlier," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in DocuSign and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
DocuSign should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email DOCU@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]

DOCUSIGN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
DocuSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOCU) securities between March 27, 2020 and
December 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
February 22, 2022 to seek appointment in Collins v. DocuSign, Inc.,
No. 21-cv-07071 (E.D.N.Y.). Commenced on December 22, 2021, the
DocuSign class action lawsuit charges DocuSign and certain of its
top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the DocuSign class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the DocuSign class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than February 22, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: DocuSign offers a broad cloud-based software
suite that enables users to automate the agreement process and
provide legally binding e-signatures from nearly any device.

The DocuSign class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
DocuSign's business was positive, not negative; (ii) DocuSign
misrepresented the role that the Covid-19 pandemic had on its
growth; (iii) DocuSign downplayed the impact that a "return to
normal" would have on DocuSign's growth and business; and (iv) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 2, 2021, DocuSign revealed that its anticipated growth
for the fourth quarter of 2022 would be lower than expected.
Discussing this slowdown, DocuSign's CEO, defendant Daniel D.
Springer, stated that the growth boost from the Covid-19 pandemic
had deteriorated earlier than expected - a growth boost that
DocuSign did not acknowledge until this point. That same day,
DocuSign also announced guidance for the fourth quarter fiscal year
2022, providing midpoint revenue guidance of $560 million, missing
analysts' consensus estimates of $573.8 million. DocuSign's
guidance also provided a midpoint billing guidance of $653 million,
missing consensus estimates of $705.4 million. On this news,
DocuSign's stock price fell by more than 42%, damaging investors.

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

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

ENTERGY CORP: Court Fixes Class Cert. Deadline in Stewart Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY J. STEWART, et
al., v. ENTERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01834-EEF-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Eldon E. Fallon entered an order granting an
unopposed motion to continue a Local Rule 23.1 deadline filed by
the Putative Class Plaintiffs.

The class certification deadline shall be 90 days after a decision
on the motion to remand, Judge Fallon says.

Entergy is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in
electric power production and retail distribution operations in the
Deep South of the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33W7gaT at no extra charge.[CC]

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Final Judgment Entered in Bear Creek Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEAR CREEK BIBLE CREEK, et
al., v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00824-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed C. O'Connor
entered final judgment as follows:

   1. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on
      standing, ripeness, and sovereign immunity is denied.

   2. The Plaintiffs' Religious Business-Type Employers Class is
      certified.

   3. The Plaintiffs' All Opposing Employers Class is certified
      as to Claims 4 and 5.

   4. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as
      to Bear Creek Church and the Church-Type Employers Class,
      because these employers are not burdened by Title VII.

   5. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as
      to the Religious Business-Type Employers Class, and those
      in that class are protected by the Religious Freedom
      Restoration Act and the First Amendment.

   6. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as
      to employer policies on sexual conduct, dress codes, and
      restrooms. These policies do not violate Title VII as a
      matter of law.

   7. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as
      to employer policies concerning bisexual conduct, sex-
      reassignment surgery, and hormone treatment.

This is a final judgment that fully and finally resolves all
remaining parties and claims to this suit and may be appealed. All
relief not herein granted is denied, Judge O'Connor says.

On November 22, 2021, the Court issued an Amended Memorandum
Opinion and Order.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal
agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace
discrimination.

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


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Briefing Sched OK'd in Dimercurto
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dimercurto, et al., v.
Equilon Enterprises LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-04029 (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting
stipulation requesting briefing schedule on class certification of
the waiting time penalties claim.

The nature of suit states labor litigation.

Equilon Enterprises LLC is an oil refining and marketing
company.[CC]


FARADAY FUTURE: Glancy Prongay LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California captioned Zhou v. Faraday Future
Intelligent Electric Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-9914) on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. ("Faraday" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FFIE) f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition
Corp. ("PSAC") securities between January 28, 2021 and November 15,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

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

On October 7, 2021, J Capital Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Faraday Future was unlikely to ever sell a
car, noting that after eight years in business, the Company has
"failed to deliver a car," "has reneged on promises to build
factories in five localities in the U.S. and China," "is being sued
by dozens of unpaid suppliers," and "has failed to disclose that
assets in China have been frozen by courts." Moreover, the report
alleged that Faraday Future's claimed 14,000 deposits are
fabricated because 78% of these reservations were made by a single
undisclosed company that is likely an affiliate. The report further
alleges that contrary to representations of progress toward
manufacturing made by Faraday Future in September 2021, former
engineering executives did not believe that the car was ready for
production.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35 per share, or
more than 4%, to close at $8.05 per share on October 8, 2021.

On November 15, 2021, Faraday Future announced that it would be
unable to file its Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September
30, 2021 on time. Faraday Future further announced that its board
of directors "formed a special committee of independent directors
to review allegations of inaccurate disclosures," including the
claims in the J Capital report.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.28 per share, or
approximately 3%, to close at $8.83 per share on November 16,
2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had assets in China frozen by
courts, (2) that a significant percentage of its deposits for
future deliveries were attributable to a single undisclosed
affiliate; (3) that the Company's cars were not as close to
production as the Company claimed; (4) that, as a result of
previously issued statements that were misleading and/or
inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly
report; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Faraday securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Crutchfield Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barney Crutchfield, v.
Stacy Fleiner, et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00515-WHA-JTA (M.D. Ala.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion
for class certification.

Crutchfield filed this action against certain named employees
("Named Defendants") of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")
challenging the actions of the Named Defendants in their
implementing the directives of the Attorney peneral and the stated
policies of the BOP regarding how to evaluate inmates for possible
placement to home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and
Economic Security (CARES) Act.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for
the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3evAH5q at no extra charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to July 18, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL GARCIA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00135-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta entered an order granting parties'
stipulated motion to continue certain deadlines in first case
management and scheduling order as follows:

   (a) the Class Certification Discovery Deadline is continued
       to May 18, 2022;

   (b) the Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline is
       continued to July 18, 2022;

   (c) the Class Certification Opposition Deadline is continued
       to September 15, 2022; and

   (d) the Class Certification Hearing Deadline is continued to
       December 19, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. before the undersigned, 1
       absent further order by the "to be assigned" district
       judge.

First Advantage is a global consumer reporting agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/311BJ6n at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRST FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 23, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND V, LLC; and GURSTEL LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00078-TS-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Jared C.
Bennett entered an order granting stipulated joint motion to:

   (1) stay fact discovery pending disposition of the
       defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings; and

   (2) extend deadline for filing for class certification until
       and through September 23, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pDq4nT at no extra charge.[CC]


FIRST FINANCIAL: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA JACKSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND V, LLC AND GURSTEL LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00078-TS-JCB (D. Utah), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order granting their stipulated joint motion to:

   1. Stay fact discovery pending disposition of the defendants'
      motion for judgment on the pleadings; and

   2. Extension of deadline for filing for class
      certification until and through September 23, 2022.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          E-mail: david@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW GROUP
          290 25th St., Suite 102
          Ogden, UT84401
          E-mail: therondmorrison@gmail.com

The Attorneys for Defendants are:

          Kyle Thompson, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          6550 South Millrock Drive, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84121
          Telephone: (801) 562-5555
          Facsimile: (801) 562-5510
          E-mail: Kyle.Thompson@lewisbrisbois.com

The Attorneys for Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., are:

          Manuel H. Newburger, esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          7320 N. MoPac Expy., Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 649-4022
          Facsimile: (512) 279-0310
          E-mai l: mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com

FOGO DE CHAO: Seeks Until Jan. 5 to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN GARCIA-ALVAREZ,
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (PITTSBURGH) LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00124-ALM (E.D. Tex.),
the parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines
for the Defendants to file their response to the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective Action and for the Plaintiff to file his Reply thereto.


The Plaintiff filed his certification motion in this matter on
December 8, 2021. This filing date was based on the Court granting
the Plaintiff an initial 10-day extension to file the certification
motion.

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(e), the Defendants' Response to the
Certification Motion was due December 22, 2021. Assuming that the
Defendants file their Response on that date, the Plaintiff's Reply,
pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(f), would be due on or before December
29.

Due to the nature of the underlying allegations, the intervening
holidays, and previously scheduled conflicts of the Defendants'
counsel, the Defendants request an extension until January 5, 2022,
of the time to provide their Response to the Certification Motion,
and that Plaintiff be granted until January 19 to serve its Reply
to the Defendants' Response.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adeash Lakraj, Esq.
          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999 ext. 416
          Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
          E-mail: alakraj@theleachfirm.com
                  cleach@theleachfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary Ruth Houston, Esq.
          Paul J. Scheck, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 423-3200
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8316
          E-mail: mhouston@shutts.com
                  pscheck@shutts.com

GC PIZZA: Rodriguez Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GREGORY CUTCHALL, Individually, and GC PIZZA LLC, doing business as
Domino's Pizza, Case No. 4:20-cv-03106-JMG-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge John M. Gerrard entered an order that:

   1. The defendants' objection is overruled.

   2. The Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation are
      adopted.

   3. The plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification
      is granted, for the following opt-in class for collective
      action:

      "All current and former delivery drivers who were employed
      or are now employed by Gregory Cutchall or GC Pizza LLC
      from December 14, 2018 to the present."

   4. On or before December 28, 2021, the defendants shall
      produce to the plaintiff the names, last known addresses,
      email addresses, and dates of birth of all putative class
      members, along with their dates of employment and the
      location and number of the stores where they worked.

   5. The plaintiff is authorized to send the proposed Notice
      and Consent forms (filing 48-1; filing 48-2), subject to
      including the name of the employer in the "To" line, to
      all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

   6. The opt-in period for joining the conditional class shall
      be 90 days from the sending of the Notice and Consent
      forms.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z15znT at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over AFM Lifter Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Cornett at corvetteblogger.com reports that all six years of
the seventh generation Corvette are among the cars included in a
class action lawsuit filed against General Motors, alleging that a
lifter recall should be ordered for GM vehicles with 5.3-liter,
6.0-liter, or 6.2-liter V8 engines.

The suit was filed by nine plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan: Harrison, et al., v. General
Motors LLC.

At issue are the valve train systems, active fuel management
lifters, and dynamic fuel management lifters, said in the suit to
be defective in certain Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC
vehicles.

The plaintiffs want to see a lifter recall issued for the following
vehicles:

2014-present Cadillac Escalade
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2014-present Chevrolet Silverado
2014-present Chevrolet Silverado 1500
2014-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2014-present Chevrolet Suburban
2014-present Chevrolet Tahoe
2016-present Chevrolet Camaro
2014-present Chevrolet Camaro SS
2014-2016 Chevrolet Corvette
2014 to present GMC Sierra
2014 to present GMC Sierra 1500
2014-present GMC Yukon
2014-present Yukon XL

The suit alleges the defective nature of the valve train systems -
which are designed to control some of the 16 lifters periodically
to decrease fuel consumption by keeping some of the valves from
opening and allowing fuel to enter when only partial power is
required, such as during highway cruising.

According to the suit, these systems consist of software run by the
engine control module, specially designed and manufactured lifters,
and other valve train components like the valve lifter oil
manifold.

The suit alleges that these systems malfunction and prematurely
fail for several reasons, including non-conforming design
specifications, failure to account for the expansion and
contraction rates of the lifters and the engine block, and failure
to consider the increased pressure on the AFM lifters.

Replacement parts provided by GM have been shown to be equally
defective and continue to fail, causing a ticking noise from the
engine, the plaintiffs allege.

While a lifter recall hasn't been issued by GM, the company has
agreed to cover repairs through extended warranties known as
Component Coverage, if vehicle owners have had two or more repairs
at dealerships for the valve train and lifter problems. The suit
argues, however, that the extended coverage is only provided if the
owner has already repaired the damage twice. [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Napoli-Bosse Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marlaina A. Napoli-Bosse,
on behalf of herself :and all others similarly situated, v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01720-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   "All persons or entities in the United States who bought or
   leased a 2017-2018 GMC Acadia (the "Nationwide Class")."

In the alternative, in the event that the Court declines to certify
the Nationwide Class, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
Court certify, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5), a class of:

   "All persons or entities in the state of Connecticut who
   bought or leased a 2017-2018 GMC Acadia (the "Connecticut
   Sub-Class")."

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jk4ufD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Markovits, Esq.
          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

IMPAX LABORATORIES: $33MM Settlement to be Heard on March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

GREG FLEMING, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

IMPAX LABORATORIES INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-06557-HSG
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

If you purchased or acquired Impax Laboratories, Inc. (now known as
Impax Laboratories, LLC) ("Impax") Common Stock or 2% convertible
Senior Notes from February 20, 2014 through August 9, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class"), you could receive a payment from a class
action settlement.  Certain persons are excluded from the
definition of the class as set forth in the stipulation of
settlement.

YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN
THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as
a class action for the purposes of settlement only and that a
Settlement has been proposed for $33,000,000.00 in cash.  A hearing
will be held on March 31, 2022, 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., at the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, Oakland
Courthouse, Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
CA 94612, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (3) the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the
Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, should be
approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not received
a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may
obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator: Impax Securities Settlement, c/o JND Legal
Administration, PO Box 91417, Seattle, WA 98111; 1-833-823-0051.
You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice
and Proof of Claim at www.ImpaxSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim by mail postmarked no later than March 21, 2022, or submit it
online by that date.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a
valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be
bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation
(including the releases provided for therein).

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a written request
for exclusion so that it is received by March 4, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you
will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this
Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim.  If you submit a written request
for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to
the Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of
Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be
filed with the Court no later than March 4, 2022.

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

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         LUKE O. BROOKS
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA  92101

or go to www.ImpaxSecuritiesSettlement.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION


JAMES FRANCO: Breaks Silence, Admits to Sleeping With Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
npr.org reports that in a rare and wide-ranging interview, James
Franco acknowledged he slept with students of the acting school he
co-owned, saying he believed their encounters to be consensual
despite the striking imbalance of power.

The Oscar-nominated actor has faced several allegations of sexual
misconduct since 2018 -- which he denied at the time -- and earlier
this year settled a class-action lawsuit led by two former students
who claimed they were sexually exploited and victims of fraud at
the now-closed school.

Franco addressed those allegations and his struggles with sex
addiction, among other topics, in an interview with The Jess Cagle
Show, which posted several clips of the conversation to YouTube on
Wednesday ahead of its full release on Thursday afternoon.

"There were people who were upset with me and I needed to listen,"
Franco said when asked why he had been silent until now. "I've just
been doing a lot of work and I guess I'm pretty confident in
saying, four years? There were some issues that I had to deal with
that were also related to addiction. And so I've really used my
recovery background to kind of start examining this and changing
who I was."

The lawsuit focused on his acting school and a class called "Sex
Scenes"
The 2019 lawsuit alleged that Franco and two other men sexually
exploited female students at Studio 4, a New York- and Los
Angeles-based acting school Franco founded in 2014 (he taught
acting there and also at the collegiate level).

The plaintiffs, Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal, sought to
represent a class of more than 100 former female students. They
alleged the school set out to "create a steady stream of young
women to objectify and exploit," as well as "circumvent
California's 'pay for play' regulations," which prohibit making
actors pay for auditions. They told NPR in 2019 that they were
promised that as paying students, they would be offered
opportunities to audition for roles in Franco's projects.

Part of the complaint involved a class called Sex Scenes, which
required students to audition and pay an extra $750. Tither-Kaplan
said she assumed the class would teach her how to navigate sex
scenes professionally, but that she found its goal to be more for
students to "get naked and do sex scenes and not complain and push
the envelope."

Franco denied the lawsuit's allegations at the time, with his
attorney also saying he would seek damages from the plaintiffs and
their lawyers "for filing this scurrilous publicity seeking
lawsuit." The women dropped their claims in Feb. 2021 after the
parties reached a preliminary settlement, and Franco officially
agreed to settle the suit for $2.2 million in late June.

"I didn't sleep with anybody in that particular class, but over the
course of my teaching I did sleep with students, and that was
wrong," Franco said in one video clip. "But . . . it's not why I
started the school, and I wasn't the person that selected the
people to be in the class. So it wasn't a master plan on my part,
but yes, there were certain instances where . . . I was in a
consensual thing with a student and I shouldn't have been."

Cagle pushed back, asking Franco how he could not have been aware
of the power imbalance between students and their teacher, a very
famous actor.

"I suppose at the time my thinking was if it's consensual, OK,"
Franco said. "Of course I knew, you know, talking to other people,
other teachers or whatever, like, yeah, it's probably not a cool
thing. At the time I was not clear-headed. . . so I guess it just
comes down to, my criteria was, like, if this is consensual I think
it's cool, we're all adults."

Franco also characterized the sex scenes class as provocatively
titled, saying it was about dating and relationships and should
have been called something more along the lines of "contemporary
romance."

In a statement, a group of former students involved in the
litigation against Franco called his comments "a transparent
ducking of the real issues."

"In addition to being blind about power dynamics, Franco is
completely insensitive to, and still apparently does not care
about, the immense pain and suffering he put his victims through
with this sham of an acting school," the former students said. "It
is unbelievable that even after agreeing to a settlement he
continues to downplay the survivors' experiences and ignore their
pain, despite acknowledging he had no business starting such a
school in the first place. This wasn't a misunderstanding over a
course name, it wasn't the result of him being overworked - it was,
and is, despicable conduct."

Franco discussed his sex addiction and its impact on his personal
and professional relationships
At another point, Franco acknowledged he had "let a lot of people
down," like his students, the Oscars and his coworkers on various
movies. Franco talked about being overworked and approaching his
breaking point while juggling a Broadway show, movie filming and
teaching at four Los Angeles schools.

A year before the misconduct allegations emerged, he said, one of
his agents staged an intervention about him being a workaholic.

He talked about struggles with addiction, first to alcohol and then
to sex. He said after he got sober at the age of 17, he sought
validation from his professional success and then with attention
from women. The problem, he said, is that "there's never enough."

Franco acknowledged he wasn't faithful in relationships, saying he
cheated on "everyone" before his current girlfriend. He said his
sponsor had suggested that infidelity and dishonesty could harm his
sobriety but wasn't concerned about "whatever happens between two
consenting adults" while single. Franco said he used that as "an
excuse to just hook up all over the place."

"It was like, 'Well, we're being honest here, right,' and like you
said, completely blind to power dynamics or anything like that, but
also completely blind to people's feelings," he said, adding that
his behavior reached a point where he was "hurting everybody."

He also spoke about his longtime friend and collaborator, Seth
Rogen, who said earlier this year that he did not plan to work with
Franco again in the wake of the sexual misconduct allegations.

"I love Seth Rogen," Franco said. "I worked with him for 20 years,
we didn't have one fight . . . He was my absolute closest work
friend, collaborator, we just gelled. And what he said is true, we
aren't working together right now and we don't have any plans to
work together."

Franco said that while Rogen's comments were hurtful, he understood
that Rogen had to answer for him because he himself was silent. He
added that that's another reason he wanted to speak up -- "so
people don't have to answer for me anymore." [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Springfield, Mo. Signs Onto Opioid Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sullender at Springfield News-Leader reports that just
before an end-of-year deadline, Springfield signed on to get funds
from a national class-action settlement against opioid
manufacturers -- and blamed Attorney General Eric Schmitt for not
providing proper guidance on the settlement to Missouri cities and
towns.

As the crisis of opioid addiction swept the nation, governments
across America, including Springfield and Missouri, filed suit
against opioid manufacturer and pharmaceutical giant Johnson &
Johnson and several drug distributors. More than 3,000 of these
cases were combined into a single class-action lawsuit.

"Opioids, which include heroin but also painkillers such as
morphine and hydrocodone, affect the part of the brain that
controls breathing. An overdose can lead to respiratory arrest and
cardiac arrest. Opioid dependency in the United States has
triggered a national crisis," said a city press release explaining
Springfield's participation in the settlement.

According to Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services,
1,132 Missourians died of an opioid overdose in 2018, which is one
out of every 56 deaths in the state. Nationally, nearly 130 people
died every day from opioid overdose in 2018.

The class-action case was settled for $26 billion in July. But
states and municipalities must each agree to the settlement before
Jan 2, 2022 to receive the largest amount of funds possible for
their state.

Just before an end-of-year deadline, Springfield signed on to get
funds from a national class-action settlement against opioid
manufacturers -- and blamed Attorney General Eric Schmitt for not
providing proper guidance on the settlement to Missouri cities and
towns.

As the crisis of opioid addiction swept the nation, governments
across America, including Springfield and Missouri, filed suit
against opioid manufacturer and pharmaceutical giant Johnson &
Johnson and several drug distributors. More than 3,000 of these
cases were combined into a single class-action lawsuit.

"Opioids, which include heroin but also painkillers such as
morphine and hydrocodone, affect the part of the brain that
controls breathing. An overdose can lead to respiratory arrest and
cardiac arrest. Opioid dependency in the United States has
triggered a national crisis," said a city press release explaining
Springfield's participation in the settlement.

According to Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services,
1,132 Missourians died of an opioid overdose in 2018, which is one
out of every 56 deaths in the state. Nationally, nearly 130 people
died every day from opioid overdose in 2018.

The class-action case was settled for $26 billion in July. But
states and municipalities must each agree to the settlement before
Jan 2, 2022 to receive the largest amount of funds possible for
their state.

According to the Missouri Attorney General's website, if all
Missouri municipalities agree to the settlement before the Jan. 2
deadline, then the state will receive at least $457 million. If no
municipalities sign on, that number would fall to just $243.5
million.

"The settlement is structured so that states receive more
settlement funds if a higher percentage of their political
subdivisions agree to participate, and political subdivisions
receive incentive settlement funds if they agree to participate by
Jan. 2, 2022. . ." said city attorney Rhonda Lewsader at a special
city council meeting Tuesday. "If an insufficient number of states
and political subdivisions choose to participate, the settlement
agreement will collapse."

In their special session, Springfield city council approved the
city's participation in the settlement, but criticized Attorney
General Eric Schmitt for his handling of the issue.

"The state of Missouri has chosen to participate in the global
settlement agreement. However, the state of Missouri did not
provide allocation terms or draft agreements for political
subdivisions for much of the 120-day period during which political
subdivisions had to consider whether to participate," Lewsader
said.

As of Dec. 22, the Attorney General website dedicated to the
settlement, https://ago.mo.gov/opioidsettlement, appears to be
unchanged since Missouri agreed to it this summer.

A tab titled "Sign On Progress" only says to "check back in for
subdivision sign-on progress" at a later time.

Also, state-specific documents for Missouri have not been submitted
on the National Opioids Settlement website.

According to the city, Springfield was waiting to sign on to the
settlement until they received further guidance from Schmitt, but
decided to go ahead when guidance did not materialize only days
before the Jan. 2 deadline.

"Although insufficient information has been provided to political
subdivisions in Missouri regarding their allocation by the state,
the City has been advised by outside legal counsel to preserve its
right to incentive settlement funds that would help combat the
opioid epidemic in our community," Lewsader said.

According to an August press release from Schmitt, his office
planned to encourage Missouri municipalities approval of the
settlement with a "full-court press."

"This money will provide desperately needed funding for treatment
and recovery programs, as well as needed funding for law
enforcement, drug courts, and other resources," said Attorney
General Schmitt when announcing the settlement over the summer.

"Now that I have signed the term sheet for both settlements, it's
critical that subdivisions sign on to our settlement. In order to
get the full amount of money to aid victims of opioid addiction and
abuse, my Office will proactively engage stakeholders and
subdivisions to ensure full sign on. My Office will never stop
working to fight the opioid crisis and provide needed financial aid
to opioid abatement and treatment programs and services across the
state."

Schmitt's announcement also noted that if all of Missouri's
municipalities do not sign on, the funds Missouri receives "could
be halved." It's unknown how many Missouri political subdivisions
have signed onto the settlement so far.

In a statement to the News-Leader, the Attorney General's office
thanked Springfield for signing on to the settlement but did not
respond to the city's criticisms.

"We're pleased the Springfield has signed on to our opioid
settlement, as this settlement means much needed funds to resources
for those suffering from opioid addiction and abuse," the office's
statement read.

At the special city council meeting approving Springfield's
participation in the settlement, Councilmember Craig Hosmer also
criticized state government for the amount of opioid settlement
funds the state plans to give municipalities like Springfield.

"Eighty-five percent (of the settlement) would be kept by the state
even though our law enforcement agencies are the ones dealing
predominantly with opioid problems, our health department, our
hospitals are first responders. It doesn't seem like it's an
equitable distribution of resources. Local communities should be
there at the tip of the spear of fighting the problem of opioids,"
Hosmer said.

Mayor McClure agreed, saying he thinks the local allocation should
be between 20 and 25 percent.

Lewsader noted the distribution of funds within Missouri was still
being negotiated and that municipalities could still receive more
than 15 percent of the funds the state receives. [GN]

KROGER CO: Extension of Class Certification Bid Deadline Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, DONNA JUEL,
RICK VENEMAN, PAUL RUGGLES, ROBERT ANDERSON, ARLENE JOHNSTON, HOLLY
SIMONE, KATHLEEN ZACH, MICHAEL TEEGARDEN, CAROLYN ESPINOZA, DENISE
CONROY, individually and on, behalf of other customers, v. THE
KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AC (D. Or.), the
parties jointly move the Court for an order under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b) and LR 16-3 extending the Class Certification Fact Discovery
and Motion for Class Certification deadlines in the Court's
September 14, 2021, Second Amended Scheduling Order from December
16, 2021 to February 23, 2022, and from December 22, 2021, to
February 28, 2022, respectively.

The parties also stipulate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a) that
Defendant may take more than ten depositions as part of Class
Certification Fact Discovery, subject to resolution of the parties'
present dispute regarding the depositions of currently named
Plaintiffs whom Plaintiffs say they intend to remove as named
Plaintiffs and putative class representatives..

Kroger is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in
1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Nichols, Esq.
          HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP
          15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 250
          Portland, OR 97224
          Telephone: (503) 334-0611
          E-mail: dan@hbclawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael Fuller, Esqq.
          OLSENDAINES
          US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 222-2000
          E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com

               - and -

          Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
          Telephone: (503) 847-4329
          E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com

               - and -

          Young Walgenkim, Esq.
          Telephone: (503) 383-1496
          E-mail: young@hansonwalgenkim.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
          Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
          Portland, OR 97201-5610
          Telephone: (503) 241-2300
          E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
                  fredburnside@dwt.com

               - and -

          Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
          James H. Moon, Esq.
          Peter Bae, Esq.
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          E-mail: jharper@dwt.com
                  jamesmoon@dwt.com
                  peterbae@dwt.com

MARATHON DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Marathon Patent
Group, Inc. ("Marathon") (NASDAQ: MARA). The action charges
Marathon with violations of the federal securities laws, including
omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the
company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Marathon's materially misleading statements to the public, Marathon
investors have suffered significant losses.

TO VIEW OUR VIDEO, PLEASE CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR MARATHON LOSSES

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 15, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: October 13, 2020 through November 15, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com

MARATHON'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Marathon is a digital asset technology company that primarily
engages in mining cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain
ecosystem and the generation of digital assets. On October 13,
2020, Marathon issued a press release announcing the formation of
the Beowulf Joint Venture. That press release represented that the
Beowulf Joint Venture was "focused on delivering low cost power to
Marathon's Bitcoin mining operations [,]" while also asserting
various purported benefits that would flow to Marathon in
connection with that joint venture.

On November 15, 2021, the truth regarding the Beowulf Joint Venture
was revealed when Marathon reported its third-quarter 2021
financial results through the filing of a Form 10-Q. In the report,
Marathon disclosed that the company received a subpoena from the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") seeking documents
concerning its Hardin, Montana data center. Specifically, Marathon
revealed that "during the quarter ended September 30, 2021,
[Marathon] and certain of its executives received a subpoena to
produce documents and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana
data center facility described in [Marathon's] Form 8-K dated
October 13, 2020." The report went on to disclose that Marathon
understands "that the SEC may be investigating whether or not there
may have been any violations of the federal securities law."

Following this news, Marathon stock fell $20.52, or 27%, to close
at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Marathon investors may, no later than February 15, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Marathon investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

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

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

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

MARYLAND: Jobless Workers Sue Over Delayed Unemployment Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ovetta Wiggins at washingtonpost.com reports that Matthew Bosley
made hundreds of unanswered calls to Maryland unemployment after he
lost his job as a manager at a staffing company at the start of the
pandemic. Most of the time the line was busy. Other times he sat on
hold -- for hours.

Like tens of thousands of other jobless workers, he wanted to find
out why his benefits were delayed. Two months after filing and
having to dip into his savings, Bosley received some money; but
then about a year later, he was told that he had been overpaid and
owed tens of thousands of dollars to the state.

He tried contacting the state Department of Labor with little
success. Then he filed suit, joining a growing list of at least a
dozen federal cases across the country seeking redress after the
red tape and tumult that left millions of jobless Americans in an
anxiety-ridden waiting game. Lawyers in case filings argue that
Maryland's delays in issuing benefits violate federal law and the
U.S. Constitution.

At the core of the legal challenge is the requirement under the
federal-state unemployment system, established by Congress during
the Great Depression, to provide prompt payments as
"administratively feasible" to jobless workers. During the
pandemic, Maryland and other states across the country were deluged
with claims (in the first three months of the pandemic, Maryland
received as many claims as it did in all of 2019). Its antiquated
system could not handle the surge, and its updated portal
repeatedly malfunctioned.

The delays led to rallies and legislative hearings where hundreds
of people struggling to make ends meet pleaded for help.

Bosley is one of six named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
filed in U.S. district court last month against Maryland Labor
Secretary Tiffany Robinson over a slew of problems unemployed
workers had over the past two years -- from delayed payments to
unexplained overpayment notices and discontinued benefits.

David Rodwin, an attorney with the Public Justice Center, which is
representing the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs want the
department to fix its system by ensuring that unemployment benefits
are paid within 21 days of an applicant's filing; suspended
benefits are restored within two business days; and if benefits are
placed on hold for more than 14 days, the applicant is given a
written explanation.

"For tens of thousands of Marylanders, the system has failed
completely: either their claims for benefits have languished for
months or their benefits have been suddenly cut off for similar
periods without notice or explanation," the lawsuit reads.

The state has added staff to its call centers and expanded
operating hours. But state officials have said that Maryland's law
hampers efforts for an applicant to get a faster response because
it is one of four "mitigation" states that require adjudicators to
determine if there are factors that led to a denied claim.

A spokesman for the state Department of Labor said the department
has no comment on the ongoing case.

The plaintiffs, who live in Baltimore City and Prince George's,
Montgomery and Anne Arundel counties, represent three classes
affected by the troubled system over the past three years. They
are: those whose benefits were delayed, those whose benefits were
discontinued without "an appealable determination," and those who
were told they received overpayments and weren't given any
explanation about the alleged overpayments or information on how
they could appeal the decisions.

Bosley, who initially contacted the agency about his delayed
payment, learned a year later that he allegedly owed $36,854.40 to
the state in an overpayment and interest fees.

"It's like a cloud over my head," said Bosley, 24, who said he
worked through college and graduated from Salisbury University with
no student debt.

The suit claims that tens of thousands of jobless workers received
overpayment notices without an opportunity to contest them, which
lawyers say is a violation of their statutory rights and
constitutional right to due process of law.

It also claims that many Maryland residents who needed benefits
never received them and that others got financial help that ended
without explanation.

Baltimore's Mosby accuses Hogan of racially charged
'dog-whistling'

The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the state from sending
overpayment notices and to suspend the collection of allegedly
overpaid benefits, including by intercepting tax refunds and
reducing ongoing benefits.

"Unemployment insurance is a critical safety net for workers,
enabling them to buy food and pay rent, and tiding them over until
their next job. The system must work for people, not against them,"
said attorney Tyra Robinson, also with the Public Justice Center.
"Marylanders cannot afford for the unemployment insurance system to
utterly fail. We're suing to fix the system."

Rodwin said both parties have agreed to mediation, which is
expected to run through early January. He said many jobless workers
are still caught in red tape.

According to court documents, Robinson says the state has already
taken "substantial steps" to deal with the problems that plagued
the system during the health crisis and the "dramatic increases in
unemployment applications and dramatic increase in unemployment
fraud." Still, she said, she is interested in additional
improvements. She rejects the notion that a class action is
warranted or that the defendants can prove irreparable injury.

The lawsuit isn't the first filed by the Public Justice Center, an
advocacy group that promotes anti-poverty and racial equity, over
unemployment benefits.

Earlier this year, the center was one of two organizations
representing unemployed workers that was successful in challenging
Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) decision to terminate enhanced federal
benefits early.

In July, a Baltimore Circuit Court judge blocked the move, ruling
that the "personal magnitude of the harm" to unemployed workers
outweighed the potential fiscal impact a preliminary injunction
would have on the state. He also found that the plaintiffs showed a
likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Maryland labor
secretary is bound under state unemployment law to accept federal
benefits.

Hogan had planned to pull out of the federal program July 3, about
two months before it was set to expire. He argued that the state's
economic recovery depended on unemployed workers returning to the
workforce and that the extra benefits were keeping them from going
back to work.

Maryland was one of about 25 Republican-led states where the
governor moved to end the benefits before the Sept. 6 deadline that
was imposed by the Biden administration.

Bosley said recently that he received a call back from the state
Labor Department about a month ago. Officials there said he can
apply for a waiver of the overpayment, something that he said he
had not been told before the lawsuit.

He said he is concerned about others who might be in a similar
situation.

"It shouldn't take a federal lawsuit to receive a phone call from
the Maryland Department of Labor," he said.[GN]

MDL 2642: Cipro/Levaquin Product Row Transferred to D. Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------
In case "In Re: Fluoroquinolone Products Liability Litigation," MDL
No. 2642, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers case docketed
"McKinley v. Johnson & Johnson, et. al., Case No. 4:21−06243,
N.D. Cal.) to the District of Minnesota and assigning them to Judge
John R. Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer
HealthCare LLC move to transfer said case to the District of
Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 2642. Janssen support transfer
while McKinley opposes transfer stating that his injuries are
numerous and varied, and thus differ from the "narrow and specific"
peripheral neuropathy condition at issue in the MDL, listing a
total of 40 conditions that include mainly mental health and sleep
disorders, injuries to the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular
systems, and damage to other body systems.

The panel contends that the McKinley action involves common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2642, and
that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Centralization was warranted for actions alleging that
"fluoroquinolone antibiotics cause or substantially contribute to
the development of irreversible peripheral neuropathy and that the
warnings provided by defendants concerning that risk were
inadequate."

The panel further explained that the shared factual issues include
"general causation (in particular, the biological mechanism of the
alleged injury), the background science and common regulatory
issues." McKinley alleges that he used the fluoroquinolones
Levaquin and Cipro, two of the drugs at issue in the MDL, and, as a
result, suffers from, among other things, paresthesia and disabling
pain. McKinley does not further define paresthesia, or refer to
peripheral neuropathy, but defendants and the MDL master complaint
assert that paresthesia is a tingling or burning sensation in the
extremities caused by nerve damage, and is a "key symptom" and
"hallmark" of peripheral neuropathy. Thus, McKinley and the actions
in the MDL necessarily raise overlapping factual questions
concerning fluoroquinolones and the risk of peripheral neuropathy.


Defendants are pharmaceutical companies, Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Johnson & Johnson and
McKesson Corporation.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 6, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/32upvn2


MDL 2804: Prescription Opioids Product Row transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case each from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of Texas to the
Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Western District of New York (Erie County Medical
Center Corporation, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:21−00826) and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Hartman v. Sackler, et. al., Case No. 2:21-02001) and
defendant Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., move to vacate the order
conditionally transferring their actions to MDL No. 2804.
Hoffman-La Roche specifically requests separation and remand of the
claims against it, which are pending in Rosen, et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson, et al. (Case No. 4:21−02734, S.D. Tex.) Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et. al. oppose the motions while Rosen
oppose the motion. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson
& Johnson Consumer, Inc.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; CVS Health
Corporation; and McKesson Corporation, and Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
Endo Health Solutions Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. do not
oppose the requested separation and remand.

These action allege improper marketing and distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into states, cities and towns
across the country. Defendants Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, CVS
Health, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis
Pharma, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan U.S.A., Inc., Cephalon
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Watson Laboratories Inc. are
pharmaceutical companies and dealers.

The panel finds this action shares a factual core with the MDL
actions alleging that the manufacturer and distributor defendants'
alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these
prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly
improper marketing of the drugs and thus falls within the MDL's
ambit.

Hoffman-La Roche requests that the panel separate and remand the
claims against it in the wrongful death action because it did not
manufacture an opioid medication as it manufactured only Klonopin,
an anti-anxiety medication that plaintiffs allege exacerbated
decedent’s addiction. As an initial matter, the presence of
unique claims or defendants does not preclude transfer. The panel
contends that separation and remand of the claims against
Hoffman-La Roche as unworkable. The complaint in Rosen alleges
three claims against all defendants - negligence/strict liability,
civil conspiracy and loss of consortium and, as such, the claims
against Hoffman-La Roche appear indivisible and not amenable to
separation and remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 9, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/32A9lbX


MDL 2924: Ranitidine Product Liability Row Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers Harrell v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:21-01119, E.D. Mo.) and
Michael Bretholz v. Glaxosmithkline LLC (Case No.
1:21−mc−00698, S.D. N.Y.) to the Southern District of Florida
and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Robin
L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Harrell side moves to vacate the order that conditionally
transferred its case to the Southern District of Florida for
inclusion in MDL No. 2924 because that transfer will cause her
inconvenience because it will delay the determination of her remand
motion, while the defendants oppose this motion. Michael Bretholz,
on the other hand (who moved in the Southern District of New York
to quash a subpoena issued by MDL defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC)
moved to vacate said order. GlaxoSmithKline opposed the motion to
vacate. The Harrell primarily argues that federal subject matter
jurisdiction over Harrell is lacking, and that her pending motion
for remand to state court should be decided before transfer but the
panel contends that such jurisdictional objections generally do not
present an impediment to transfer.

Bretholz, representing Valisure, LLC (the laboratory that initially
alerted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the presence
of N-Nitrosodimethylamine in Zantac) contended that discovery
claimed that Valisure's ranitidine testing and Valisure's financial
incentives skewed the results of its testing.

Defendants' ranitidine-containing medications allegedly break down
to form an alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA). Plaintiff Marina Golden alleges that Defendants were aware
of this danger but continued to sell these medications to
consumers.

Defendants include GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chattem Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,
Sanofi US Services Inc., Perrigo Research & Development Company,
Lannett Company, Inc., Novitium Pharma LLC, Aurobindo Pharma USA,
Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
USA, Appco Pharma LLC, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc.,
Apotex Corp., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., Strides Pharma,
Inc., Teligent, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., CVS Health Corp., CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., The Kroger Co., Smith Food & Drug Centers, Inc.,
Fred Meyer, Inc., Target Corp., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
Walgreens Co., Walmart Inc., and Pfizer Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 3, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/32sM6Aq


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes Online Merchandise Market, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that if you've recently purchased NFL team
merchandise online from Fanatics or directly from the league, a new
lawsuit says you may have paid too much for it.

According to a proposed class action filed, the National Football
league, its 32 teams and online retailer Fanatics have conspired to
effectively wipe out any competition in the market for official
licensed merchandise, including NFL-licensed t-shirts, hats,
jerseys, drinkware, and other items stamped with team logos or the
league's shield.

As a result, the NFL and Fanatics, with no competing sellers in
sight and the final say over who can use the league's logos and
sell each team's gear, have worked together to dominate online
sales and charge "supracompetitive monopoly prices" for licensed
team merchandise, sharing the profits among themselves, the 71-page
lawsuit says.

"With far fewer competitors, and without competition among
themselves, Defendants no longer face meaningful competition in the
online retail market," the case summarizes.

The alleged boycott
With the NFL's purchase of an equity stake in Fanatics, the league
created for itself a financial interest to assist the company in
its "campaign to usurp as much of the online retail space as
possible," the lawsuit alleges. Whereas teams, as independent
licensors, might want to make their gear available to as many fans
as possible, the NFL's relationship with Fanatics has instead
birthed a "more lucrative retail monopoly" whereby smaller,
competing online retailers have been excluded from the market, the
complaint claims.

As traditional brick-and-mortar sales have given way to e-commerce,
third-party online marketplaces have become "a farmers' market or
antiques mall" wherein multiple independent sellers compete for
consumers' money, the suit relays. A benefit of these online
marketplaces is that buyers can compare retailers' prices and, from
a retailer's standpoint, winning sales in an online marketplace is
effectively a "race to the bottom" by offering the lowest prices,
the lawsuit says.

To carry out their conspiracy, the defendants, the case alleges,
worked together to boycott retailers who sold licensed NFL gear
through third-party online marketplaces, such as the one run by
Amazon.

This effectively eliminated competitors who could have charged
lower prices to consumers for licensed merchandise sold online, the
complaint claims.

"Defendants' motivation is readily apparent," the case says. "As
Fanatics's chairman Michael Rubin puts [it], if NFL Licensed
products were commonly available on Amazon, 'there'd be no reason
for [Fanatics] to be.'"

Which teams' NFL licensed merchandise is mentioned in the lawsuit?
The proposed class action claims that prices for the merchandise of
all 32 NFL teams has been affected by the alleged
competition-killing conduct of the league and Fanatics:

Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Baltimore Ravens
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Los Angeles Chargers
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Detroit Lions
Seattle Seahawks
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Las Vegas Raiders
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants
New York Jets
Denver Broncos
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
Los Angeles Rams
San Francisco 49ers
Tennessee Titans
Washington Football Team

Instead of competing independently, each of the league's 32 teams
have formed a "cartel" that licenses their property as a group
through defendant National Football League Properties, Inc., the
case says.

"Unlike real competitors in an open and competitive marketplace,
the Teams' collusive marketing agreements disincentivize
competition among themselves," the complaint reads.

Who does the lawsuit look to cover?
The proposed class action looks to represent all persons or
entities in the United States, including its territories and the
District of Columbia, who bought NFL Licensed Products directly
from Fanatics, any NFL defendant or team, or any current or former
subsidiary or affiliate of the defendants at any time from January
1, 2016 until the unlawful conduct alleged in the lawsuit has
ceased.

I've bought some NFL merch. How do I get involved?
Since the case was just filed, there's generally nothing NFL fans
need to do at this time to join or make sure they're included in
the class action. It will be only if and when the lawsuit settles
that those who are covered by the case, also known as "class
members," would need to act, which typically involves filing a
claim form online or by mail.

If a settlement were to eventually be reached, eligible NFL
merchandise buyers would likely receive a notice, by mail and/or
email, with instructions on how to file a claim and other
information on their legal rights. [GN]

NAVISTAR INT'L: Retirees Seek $742M Class Settlement Over Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a group representing Navistar
International Corp. retirees wants to move forward with a $742
million class action settlement that resolves a long-running
dispute over the company's benefit contributions, according to a
filing in an Ohio federal court.

The proposed settlement would allow class members to receive
benefits while they're still alive, the group told the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It would also
provide benefits similar to those in place before cutbacks sparked
a lawsuit in 1992 that ended with a settlement in 1993, according
to the Wednesday filing. [GN]


NESTLE USA: Faces Suit Over FDA-Unapproved Glucose Control Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that Nestle USA faces a proposed class
action that alleges the company does not have the FDA approval
necessary to lawfully claim its BOOST glucose control products help
diabetes patients manage blood sugar levels.

The 34-page complaint argues that Nestle's glucose control
representations amount to express or implied disease claims that
require testing and approval by the Food and Drug Administration
before being used in advertising. According to the suit, the
following Nestle BOOST products are mislabeled and "trick[]"
reasonable consumers into believing the supplements can prevent and
treat diabetes:

BOOST Glucose Control;
BOOST Glucose Control High Protein; and
BOOST Glucose Control Max.

As the suit tells it, companies such as Nestle have "tapped into
consumer anxieties" with regard to preventing and treating diabetes
and prediabetes. The lawsuit alleges Nestle's representations that
the BOOST supplements control glucose are deceptive in that they're
reasonably understood by consumers to mean that the products
affirmatively control blood glucose levels, essentially that
drinking the products will make their glucose levels better than
they were before. According to the case, Nestle's own clinical
trial concluded that the BOOST supplements were "associated with a
lesser rise in glucose levels as compared to one other nutritional
drink" that went unidentified in the study.

Overall, the BOOST products do not control glucose, but rather
produce what the case calls a "less bad" response to glucose
compared to one unknown product, the lawsuit alleges.

"This is not what a reasonable person would understand from
Nestle's representations that the Products is [sic] controls and
manages glucose, and that it is designed specifically for
diabetes," the suit contends, calling the alleged mislabeling of
the BOOST products "prominent and systematic."

Per the suit, consumers such as the plaintiffs have purchased
Nestle's BOOST supplement while relying on the claim that the
product is "designed for people with diabetes" and able to
effectively control and/or help manage blood sugar. The lawsuit
contends that when Nestle's glucose claims are viewed "in their
totality," they are "either explicitly or implicitly claiming to
prevent disease and/or treat disease," which serves to make the
supplements more attractive to those who wish to lower their risk
of diabetes or prediabetes or those who wish to mitigate their
diagnosed diabetes or prediabetes.

The complaint goes on to charge that Nestle's claim that BOOST can
control blood glucose is ostensibly backed by only a single
clinical study wherein the glucose responses of 12 trial
participants with type 2 diabetes who drank the supplement were
compared with an unidentified "standard oral nutritional
supplement." Per the case, the study was performed by the Nestle
Nutrition Institute, an organization purportedly funded by and/or
affiliated with the defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that the conclusion drawn by the study -- that
drinking BOOST, in comparison to the unidentified product, helped
lower glucose levels -- shows at most that Boost leads to a smaller
glucose spike than a single, unidentified nutritional drink.

"This is like a winery advertising prominently that its wine
controls blood alcohol levels when all the winery can show is that
its wine is less bad than tequila," the complaint analogizes.

The lawsuit looks to represent consumers in California and New York
who bought the Nestle BOOST glucose control products for personal
use and not for resale. [GN]

NEW YORK: OKs to Extend Protections to Privately Managed Buildings
------------------------------------------------------------------
NYCHA agreed to offer protections for residents whose homes are
transitioning from Section 9 to Section 8 housing.

The decision in the case -- brought about by a class action lawsuit
from Metro IAF affiliates Manhattan Together, South Bronx Churches
and a collection of NYCHA residents -- provides "robust protections
to residents against mold, leaks and other excess moisture in NYCHA
buildings that are transitioned to private management under the
Permanent Affordability Commitment Together program," according to
a press release.

"This agreement is a further step to ensuring NYCHA and its
partners operate and manage all properties in a way that provides
safe and quality housing to all of our residents," NYCHA chair and
CEO Greg Russ said.

A court still needs to approve the agreement for it to go into
effect.

The agreement would establish ways for mold, leaks and other excess
moisture to be handled in PAD/PACT buildings. Access to a call
center to voice complaints is mentioned in the agreement and, if
the agreement is approved, all complaints would need to be
addressed within 30 days of a report.

"This agreement will ensure my neighbors and I have the help we
need to make sure mold and leak repairs are done right, every
time," Metro IAF leader and Linden Houses resident Tawana Meyers
said. [GN]

PAN PACIFIC: Class Action Claims Hotel Misled Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at ca.topclassactions.com reports that the luxury
Pan Pacific Hotel in Vancouver has been accused of wrongfully
terminating 100 employees during the pandemic in a class action
lawsuit recently given the go-ahead by a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

A class of former workers claim Pan Pacific misled them about their
hours and wrongfully terminated them without notice or cause when
the hotel faced a decline in business during the pandemic, the
Vancouver Sun reports.

Pan Pacific also failed to provide terminated employees with proper
severance pay after their years of service worked for the hotel,
workers say.

Workers allege that hotel management hatched a secret plan at the
early stages of the pandemic to decrease its staff from 450
employees to 80, the Sun reports.

Instead of being honest with employees about its intentions,
however, workers claim Pan Pacific chose to provide them with false
hope about their employment status, and that they could be rehired.


Pan Pacific Terminated Employees To Decrease Liability, Workers
Say
Workers claim Pan Pacific ultimately began terminating employees
during the early stages of spring 2020 to decrease its liability
for providing severance or notice as required by the Employee
Standards Act, the Vancouver Sun reports.

Plaintiff Romuel Escobar claims he received only eight weeks worth
of pay after being terminated from Pan Pacific in August 2020
despite working for the hotel for almost 25 years.

The central issue of the class action lawsuit is whether Pan
Pacific changed its workers' contracts by eliminating their hours
due to the COVID-19 pandemic and if they intentionally misled them
about their employment statuses, according to the Sun.

Workers will also seek to prove that Pan Pacific acted in a
"malicious," "high-handed" and "reprehensible" manner that would
subsequently warrant punitive damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Unite Here Local 40.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Great Canadian
Gaming in June by former casino workers who claim they were
wrongfully terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Were you wrongfully terminated by your employer during the COVID-19
pandemic? Let us know in the comments! [GN]

PANASONIC CORP: Faces Resistors Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2015, Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the Federal Court
for the Northern District of California appointed Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP. ("CPM") lead counsel for the indirect purchasers in
a class action alleging that a number of companies illegally
conspired to inflate the prices consumers and businesses paid for
resistors.

Resistors are one of the most common electronic components used in
the world. They are designed to provide resistance to an electronic
circuit and are used in cell phones, computers and other widely
used consumer products. Resistors help assure that appropriate
levels of voltage go to specific parts of an electronic circuit.

Plaintiffs allege that a number of Defendants, including Panasonic,
ROHM, Vishay and others, used trade associations and other means to
coordinate their prices and eliminate competition in the market for
resistors. The United States Department of Justice and other
competition authorities around the world are also investigating
allegations of price-fixing in the resistors market.

CPM continues to litigate violations of the antitrust and unfair
competition laws throughout the country and is serving as lead
counsel in a number of high profile cartel cases. CPM assists
business and consumers that have been harmed by antitrust
violations. If you believe you have been harmed by price-fixing in
the resistors market, contact CPM lawyer Adam Zapala at (650)
697-6000. [GN]

PHARMACIELO LTD: Securities Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2021, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California dismissed, with
prejudice, a suit against a Canadian cannabis manufacturer (the
"Company"), alleging that the Company failed to disclose material
information about its facilities in Colombia and its transactions
with other companies in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Pharmacielo Ltd. Sec.
Litig., No. 20-2182-PSG (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs --
whose complaint was once dismissed -- amended their complaint to
bolster their allegations based on an assortment of Company
statements regarding its facilities and expansion plans that
plaintiffs alleged were designed to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price. The Court dismissed the amended complaint
for failure to plead falsity or materiality and did so with
prejudice because any amendments would be futile based on their
"failed attempt to remedy" the deficiencies of the prior
complaint.

Plaintiffs' allegations were based on several Company statements
between June 2019 and March 2020 related to: (i) the soil quality
of the Company's property in Colombia (the "Property") that housed
a cannabis cultivating facility, and the Company's characterization
of that facility and plans for the facility; (ii) third-party
transactions that ultimately did not materialize the way that the
Company had announced them; and (iii) the Company's failed attempt
to enter the cannabis market in Peru.

The Court rejected the claims for failure to allege materiality or
falsity, and further noted that plaintiffs failed to allege any new
facts in the amended complaint and instead added largely irrelevant
facts, relied on vague references, and repeated arguments that the
Court already rejected when dismissing the prior complaint.

Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Regarding the Property: The
Court rejected the claims based on the Company's statements
regarding the Property. First, plaintiffs claimed that the
Company's advertisement that the Property "produc[ed] some of the
world's purest cannabis," "[w]ith fertile soil, perfect equatorial
sunlight, and state-of-the-art science and technology" was false
because the Property was "far from perfect," partially situated on
a floodplain, and contaminated with mold. But, according to the
Court, plaintiffs failed to allege how these issues impacted the
Company's business in any way, particularly because the Company
only manufactured cannabis extract oil, not raw cannabis crops
(which could potentially be affected by the floodplain and
contaminant issues), and plaintiffs offered no allegations
suggesting that the issues with the Property impacted the Company's
end product. Second, plaintiffs alleged that the Company's
statement that it was "successfully scaling up its Colombian
operation and expanding capacity," premised in part on the
construction of a new Research, Technology, and Processing Centre
on the Property by late 2019 was false because the construction
faced significant delays. The Court held that statements regarding
anticipated construction dates were not actionable as a matter of
law because they were forward-looking statements of corporate
optimism. Third, plaintiffs claimed that the Company's statement
that the facility on the Property was its "main" facility was
materially misleading because that facility was in fact the "only"
one in use. The Court disagreed, holding that plaintiffs failed to
allege that the distinction between "main" and "only" was material
and that it would have changed a reasonable investor's opinion of
the Company's value.

Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Regarding Third-Party
Transactions: The Court also dismissed the claims based on the
Company's statements related to two third-party agreements. First,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company's failure to disclose that an
agreement with a third-party multi-state distributor was a related
party transaction was per se a material omission. The Court
rejected the argument because plaintiffs failed to cite authority
that nondisclosure of a related party transaction was per se
actionable and noted also that plaintiffs failed to allege that the
transaction was a related party transaction under Canadian law that
governed the Company's disclosure obligations. Second, plaintiffs
alleged that the Company misled investors to think that an
agreement with a third-party distributor was a "significant
opportunity" to enter the German market when that third party was
"nearly insolvent and led by a CEO with a history of running
companies into the ground," and the agreement ultimately did not
result in the benefits advertised by the Company of bringing the
Company's products into Germany. In dismissing the claims based on
both third-party agreements at issue, the Court held that
allegations that an agreement did not go as planned were
insufficient to demonstrate a material misstatement or omission.

Alleged Omissions Regarding Entry to the Peruvian Market: Finally,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statement that it had "laid
the groundwork" and was "looking forward to expand its presence
throughout Latin America" was false because the Company had failed
to comply with the bidding process to supply medical cannabis into
Peru and knew that it would lose its bid. The Court dismissed this
argument because plaintiffs failed to allege how the "loss of one
bid in Peru rendered misleading [the Company's] optimistic
statements about then-current or future expansion in Latin
America."

Because the Court believed that any amendment would be futile based
on the substance and nature of plaintiffs' amended allegations, the
Court dismissed the action with prejudice. [GN]

PINNACLE GROUP: Fernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Superintendents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE GROUP NY LLC and JOEL WEINER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10702 (S.D.N.Y., December 14, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated on-site superintendents overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff has worked as a live-in, on-site superintendent at
the Defendants' sixty-unit residential building located at 44
Seaman Avenue, New York, New York.

Pinnacle Group NY LLC is a provider of property management services
to residential apartment buildings throughout New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kelly A. Magnuson, Esq.
         Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
         Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
         BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
         910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 248-5550
         Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

PRATT & WHITNEY: No-Poach Agreement Harms Engineers, Granata Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GRANATA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT & WHITNEY, A DIVISION OF RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC.; BELCAN
ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; CYIENT INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; AGILIS
ENGINEERING, INC.; MAHESH PATEL; ROBERT HARVEY; HARPREET WASAN;
THOMAS EDWARDS; GARY PRUS; FRANK O'NEILL; and JOHN DOES 1-3,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01657 (D. Conn., December 14, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a No-Poach
Agreement to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and
other skilled laborers working on aerospace projects among their
respective companies. The No-Poach Agreement did reduce competition
for engineers' services and, as a result, suppressed the job
mobility of and compensation to the Plaintiff and Class members
below the levels that would have prevailed but for the illegal
No-Poach Agreement. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury
and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition
for their labor on the merits.

Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
is an aerospace engine manufacturer, with its principal place of
business in East Hartford, Connecticut.

QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc. is an aerospace engineering firm,
with its principal place of business in East Hartford,
Connecticut.

Belcan Engineering Group, LLC is an engineering services supplier,
with a principal place of business in East Hartford, Connecticut.

Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership is an engineering
services supplier, with a principal place of business in East
Hartford, Connecticut.

Cyient, Inc. is a technology company that provides outsource
engineering services, with a principal place of business in East
Hartford, Connecticut.

Parametric Solutions, Inc. is an engineering services company that
provides services in the aerospace industry, with its principal
place of business in Jupiter, Florida.

Agilis Engineering, Inc. is an engineering services company that
provides services in the aerospace industry, with a principal place
of business in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David A. Slossberg, Esq.
         Jeffrey P. Nichols, Esq.
         HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
         147 North Broad Street
         Milford, CT 06460
         Telephone: (203) 877-8000
         E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
                 JNichols@hssklaw.com

                - and –

         Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
         Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
         Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
         Veronica Bosco, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 907-0700
         E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                 rvandermeulen@labaton.com
                 mperez@labaton.com
                 vbosco@labaton.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Campbell Sues Over Sale of Adulterated Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00774-MRB (S.D. Ohio, December 14,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and violation of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and
misleading marketing and sale of its antiperspirant and deodorant
products under the Old Spice and Secret brands. The Defendant does
specifically list both the active and inactive ingredients of the
product but fails to disclose that it contains benzene, a known
human carcinogen. As a result of the Defendant's
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members were deceived
about the safety of the products and were deprived of the ability
to receive the full value of their purchases, added the suit.

Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer, with its
principal place of business at 1 Procter & Gamble Plaza,
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michelle L. Kranz, Esq.
         Carasusana B. Wall, Esq.
         ZOLL & KRANZ LLC
         6620 West Central Avenue, Suite 100
         Toledo, OH 43617
         Telephone: (419) 841-9623
         Facsimile: (419) 841-9719
         E-mail: michelle@toledolaw.com
                 cara@toledolaw.com

                - and –

         Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10014
         Telephone: (212) 545-4600
         Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
         E-mail: guiney@whafh.com

                - and –

         Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 984-0000
         Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
         E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Burnett Sues Over Retirement Plan's Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BURNETT and MICHAEL PARADISE, as representatives of a class
of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Western Global
Airlines, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiffs v. PRUDENT
FIDUCIARY SERVICES LLC, MIGUEL PAREDES, JAMES K. NEFF, CARMIT P.
NEFF, JAMES K. NEFF REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 11/15/12, CARMIT P. NEFF
REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 11/15/12, WGA TRUST DATED 8/16/13, SELECTION
COMMITTEE OF THE WESTERN GLOBAL AIRLINES INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-09681 (C.D. Cal., December 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) including prohibited transactions,
breach of fiduciary duties, failure to monitor fiduciaries,
co-fiduciary liability, and knowing participation in prohibited
transaction and/or fiduciary breach.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties with respect to the Western Global Airlines, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, to the detriment of the Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries, by causing both the Plan and the
company to be saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars of
high-interest debt to finance the Plan's purchase of a minority
stake in Western Global for several times more than its fair-market
value. The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy this alleged
unlawful conduct, recover losses to the Plan, and obtain other
appropriate relief as provided by ERISA.

Prudent Fiduciary Services LLC is a provider of independent
fiduciary services located in West Covina, California.

Western Global Airlines, Inc. is an air cargo business based in
Estero, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
         235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 277-7235
         Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
         E-mail: helland@nka.com

                - and –

         Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
         Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
         DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
         3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (949) 614-5830
         Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
         E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                 adrianne@desai-law.com

                - and –

         Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
         Kai H. Richter, Esq.
         Brock J. Specht, Esq.
         Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
         Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4700 IDS Center
         80 S. 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3200
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
         E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                 krichter@nka.com
                 bspecht@nka.com
                 bmcdonough@nka.com
                 jschutz@nka.com

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Timothy L. Miles Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 20 years, announcesthat a
purchaser of Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (RVNC) filed a class action
complaint against the Company and its officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
November 25, 2019 and October 11, 2021. Revance is a biotechnology
company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes
neuromodulators for various aesthetic and therapeutic applications
in the U.S. and internationally.The Revance Therapeutics class
action lawsuit was commenced on December 10, 2021 in the Northern
District of California and is captioned Aramic LLC v. Revance
Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-09585.

If you suffered a loss due to RVNC, Inc.'s misconduct, visit
https://bit.ly/3euPWvN.

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (RVNC) Misled Investors Regarding FDA
Approval of its Lead Drug Candidate

According to the complaint, Revance's lead drug candidate is
DaxibotulinumtoxinA for injection ("DAXI"), which has completed
phase III clinical trials for the treatment of frown lines and
cervical dystonia, and is in various stages of phase II trials for
other uses. On November 25, 2019, Revance announced that it
submitted a Biologics License Application (BLA) to the FDA for DAXI
to treat frown lines. During the class period, defendants made
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that quality
control deficiencies existed at the Company's manufacturing
facility for DAXI, which decreased the likelihood the FDA would
approve the DAXI BLA.

On October 12, 2021, Revance disclosed that on July 2, 2021, the
FDA had issued a Form 483 notifying Revance of serious issues the
FDA had observed during its inspection of the Company's Northern
California DAXI manufacturing facility. On this news, Revance's
stock price fell 25%. Then, on October 15, 2021, Revance issued a
press release announcing it had received a Complete Response Letter
from the FDA and that the FDA was unable to approve the DAXI BLA
due to the FDA's onsite inspection at Revance's manufacturing
facility. On this news, Revance's stock price fell almost 40% per
share, to close at $13.81 per share on October 18, 2021.

If you acquired shares of Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (RVNC)
securities between November 25, 2019 and October 11, 2021, you have
until February 8, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead
plaintiff for the class.

Revance Shareholders Urged to Contact the Firm

If you purchased Revance securities, have information, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles,
Esquire, at 615-587-7384, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, by email to
tmiles@timmileslaw.com or by submitting a contact form just click
here. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number, and the number shares owned.

                     About Timothy L. Miles

Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder, employee
rights and personal injury attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee.
Earlier this year, Mr. Miles was recognized as a 2021 Top Ranked
Lawyer; 2021 Top Rated Litigator; and a 2021 Elite Lawyer of The
South by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM, his third consecutive year
to receive each award. Mr. Miles also maintains the AV Preeminent
Rating by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating for both
legal ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the prestigious
Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers
Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, a recipient of the
Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019) and
recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in
Securities Law, by Lawyers of Distinction (2019). Awards: Top Rated
Litigator by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM (2019-2021); Top Rated
Lawyer by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM (2019-2021); Elite Lawyer
of The South by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM (2019-2021); Member
of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial
Lawyers Association (2017-2021); AV(R) Preeminent(TM) Rating by
Martindale-Hubble(R) (2014-2021); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2018-2021); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation(TM) for
Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R) 2015);
Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019);
Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by
Lawyers of Distinction (2019-2021); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo);
Avvo Top Rated Lawyer for (Avvo 2017-2020). Mr. Miles has authored
numerous publications advocating for shareholdings including most
recently: Free Portfolio Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff
Securities Firms Provides Significant Benefits to Investors
(Timothy L. Miles, Dec. 3, 2019). [GN]

RHODE ISLAND: DeBritto Seeks to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeBritto v. Coyne-Fague,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00203-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying a class of Muslim inmates.

The Muslim inmates at Maximum Security of the Rhode Island
department of corrections has satisfied Rule 23(A)(1)(2)(3)(4),
says DeBritto.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3syqDkF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Robinhood Markets,
Inc. ("Robinhood" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HOOD) common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's July 2021 initial public offering
(the "IPO" or "Offering").

All investors who purchased the shares of Robinhood Markets, Inc.
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in Robinhood Markets, Inc., you may, no
later than February 15, 2022, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Robinhood Markets, Inc.

On or about July 30, 2021, Robinhood conducted its IPO, offering 55
million shares of its common stock to the public at a price of $38
per share.

On October 26, 2021, after the markets closed, Robinhood released
its third quarter financial results, revealing that its total net
revenue had missed analyst estimates by nearly $73 million. The
company also disclosed that transaction based revenue from
cryptocurrency trading, which had earned $233 million in the second
quarter before the IPO, had decreased to $51 million in the third
quarter.

On this news, Robinhood's stock fell $4.14, or 10%, to close at
$35.44 per share on October 27, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on November 8, 2021, after the markets closed, Robinhood
revealed that it had suffered a "data security incident" on
November 3, 2021, in which an unauthorized third party had gained
access to email addresses for approximately five million users and
full names of around two million users - nearly 40% of Robinhood's
users.

On this news, Robinhood's stock declined $3.49, or 9%, over the
next two consecutive trading days to close at $34.49 per share on
November 10, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]

SECURE LENDING: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Hand Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM K. HAND v. SECURE
LENDING INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:20-cv-00607-SSV-DMD (E.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Sarah S. Vance entered an amended scheduling order
as follows:

  -- A class certification hearing will be held on Nov. 2, 2022
     at 10:30 AM.

  -- Final Pretrial Conference set for Nov. 17, 2022 at 2:30 PM
     before Judge Sarah S. Vance.

  -- Jury Trial set for Dec. 5, 2022 at 8:30 AM.

  -- All discovery must be completed by Oct. 4, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ev45Dy at no extra charge.[CC]


SHISEIDO AMERICAS: BareMinerals Products Contain PFAS, Onaka Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAIAN ONAKA, TORSHIA WOODS, SHELI ZELLER, MARGO FERGUSON, and EVA
BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SHISEIDO AMERICAS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10665 (S.D.N.Y., December 14, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty, breach
of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising
Law, the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, and North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading marketing and sale of beauty products under the
bareMinerals brand. The Defendant marketed the products as clean
and natural beauty products for normal, everyday use, but in
reality, these representations are false because the products
contain harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The
Defendant does not disclose on its website, in its ingredients, on
its packaging, or in any other manner, that its products contain
PFAS. Had the Plaintiffs and Class members known the truth, they
would not have purchased the PFAS makeup or they would have paid
less for it, says the suit.

Shiseido Americas Corporation is a cosmetics company, with its
principal place of business located at 390 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Andrei Rado, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300
         Facsimile: (212) 868-1229

                - and –

         Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
         Gregory N. Arenson, Esq.
         PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
         800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 389-0600
         E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                 garenson@pswlaw.com

                - and –

         Rachel Soffin, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com

                - and –

         Harper T. Segui, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com

                - and –

         Erin Ruben, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: eruben@milberg.com

SHOWS & CALI: Calogero Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRIS CALOGERO, et al., v.
SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06709-BWA-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs Iris Calogero and Margie Nell Randolph
ask the Court to enter an order certifying them as representatives,
with the assistance of the below-named class counsel, to bring the
claims asserted in their Second Amended Complaint for the following
defined classes:

   umbrella class definition:

   The class consists of all Louisiana residents who received a
   Road Home Homeowner's Grant for personal, family or household
   purposes to whom Defendants sent a collection letter within
   the one year period prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and
   who also fall into one or more of the following subclasses.

   A. The first subclass consists of: those to whom Defendants
      sent a collection letter, which letter did not itemize the
      alleged debt by category including insurance or FEMA
      benefits which duplicated the grant payment and/or did not
      state the source of the alleged duplicate payment.

   B. The second subclass consists of: those to whom Defendants
      sent a collection letter more than five years after the
      grant Agreement was signed which did not state that the
      alleged debt was not legally enforceable and that a
      payment would renew the debt.

   C. The third subclass consists of: those to whom Defendants
      sent a collection letter which stated that "you may also
      be responsible for attorney fees."

   D. The fourth subclass consists of: those to whom Defendants
      sent a promissory note obligating them to repay alleged
      grant overpayments, without advising that signing the
      instrument would revive any statute of limitations that
      had run against legal action on the alleged debt.

Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P. provides legal counsel throughout
Louisiana.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s8btCc
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
          GESUND AND PAILET, LLC
          3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 836-2888
          Facsimile: (504) 265-9492
          E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com

               - and -

          Margaret E Woodward, Esq.
          1229 N. Tonti Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 301-4333
          Facsimile: (504) 301-4365
          E-mail: mewno@aol.com

               - and -

          Jennifer C. Deasy, Esq.
          JENNIFER C. DEASY, LLC
          Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1500
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 582-2300
          Facsimile: (504) 582-2310
          E-mail: jd@jenniferdeasy.com

               - and -

          Keisha Stokes-Hough, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: keisha.stokeshough@splcenter.org

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
          25 East Washington St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

SMARTSCRIPTS LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 1, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoy v. SmartScripts, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00063 (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen B.
Jackson, Jr. entered an order granting joint motion to extend
deadlines as follows:

   -- The Plaintiff has until June 3, 2022, to designate expert
      witnesses and disclose their written reports;

   -- The Defendant has until August 4, 2022, to designate
      expert witnesses and disclose their written reports;

   -- Plaintiff has until September 1, 2022, to designate
      rebuttal expert witnesses and disclose their written
      reports;

   -- Motion for Class Certification must be filed by September
      1, 2022;

   -- Discovery must be completed by November 1, 2022; and

   -- Dispositive Motions must be filed no later than December
      2, 2022.

SmartScripts offers pharmaceutical care.[CC]

SNAP-ON TOOLS: Galindo Sues Over Distributors' Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE GALINDO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP-ON TOOLS COMPANY, LLC and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV45419
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 14, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for unfair competition in violation
of the California Business and Professions Code by misclassifying
the Plaintiff and similarly situated distributors as independent
contractors.

Mr. Galindo worked as a distributor in California from 2015 until
approximately October 2018.

Snap-On Tools Company, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of
professional automotive repair tools and related equipment, with
its principal place of business in Kenosha, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
         Shaun Markley, Esq.
         Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
         NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
         225 Broadway, 19th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 325-0492
         Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
         E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                 smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
                 elitney@nicholaslaw.org

STATE AUTOMOBILE: Faces Travis RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, MILBANK INSURANCE COMPANY and
JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-05395 (E.D. Pa.,
December 9, 2021) is a class action complaint, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, alleging claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as
claims under state law for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive
trade practices, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and
constructive trust.

The case arises from a scheme perpetrated by a group of insurance
companies and their employees, designed to trick unsuspecting
consumers and their brokers into purchasing lines of phantom
insurance within Dwelling Fire policies, which caused the Plaintiff
policyholders to pay for coverage that was already included with
the policy.

Starting in 2015, Defendants allegedly schemed to roll out a new
digital platform constructed as a website portal called State Auto
Connect (hereinafter "Connect Platform"). The Connect Platform was
publicly advertised as an advancement in technology, but in
reality, it was the centerpiece of an elaborate scam. Despite
abandoning the scheme in July 2021, Defendants refused to reimburse
the Plaintiff policyholders for the ill-gotten gains Defendants
collected through the Connect Platform prior to July 2021, the suit
asserts.

The Defendants are American insurance companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
          GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golomblegal.com
                  kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
                  kfay@golomblegal.com

TESLA MOTORS: Horowitz Sues Over Change of Vehicle Purchase Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL AARON HOROWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-09635 (N.D. Cal., December 14, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the
Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually for himself and on
behalf of all persons who entered into a Motor Vehicle Order
Agreement (MVOA) for the purchase of a Tesla vehicle where the
Defendant unliterally changed vehicle's configurations and
increased the purchase price after the execution of the contract.
Disregarding all communications from the Plaintiff, Tesla sent him
notice that his lease would mature on December 28, 2020 and gave
him only one viable option; to extend the lease. With no other
options and no one from Tesla contacting the Plaintiff regarding
his new vehicle, he was forced to pay to extend his existing lease.
On May 24, 2021, Tesla unilaterally sent the Plaintiff a new MVOA
with new total price of $109,190, an increase of $11,900. The
Plaintiff did not and does not accept the changed configuration and
demands for Tesla to honor its agreed upon price of $97,290, says
the Plaintiff.

Tesla Motors, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer located in
Alameda, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Mark O'Connor, Esq.
         Larry S. Castruita, Esq.
         O'CONNOR LAW GROUP, P.C.
         384 Forest Ave., Suite 17
         Laguna Beach, CA 92651
         Telephone: (949) 494-9090
         E-mail: hello@teamolg.com

                - and –

         Richard M. Wirtz, Esq.
         WIRTZ LAW APC
         4370 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 800
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 259-5009
         E-mail: rwirtz@wirtzlaw.com

                - and –

         Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
         REALLAW APC
         1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (956) 359-7500
         E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us

TRATTORIA PESCE: Aboueid Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Waiters
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED ABOUEID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRATTORIA PESCE PASTA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
Trattoria Casa Di Isacco and ISAAC GUTIERREZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-10697 (S.D.N.Y., December 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage
notice, failure to provide wage statements, and fraudulent filing
of information returns.

The Plaintiff worked as a waiter at Trattoria Casa Di Isacco in New
York from approximately 2017 until October 15, 2021.

Trattoria Pesce Pasta Restaurant Corp., doing business as Trattoria
Casa Di Isacco, is a restaurant owner and operator, located at 536
9th Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
         AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
         45 Broadway, Suite 1420
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 825-1400
         E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com

UNITED STATES: Files Motion to Dismiss in Alleged Conspiracy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo at madisonrecord.com reports that a
motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of a deceased defendant
accused of participating in an alleged bid rigging conspiracy with
former Madison County Treasurer Fred Bathon.

Attorney Natalie Kussart of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in
St. Louis filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant Barrett
Rochman, who died on Jan. 6.

Kussart wrote that a suggestion of death was filed Feb. 19. The
plaintiffs allegedly had 90 days to file a substitute of party for
Rochman, which would have been May 20. However, Kussart wrote that
they have failed to file a substitution.

"Plaintiffs have failed to meet their statutory requirement to
substitute parties for the decedent, and as such, this matter must
be dismissed as to Barrett Rochman," the motion states.

Rochman was named a defendant in the third amended class action
filed by attorney Nelson Mitton of St. Louis on Sept. 25, 2017. The
class alleges Bathon arranged for tax buyers to charge interest at
the maximum legal limit of 18 percent at auctions of delinquent
property taxes from 2005 to 2008.

The plaintiffs allege Bathon conspired with each tax purchaser
defendant to establish a "no trailing bid" policy, meaning the
process required one-time, simultaneous bidding. Rather than
allowing a series of bids, all bidders had to bid at once, with the
auctioneer accepting the lowest bid that was heard.

The defendants allegedly then made an agreement with Bathon to bid
the maximum of 18 percent in the simultaneous bidding.

Mitten wrote that Bathon used a seating chart to ensure that the
tax purchaser defendants would be recognized by the auctioneer and
the Madison County employees conducting the sales as the winning
bidders.

The plaintiffs allege auctioneer James Foley was supposed to
"foster competition in order to obtain the lowest penalty
percentage." However, Mitten wrote that he agreed to act in concert
with the conspiracy by accepting the bids at the maximum rate.

The plaintiffs allege that as the actions of the tax purchaser
defendants became evident, other purchasers also began bidding
higher than they otherwise would have.

"Because there was no or virtually no competitive bidding, the
bidding was rigged, prices were fixed, and almost every single
property was sold at the statutory maximum penalty percentage of
18%," Mitten wrote.

Then after Bathon resigned, every annual tax sale conducted has
resulted in an average penalty bid of less than 5 percent, the suit
states.

The plaintiffs allege that in return for rigging the tax sales,
Bathon received campaign contributions and support from tax
purchasers.

Bathon was charged in February 2013 with violating the Sherman
Antitrust Act. He pleaded guilty the same day. Defendants Scott
McLean, Barrett Rochman and Joe Vassen also entered guilty pleas to
federal antitrust charges in October 2013.

The complaint was originally filed on Feb. 13, 2013, and has gone
through years of litigating to determine which defendants are
proper. Madison County moved for dismissal as a defendant in the
original complaint, and the trial court dismissed counts for
conspiracy and respondeat superior for failure to state a cause of
action.

In response, two new class actions were filed in March 2013. The
plaintiffs in the original case then filed a consolidated amended
complaint on Feb. 24, 2014. A second amended complaint under the
theory of res judicata was filed on July 11, 2014.

Madison County was again dismissed as a defendant when the Fifth
District Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs could not
state a valid claim against the defendant. Fayette County Associate
Judge J. Marc Kelly then granted the plaintiffs' request to amend
their complaint to rejoin Madison County and former treasurer Kurt
Prenzler as defendants following Bathon's May 2017 deposition.
Prenzler currently serves as Madison County Board Chairman.

During his deposition, Bathon testified that numerous Madison
County officials knew of, and participated in, the alleged
conspiracy.

Madison County moved for dismissal again arguing that the complaint
is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the doctrines of waiver
and collateral estoppel, and the statute of limitations. Kelly
granted the motion on May 22, 2020.

Claims against tax-buyer defendants and county officials remain
pending.

Several defendants filed motions for summary judgment in January
2019. A hearing had been set for Dec. 13, but the docket does not
yet reflect any rulings on those motions.

The defendants seeking summary judgment have made various
arguments, including allegations that the plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the statute of limitations and that several defendants
were not involved in a conspiracy with respect to sales of
delinquent property taxes in Madison County.

The plaintiffs responded by filing memorandums in opposition to the
defendants' motions for summary judgment, arguing that there is
"ample" evidence for the jury to find that the defendants agreed to
the collusion and participated in the conspiracy.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-276 [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Settlement in Sweda Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SWEDA, et al v. THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04329-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter entered an order:

   1. granting motion for final approval of the clase action
      settlement;

   2. granting motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service
      award;

   3. dismissing action with prejudice without costs to any
      party, except as otherwise provided herein or in the
      settlement agreement; and

   4. directing the clerk of the court to mark this case closed.

The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research
university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pueew4 at no extra charge.[CC]

V & V PAESANO: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Chagoya Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ CHAGOYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V & V PAESANO, INC., CHRISTOPHER
BUCARO, and VINCE BUCARO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06658 (N.D.
Ill., December 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a cook at the Defendants' V & V Paesano
Pizzeria restaurant located at 374 S. Main Street in Bartlett,
Illinois from 2016 through November 24, 2021.

V & V Paesano, Inc. is a company that owns and operates the V & V
Paesano Pizzeria restaurant located on Main Street in Bartlett,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
         NOLAN LAW OFFICE
         53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 322-1100
         E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com

VIVINT SOLAR: Court Amends Class Certification Bid Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERRIE DEKKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS, INC., VIVINT SOLAR
DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC, DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07918-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order amending deadlines for motion for
class certification as follows:

       Scheduled Event      Current           Modified
                            Deadline          Deadline

-- Opposition brief        Dec. 23, 2021     Jan. 10, 2022

-- Reply brief             Jan. 6, 2022      Jan. 24, 2022

-- Hearing date            Feb. 10, 2022     Feb. 10, 2022

Vivint Solar is an American solar energy company headquartered in
Lehi, Utah. It is a residential solar provider that designs,
installs, and maintains photovoltaic systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Et1Q3F at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1330 Broadway, Suite 428
          Oakland, California 94612
          Telephone: (510) 227-3998
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Fred Norton, Esq.
          Bree Hann, Esq.
          George C. Harris, Esq.
          Esther Chang, Esq.
          THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
          299 Third Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 906-4900
          E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com
                  bhann@nortonlaw.com
                  gharris@nortonlaw.com
                  echang@nortonlaw.com

WALMART INC: Body Spray Contains Benzene, Ahmed Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-06890 (E.D.N.Y., December 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business
Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and
misleading marketing and sale of its body spray product called
Equate - Dry Spray, Cucumber. The Defendant does specifically list
both the active and inactive ingredients of the product but fails
to disclose that it contains benzene, a known human carcinogen. The
Plaintiff and Class members were injured in fact and lost money as
a result of the Defendant's alleged improper conduct.

Walmart Inc. is a company that owns and operates retail stores in
the U.S., with its principal place of business located in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
         Joseph Lipari, Esq.
         Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
         THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
         270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (845) 483-7100
         Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

                   - and –

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


                            *********

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 ***